An Alternative View Of The Futures Of South
Asia:
Steps
to a Confederation
Sohail
Inayatullah
Professor,
Tamkang University, Taiwan and Sunshine Coast University, Australia
www.metafuture.org
October
11, 2003
While we are all aware why we do not have peace in south asia, there
is a paucity of explorations on how to create a better future.
The lack of peace defined as both individual peace (inner
contentment), social-psychological peace (how we see the Other), structural
peace (issues of justice, particularly territorial justice) and
epistemological peace (toward a plurality of ways of knowing) are among the
major factors contributing to poverty in south asia. Government expenditures
in each nation, especially India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka go for military
purposes and not for education or health.
Every time a positive economic cycle begins, yet one more
confrontation sends military expenditures higher.
Few, except military leaders and a few corporations (mostly foreign),
benefit from this escalation. Indeed, the entire system is now war based,
from the military-industrial complex to the worldview of citizens and
leaders.
Lack of Visions
Part of the reason for this vicious cycle of confrontation and
poverty is because South Asia has been unable to move outside of colonial
and partition (or liberation) categories.
Conceptual travel outside of British influence is difficult and
cultural, economic, military and psychological colonialism and categories of
thought remain in south asian internal structures and representations of the
self.
Intellectuals in south asia also do not help matters, in fact, we are
often part of the problem. Focused
on historical investigations and mired in feudal social relations, academic
discourse, in general, and the future, in particular, has become fugitive
and, when apprehended, made trivial. This
is largely because of the style, content and structure of south asian
intellectual/State relations. By
and large administered by the civil service, appeasing the chief minister
(as evidenced by the center stage of the minister at book launchings and
public lectures) is far more important than independent intellectual
inquiry. It is the State that gives academic discourse legitimacy, since it
is the State that has captured civil society.
The paucity of economic, social and political resources for the
Academy exacerbates, if not causes, this situation. Social sciences remain
undeveloped.
Nation, State and Real
Politics
Colonial history has produced an overarching paradigm that even the
interpreters of the hadith and Vedanta must relinquish their authority to.
This is the neo-realist model of International Relations and National
Development. Caught in a battle of ego expansion, of self-interest, nations
function like self-interested egoistic individuals. Economic development can
only take place at the national level with communities absent from
participation. Thus making peace at local levels impossible.
Security is defined in terms of safety from the aggressor neighboring
nation, not in terms of local access to water, technology and justice. Only
real politics with hidden motives behind every actor and action makes sense
in this neo-realist discourse. The task then for most is explaining the
actions of a nation or of functionaries of the State.
Envisioning other possibilities for "nation" or
"state" and their interrelationships, that is, the assumptions
that define what is considered eligible for academic discourse remains
unattempted, thus the absence of communities, non-governmental
organizations, class and other transnational categories such as gender from
the realm of what is considered important.
Moreover, structural analysis such as center/periphery theory (a step
beyond conspiracy theory) is intelligible but only with respect to the West
not with respect to internal structures.
Finally, visions of the future, attempts to recreate the paradigm of
international relations, strategic studies and development theory through
women studies, world system research, historical social change analysis,
peace studies, participatory action research or the social movements are
considered naive and too idealistic.
Worse, it is believed that this naivete and idealism threatens
security on the home front. Thus it is fine if class and gender are issues
that challenge mainstream politics in the neighboring nation but not in
"our perfect country." What
results thus is at best static peace - that is the diplomatic accomodation
of official differences and not what Prout founder, P.R. Sarkar calls,
sentient peace, or the creation of a mutual ecology of destiny based on
shared moral principles.
However even with the dominance of real-politics, idealism does
exist, but, in the quest for modernity it has been marginalized.
Visions remain limited to evening prayer or meditation, for personal
peace, but they have no place in politics or structural peace, except at the
level of the State which uses religious practices to buttress its own power
and control over competing classes, that is, it appropriates vision into its
own strategic discourse.
Again, the dominance of neo-realism and the loss of mutual trust can
be explained by many variables. The most important of them is the event of
partition - the alleged break from colonialism -that has dominated
intellectual efforts. With more than a generation of mistrust, hate and
fear, creating alternative futures, not dominated by the partition discourse
is indeed challenging. The disappointment of post-colonial society has worn
heavy on the south asian psyche - betrayals by leaders and calls for more
sacrifices from the people for yet another promised plan is unlikely to
transform the weight of the past and the abyss of the present.
The future that we have arrived at to is not the final destination
for south asia, it is a dystopia. As
Faiz has written[i],
"The time for the liberation of heart and mind has not come yet.
Continue your arduous journey. This is not your destination."
Possible Strategies
Given this history, what are some possible strategies outside of the
partition and nation-state discourse. And
how can social movements and others desiring a different future help in
these strategies, in creating new visions and realities for south asia.
The short run strategy social movements would be to attempt to
encourage peaceful citizen to citizen meetings between Bangladeshis, Sri
Lankans, Pakistanis and Indians. Their effort in creating links between
intellectuals, writers and artists across national boundaries would be
critical in such efforts. Unfortunately
south asian intellectuals are often beholden to the bureaucracy. Rarely are
they independent. Moreover, in
general, intellectuals tend to adopt nationalistic lines seeing history only
from a nationalistic perspective, thinking that the other nation's history
is propaganda and one's own nation's historiography is the real objective
truth. This has worsened in recent times with the rise of the BJP in India
and of rightist Islamic parties.
Intellectuals who have left the "homeland" for the West are
not immune from this intellectual cancer. While south asians may unite in
critique of the West, when it comes to the homefront, they remain attached
to nation. Religion as well has increasingly become a weapon of identity,
used not to create a higher level of consciousness but to distance from the
other. In this sense, the
neo-humanist mind and paradigm has yet to emerge. Instead, identity is based
on geographical sentiments, national sentiments and religious sentiments.
The recent war in Afghanistan has further hardened identity, forcing
individuals to be either, especially in Pakistan, strict muslims or western
oriented. Layered identity, that is, we are primarily human beings, and
secