The US has said it is “working closely with India” to resolve the political crisis in the Maldives.
“Our understanding is that we are pretty well in lockstep with India in terms of calling for unity and calling for a democratic, peaceful path forward,” said State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland.
“We welcome the efforts that all sides appear to be making to find a peaceful way forward,” she said.
“We also welcome the ongoing dialogue among Maldivians regarding the role of a unity government in addressing these issues and possibly creating the conditions for early elections. We’re continuing to urge all parties to work together to find a way through this,” she added.
Assistant Secretary of State Robert Blake recently travelled to the Maldives to assess the situation.
Yesterday’s large anti-government protests ended peacefully in the early hours of the morning, and look set to continue for a second day.
Demonstrators danced into the night as a bodu beru band played, and were joined by a number of elderly women. Police kept a low profile.
Amid the yellow banners, capes, badges and bandanas of former President Mohamed Nasheed’s Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) supporters, were a noticeably large number of the formerly politically un-engaged, most of them young. Many said they were joining or had already joined the MDP, and there were reports that the party had temporarily run out of application forms.
“We never used to discuss politics around the dinner table,” one yellow-shirted demonstrator, previously unaffiliated with any political party, told Minivan News. “But after I was beaten [by police] on Wednesday, my whole family – sisters, cousins – have joined the MDP.”
Former President Mohamed Nasheed took the podium shortly after midnight, stating that all-party talks were scheduled for Sunday to decide a date for an early presidential election. He said he was confident a date would be set before Parliament resumed on March 1.
Nasheed – who said he was forced to resign under duress in a bloodless police and military coup d’état February 7 – said people had stood up against the 30 year regime of Maumoon Abdul Gayoom because of the inhumane treatment people suffered at its hands and had witnessed, a day after the first democratically-elected government was overthrown, a brutal police crackdown on the people who protested against the coup.
“I was repeatedly asked to unlock the arsenal and if so the mutinous police officers would have been easily arrested. But I was not elected to hurt the people of this country,” Nasheed said.
Nasheed explained that for a while after the coup he was “unable to get out of Muleeage [the President’s residence]” and was not able to call anyone to explain what had happened.
“The international community had not received word of the coup as I was unable to leave Muleeage,” he said. “It took some time for them to realised that the information they had been receiving was not genuine, and by then some had urged us to join this illegal government. But I have now informed them of the real situation.
“The coup leaders did not conceive of or anticipate the people’s reaction to the change in government,” Nasheed added.
They believed, he said, that they could consolidate their hold on power “by arresting me after the coup and beating members of the MDP and the Maldivian people into submission.”
He added the public, who had been “nurturing the country on the path to freedom”, were not willing to recognise as legitimate a government they did not elect.
The “peaceful political activity” would continue until a date for early elections was announced, Nasheed said, urging people to return the following day.
“People can swim, play sports, music and give political speeches here. Our aim is to gather people from all over the nation,” he said.
Following talks with India’s Foreign Secretary Ranjan Mathai on Thursday, Nasheed said Dr Mohamed Waheed’s government was supposed to announce early elections on Friday night, after which other parties, MDP and Nasheed were to welcome it.
The announcement did not come, except for a vague press conference by new Attorney General Azima Shukoor. The all-party discussions have been set for Sunday.
MDP’s President, former Fisheries Minister Dr Ibrahim Didi, said that Maldivians had voted for the MDP’s manifesto for five years, “and hence the rule of this party should remain even now. That is why we are pressing for an election and by the grace of God it will be achieved.”
Dr Didi claimed that Ahmed Thasmeen Ali’s Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DRP), the second largest party in the Maldives and the subject of an acrimonious split with Gayoom’s Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM) last year, had “given the green light” for early elections.
A statement on the DRP website said the party “welcomes and supports this important initiative because we value the importance of strengthening the democratic foundations of the Maldives and the restoration of peace and calm amongst our people. We believe this initiative would help to further strengthen the role of independent institutions in the Maldives and prevent serious distruptions to economic development and prosperity.”
“In supporting this initiative the DRP is willing to participate in a dialogue among all relevant political parties regarding the holding of early elections as stipulated in the roadmap. The DRP would also extend its cooperation in carrying out any necessary amendments to the constitution in order to facilitate such an election.”
Dr Mustafa Lufty, Chancellor of the Maldives National University, former Education Minister and one of the founding members of President Waheed’s Gaumee Ittihad Party (GIP), also addressed the crowd.
“Pointing a gun at the head of our beloved president and forcing him to resign is the same as pointing a gun at all of us,” Luftee said. “If we give up now generations to come will have to live at gun point.”
“I came here today because I could no longer bear this travesty.”
“This has been carefully planned. One plan was to force Nasheed to resign and if he did not, then the arsenal would have been opened for the opposition. That would have meant major bloodshed and military rule – they would have kept the country under such rule for a long time. Nasheed was wise enough to step aside and save the country from a massive tragedy.
“The second plan was to arrest Nasheed when he resigned, which would prompt his supporters to take matters into their own hands giving an excuse to beat them down. They would have charged us under terrorism.
“Freedom is a god given right of every human being and must not be violated under any circumstances,” he said.
Mathai had endorsed a ‘road map’ backing early elections “as soon as feasible”, and said at a press conference that MDP had as a result been “reconsidering” Friday’s demonstrations.
In a statement yesterday from the President’s Office, Dr Waheed said he was “disappointed” with Nasheed’s decision “to go ahead with his demonstration in Male’ today despite assurances and promises that were given to the Indian Foreign Secretary Mathai yesterday that it would be cancelled and a smaller meeting will be held in its place.”
Dr Waheed said MDP’s claim that he had not respected agreements reached in the Indian-mediated negotiations was “a completely untrue and irresponsible suggestion”.
“I can understand whilst it is easy to march your forces to the top of the hill, it is much harder to march them down again. I also understand that at this critical juncture in our country’s history that showing strong leadership can be challenge. But I’m hopeful that Mr Nasheed can show the good judgement in the future that will be necessary to make the road map a reality. It’s the very least that the people of the Maldives deserve,” he said.
Meanwhile, a member of yesterday’s crowd told Minivan News that he was “proud of everyone who came today in spite of intimidation by the military and the PPM rumor mill warning of large-scale violence. Not to mention whatever lies the media axis of evil is spewing. A lot of people were apparently scared off.
“A friend I met there who had sat in the square with Anni in 2005 said he didn’t think we’d have to do it all over again. I always tell people that the post-2003 pro-democracy movement separated the conscience-challenged cowards from those who value justice and were willing to fight for it. People are clearly not scared anymore.
“It wasn’t that long ago that they got the courage to paint their houses yellow in defiance of Gayoom. Today they are willing to wave a yellow flag under a military government.”
India’s Foreign Secretary Ranjan Mathai has said the country will back early elections in the Maldives, and pushing for cross-party cooperation and any “necessary constitutional amendments”.
Statements from Mathai were sent to media attached to a document entitled ‘Maldives Elements of a Possible Way Forward’.
“The President [Dr Mohamed Waheed] has come out with a roadmap for an inclusive political process which provides a very good basis for the parties to resolve their differences,” Mathai said.
“Consequent to my discussions, the following formulation was agreed upon by all the parties concerned: ‘In the interests of national reconciliation and to encourage harmony between our citizens, the Government of National Unity will hold discussions with all relevant parties to conduct elections by an early date’,” he said.
“The MDP, on its part, committed itself to encouraging an atmosphere appropriate to the holding of elections. In this context, we understand that their decision to hold a rally tomorrow is being reconsidered,” he added.
“The Government of National Unity will work towards the conditions that will permit such elections to take place including the necessary constitutional amendments. Our understanding is that elections would be held as early as considered feasible by all concerned. This is to be discussed by the parties.”
Mathai said that he had met the leaders of all the main political parties, “including Mohamed Nasheed of the MDP, Abdulla Yameen of the PPM and Thasmeen Ali of the DRP. I also met the Chief Justice and the Speaker of Parliament.
“I reiterated our belief that there is need for a Maldivian-led process for reconciliation and resolving political differences through constitutional means,” he said.
The reaction to the statement from both sides was initially unclear – India’s press conference was to have been held earlier on Thursday afternoon, but was reported delayed due to “new developments”, according to one official. It was later held at 7:00pm.
Meanwhile a press conference due to be held by the MDP this evening was cancelled, while during an earlier meeting with foreign media, Dr Waheed and his newly-appointed political advisor, Dr Hassan Saeed, refrained from committing to early elections and instead reiterated the need for the “right conditions”.
However in a statement on the President’s Office website, linking to the document, Dr Waheed said the roadmap was a “victory” for Maldivians.
“I have an unswerving commitment to the principles of our constitution and a clear vision of how our country can move forward. I am by nature a man who prefers to lead by consensus. This is an opportunity for us to regain the respect of the international community but most importantly continue to build a safe, democratic and prosperous Maldives for all our people,” Dr Waheed said.
“I wish to personally thank the Indian Foreign Secretary for his good offices in facilitating this agreement which has needed all sides to put aside partisan interest for the sake of the country”.
The version of the document on the President’s Office website contained additional paragraphs, including one stating that “the Government of National Unity will ensure the creation of conditions for genuine, free and fair multi-party elections, providing the opportunity for all candidates to compete equally in the elections in 2013. It will strengthen the capacity of the Electoral Commission. It will ensure access of all registered parties and candidates to the media and other means of transmitting positions and platforms and will ensure the political neutrality of the public media. Moreover, it will invite international monitoring of the electoral preparations and the elections.”
Mathai is the second top Indian diplomat dispatched to the Maldives this week, following an earlier visit by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s Special Envoy M Ganapathi.
India’s Foreign Secretary Ranjan Mathai is due to fly to the Maldives to resolve escalating political tension in the country.
The Maldives’ former Foreign Minister Ahmed Naseem welcomed the arrival of Mathi, describing him to the Wall street Journal as a “highly experienced diplomat”.
“It’s very unfortunate that India took a stance on the legitimacy of the government at such an early stage,” said Naseem told the WSJ.
India’s Special Envoy M Ganapathi also visited the Maldives last week, along with many other foreign diplomats seeking to resolve the situation.
The speed with which India abandoned Mohammed Nasheed and declared support for the successor government is bewildering, writes Jyoti Malhotra for The Hindu.
The speed with which the largest democracy in the world abandoned, by all accounts, the youngest democracy in the world has left several people terribly bewildered. Was this the result of an accumulated pragmatism that runs freely in the heart of New Delhi’s foreign policy establishment these days, especially as Foreign Minister S.M. Krishna is widely considered to be an absentee figure in this part of South Block?
Certainly, pragmatism has its benefits, and the art of foreign policy-making cannot be mixed with something as ephemeral as friendships, including with democrats. Certainly, too, the Prime Minister’s special envoy to the Maldives, M. Ganapathi, a top diplomat in the Foreign Office, has told Nasheed when he met him on Friday in Male, that Nasheed and his family will be safe under the new dispensation.
But as Nasheed pointed out to this reporter, on the phone from Male, this assurance is hardly enough. Meanwhile, in India and abroad, people are watching to see if India, the most powerful country in the region, can ensure that Waheed stops the savage crackdown that the Maldivian security forces are continuing to heap upon Nasheed’s hapless MDP supporters.
If all foreign policy is a function of national interest, then India must ask itself if the Waheed government is really an ideal partner in the Maldives, or if he is really a mukhauta or a mask of Gayoom. If Waheed is really Gayoom’s puppet — certainly, the new President has not one party member in Parliament, nor any councillors; he has been unable to form his own Cabinet, leave alone a government of national unity — then India should be more than worried.
But New Delhi has already decided that Waheed’s government is a legitimate one and that Nasheed’s crisis is largely one of his own making. Government sources say that Nasheed was repeatedly asked by High Commissioner Mulay, even a few hours before he resigned, whether he needed any assistance from India, and Nasheed said no.
On his part, Nasheed — on whom the realisation is beginning to dawn that his friend and partner, India, has dumped him — points out that he “resigned” because he wanted to avoid bloodshed, which would have been inevitable if he had decided to resist. Surrounded by security forces, Nasheed said, he could hardly have asked Mulay for protection.
As delegations from the U.S., the Commonwealth and the European Union set up camp in Male to figure a way out of the crisis, the world is looking to India to lead. It has all the credentials to do so — in fact, some parts of Lakshadweep even speak Dhivehi, the national language of the Maldives — especially if it believes that the Maldives is a part of its South Asian sphere of influence.
Whether or not Nasheed returns to a jail, this time under Waheed, the simple question remains: will India grasp the immensely fragile moment at hand, ensure that peace and stability return to the Maldives and that fresh elections are held, sooner than later?
If it does, it will be setting an example to the regime not only in Male or elsewhere in South Asia, but across the Asian arc littered with authoritarian rulers of all colours. If not, it could be making its second, strategic mistake in this Indian Ocean island. This time around, though, the error could take much longer to heal.
The Government of India appears to have been caught napping in the Maldives on two counts, writes B. Raman for the Eurasia Review.
First, it failed to foresee the implications of some arbitrary actions of former President Mohammed Nasheed such as the arrest of the Chief Judge of the Criminal Court and disciplinary action against a Sandhurst-trained Colonel of the Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF), who were perceived to be anti-Nasheed and advise him to desist from such actions.
These actions antagonised the judiciary and created fissures in the MNDF and the Police. These elements joined hands with anti-Nasheed protesters in forcing him to quit as the President.
Secondly, it failed to realise that despite his antagonising the judiciary and sections of the Police and the MNDF, Nasheed retained considerable popular support particularly among the younger generation and was in a position to take the battle against his opponents to the streets. Instead of keeping quiet till the street equations became clear and instead of desisting from any action that might be misinterpreted as granting legitimacy to the MNDF-engineered replacement of Nasheed by his Vice-President Mohamed Waheed Hassan, the Government of India prematurely made statements that were interpreted in Maldives as amounting to India’s abandoning its support to the democratically-elected President.
When Nasheed’s supporters, with a defiant Nasheed at their head, took the battle against their opponents to the streets, the Government of India found itself with its credibility badly weakened.
The result: the Government of India’s traditional position as the sole arbiter of political fortunes in the Maldives has been badly damaged and a number of international actors from the UK, the US, the European Union and the United Nations have rushed to the Maldives to try their hand in internal peace-making, thereby marginalising the traditional role of India. Only China and Pakistan have not yet entered the political fray in the Maldives. If they do, that will be ultimate humiliation for Indian diplomacy at its southern door-step.
We had earlier lost our clout in Sri Lanka as a result of soft and reactive reflexes and we stand in danger of similarly losing our clout -even if we have not already lost it – in the Maldives due to similar apologetic reflexes lacking in robustness of anticipation and action.
In the Net world, one could notice articulation of condemnation of the Government for failing to intervene militarily in the Maldives in support of the democratically-elected Government. Unfavourable comparisons have been made with the robust response of Rajiv Gandhi, the then Prime Minister, to support the then President Abdul Gayoom against threats from foreign mercenaries suspected to be from the LTTE by sending Indian rapid action forces to the Maldives to neutralise the threat.
The hesitation of the Government of India to send rapid action forces in response to a reported SOS from Nasheed is understandable because the present situation is qualitatively different from what prevailed in 1988. The threat to Nasheed was not from external forces, but from sections of his own MNDF and the Police due to his perceived arbitrary style of governance. If the Government of India had sent the security forces to the Maldives this time, they would have been called upon to act not against foreign mercenaries and their local supporters, but against sections of the political opposition in the Maldives and their supporters in the MNDF and the Police.
Our security forces would have been able to overcome opposition from the MNDF and the Police, but then what about managing the messy sequel – with the Maldivian security forces many of whose senior officers were trained by us turning hostile against India?
The criticism of the Government of India for not intervening immediately through our armed forces is not quite justified. But there is a lot of actions short of direct military intervention which we could have taken – such as visibly and noisily strengthening our direct action capability in the vicinity of the Maldives, to convey a message to the contending forces in the Maldives and to external forces that might be tempted to take advantage of the situation to undermine Indian influence that India was prepared to use its armed forces if needed to protect its nationals and interests, and rushing a high level and stick-wielding emissary to Male to cajole, if possible, and to force, if necessary, the contending forces not to undermine democracy and not to allow any other external elements to come in and partake of the broth.
The Government of India failed to take any of these actions and now finds itself with diminishing options in the face of an unpredictably evolving situation domestically and internationally. In 1988, the international community recognised implicitly that the Maldives was India’s concern and that India had every right to act according to its wisdom.
Even though the situation seems to be slipping out of our hands, we can still retrieve it provided we show leadership befitting a big power and act resolutely on the lines indicated above. Evidence of such leadership and resolute action is missing in Delhi.
Indian Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee last year asked the UK to cease giving aid to the country’s booming economy, but relented after being begged to take the money for fear of “grave political embarrassment”, reports the UK’s Telegraph newspaper.
“We do not require the aid. It is a peanut in our total development exercises [expenditure],” Mukherjee told the upper house of Indian parliament, during question time, adding that the government wanted to give it up.
India is the top recipient of UK foreign aid, according to the Telegraph expose. The UK has given £1 billion in aid to India in the last five years and has earmarked a further £600 million in aid by 2015.
Projects from Britain’s Department for International Development (DFID) are mired in controversy, reports the Telegraph. They include a £118,000 program to install satellite tracking on municipal buses in Bhopal – years before the technology was used in the UK – and program to deliver 7000 televisions to schools despite the lack of electricity.
Amid a surging anti-corruption movement in India, the Telegraph alleges that £70 million disappeared from one DFID-funded project along, and that £44,000 of British aid was “allegedly siphoned off by one project official to finance a movie directed by her son.”
Junior Development Minister Alan Duncan claimed that cutting off British aid to India “would mean that hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people, will die who otherwise could live,” according to the Telegraph.
The admission by India is significant, implying India’s ascension as an aid donor in the region rather than a recipient, despite its own extremes of poverty and wealth. India now donates almost as much in bilateral development as it receives, according to the Telegraph’s report, of which the Maldives is a key beneficiary.
Indira Gandhi Memorial Hospital (IGMH) was donated to the Maldives by India, along with military helicopter, scholarships and copious financial assistance, among other interests. An Indian company, GMR, has the country’s single largest foreign investment in the US$400 million renovation and upgrade of Ibrahim Nasir International Airport (INIA), while the growing mid-market tourism industry is looking towards the huge Indian middle class as a wealthy market for the Maldives tourism product on the country’s doorstep.
“The Maldives is perhaps one of India’s closest partners,” observed The Indian High Commissioner Dynaneshwar Mulay during India’s recent Republic Day celebrations.
Cooperation also extends to the military, with the installation of a coastal radar array plugged directly into the Indian defence network.
More recently, Indian interest in the Maldives has been challenged by rival China, which conspicuously opened its embassy in Male’ last year during the SAARC Summit.
President Mohamed Nasheed has met with the Indian and Sri Lankan delegates in reference to theTrilateral Discussion in maritime security in the Indian Ocean region.
Delegates met separately with the President.
The discussions addressed regional maritime security concerns and possible solutions. The President highlighted the need for a regional strategy to address maritime security threats, such as piracy and drug trafficking
In June, international specialists informed Minivan News that following two attacks that month off of India’s southern coast, the Maldives’ waters were notably at risk.
Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) however has maintained that the Maldives is not under direct threat from Somalian pirates.
There is an increasing realisation in New Delhi about the cross-benefits available to the country on social, political, economic and strategic fronts from its neighbours as they are bound to benefit from healthy bilateral and multilateral arrangements encompassing the entire South Asian region. The idea should be making the rest of the world see the South Asia region in its geo-strategic and politico-economic entity without individual nations having to compromise on traditional rights of sovereignty, as understood in the modern times.
Owing to a variety of reasons, both historic and management-related, India is the dominant force in South Asia. This fact cannot be ignored, over-looked or upset. Sovereignty rights do exist without compromise, but there is a greater understanding in all South Asian countries that it should be used as a tool for greater integration and inter-dependence, and not as a weapon to out-shout one another in terms of numbers in organisations such as the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC). Increasingly, SAARC summits that once used to be a periodic pause have come to acquire a certain degree of cohesion, direction and cooperation among member-nations.
This scheme needs to be further strengthened, so as to make South Asia a single economic entity while dealing with the rest of the world. Sovereignty would not be compromised if member-nations volunteered to surrender some to the regional forum themselves. Political controversies of the India-Pakistan kind have ceased to undermine the relevance and usefulness of SAARC. Such differences have often come in the way of regional cooperation taking faster strides. Yet, to expect SAARC to take any political initiative to try and resolve the problems between the ‘Big Two’ in the South Asian community is fraught with consequences for the regional entity, which is still fledging despite being around for 25 long years.
Over the years, a view had emerged among certain strategic thinkers in India that the neighbours stood to benefit more from a regional union than was the other way round. The real situation was always not so – and it continues to remain more so even today. India of the economic reforms era has to begin looking at South Asian neighbours not as a challenge in the global job market. It is a synergy all nations can build into a common cause, particularly in the services sector that they excel in. It is going to take a long, long way, to ensure that bilateral and regional cooperation of the kind, but time is no more on the side of South Asia, if it has to benefit from the existing advantages that once used to be seen as disadvantage.
Time was not long ago when the world used to growl at the growing population in countries such as China and India, the underpinning being that the rest of ’em all were being forced to produce food and other consumables for populous countries to consume without any check on their growth rates on this score. Magically over the past decades, both nations have become attractive markets not only for goods but also for investments. Controlled population in the developed world has re-engineered their perception of Third World countries like India and China for out-sourcing not only the 21st century services sector jobs but also their traditional manufacturing strengths.
Learning from the West
South Asia has lessons to learn from this new and changing perception of the West. New Delhi, to begin with, has to acknowledge that the entire South Asian region is a market for India and Indian investments in this continuing era of economic instability in the developed world. It is not unlikely that the ‘New Cold War’ between the West and China may lead to a situation where a weakened dollar could hit on the former more than the latter, both in terms of existing concepts and practices. Big-time Indian investors seeking to serve even the Indian markets may be attracted by the comparable costs prevailing in the manufacturing sector in some of the neighbourhood countries. Likewise, South Asian neighbours of India may find distinct advantages in doing business with and in India, not available to them elsewhere, particularly in terms of transportation costs, etc.
Economic integration would still require a lot more to be done, and thought of. The ‘big-nation-small-nation’ mix in the European Union and the ASEAN have shown the way for South Asia not to mix up sentiments with the business of planning for the future. For larger nations like India, and even Pakistan up to a point, to feel comfortable, nations of the region should unite not to encourage profligacy and also address governance and procedural issues in a big way. At the same time, they will have to fashion an economic model that addresses inherent socio-economic disparities that have political consequences, as is being evidenced at present in countries of the region after the IMF-dictated economic reforms came into force. This would be a departure from the IMF model that all of them have got accustomed to but may have to deviate from.
In sectors like education and engineering, agriculture and automobile sector, healthcare and rocket science that India has a lot to offer the neighbourhood. None of these nations can grudge India for what it is. The sheer size of its landmass, economy and market has together made it an attractive investment proposition. There is this realisation in all the neighbourhood countries that they should also seek to benefit from the current Indian boom and participate in the processes involved. At the same time, there is also a need for India and Indians to recognise the talent-pool that these nations have to offer, particularly in the labour sector. Encouraging this pool in positive ways alone would help India create the markets that it would need to seek in the immediate neighbourhood, to benefit from the logistical and transportation advantages that proximity has to offer.
The Indian decision to create a `50,000-crore fund to help nations in need would go a long way in fostering better relations in the neighbourhood, if administered as effectively and efficiently as intended. The taste of the pudding is in the eating, and nations and people in the neighbourhood and also elsewhere in the world could appreciate the Indian assistance, only if it is both adequate and timely. In countries like Sri Lanka and Maldives, and also in the extended South-East Asian neighbourhood, nations were appreciative of the Indian intervention when tsunami struck in end-December 2004. In money-value, the Indian decision to rush Navy, Air Force and medicines to the affected people in these countries was not as substantial as on many other occasions. But I t was the timeliness of it all that came to be appreciated, including the fact that New Delhi had rushed help when parts of India were also similarly affected by tsunami. In tactical terms, it also proved the preparedness of the Indian armed forces to rush aid to the neighbourhood without much of a notice.
Ending ‘Cold War’ perceptions
Independent of economic perception is the evolving regional strategic consideration that South Asia has to learn to live as a single unit in overall terms if individual nations have to be secure and feel secure. Barring India, no other nation in the region has to fear for extra-territorial aggression of any kind. Their security concerns are domestic in nature, or are based on their perceptions of India, flowing from a collective ‘Cold War’ past. In the case of former, linkages are beginning to be made as to how problems can multiply for everyone if the regional nations did not work together — or, do not stop targeting one another.
In terms of their perceptions of India, New Delhi has been doing enough over the past decade and more, to make individual nations of the region, including Pakistan, feel friendly. India too continues to be affected by its memories about the role individual nations of the region could play to make it feel insecure in different ways. Where nations could not take on India directly, whatever their perception and consideration, they were known to have provided base for other adversaries of India to do so. Whether it was a strategy or tactic, their attempts had paid off in terms of making India feel uncomfortable, if not aggressive.
Steeped in contemporary history as also the distant past, the chances would not occur overnight, but here again there is a need for everyone concerned to acknowledge that time is running out, after all. Political India is however beginning to understand the complexities in multi-lateral relations, where individual neighbours are seen as trading with extra-territorial powers, in terms of politics, economic cooperation and infrastructure creation. There is also an emerging understanding all-round that their strategic security is closely linked, and any effort at inducting extra-territorial powers would have an economic and developmental cost to play — which their domestic constituencies might not countenance hereafter.
In this context, it is necessary for everyone, including India, to acknowledge that the packaging development aid (in whatever form) is also a way for extra-territorial powers to acquire strategic depth in the region. The question now will be to accept certain realities, including problem areas, and address the issues in a forthright manner in which solutions are found. A road-map for collective development has to be laid out and practised in ways in which they do not hamper the strategic security cooperation that these countries have to adopt – but become part of that process, too. The step-by-step approach adopted by SAARC may not be fast but it is the right way. As resolved by them at the Addu Summit in Maldives in 2011, it would be a good idea if the SAARC nations meet the goals set for them before the next Summit, and yet fast-track the processes in ways that the political leaderships would find the need for shortening the deadlines for individual and collective action, without having to extend them, indefinitely.
Yet, political issues will remain, as between India and Pakistan, but not exclusive to them alone. Even smaller nations such as Nepal and Bhutan, for instance, have issues between them. Problems flowing from governance apparatus and decision-making processes remain. Though most South Asian nations had inherited the British colonial model, post-Independence, many have reverted to the pre-colonial model of personalised decision-making apparatus but under a constitutional, democratic scheme. Though in India, too, personalised politics is a hallmark, structures of decision-making remain intact. In Pakistan, at different levels, the armed forces may have their say. Differences in perceptions among South Asian nations about the decision-making processes in others have often led to confusion and consternation. Either they put their heads together to work on a common governance scheme for them all to draw from, or learn to live with whatever they have in others, instead, and work together, still.
The writer is a Senior Fellow at Observer Research Foundation
All comment pieces are the sole view of the author and do not reflect the editorial policy of Minivan News. If you would like to write an opinion piece, please send proposals to [email protected]
(0)Dislikes
(0)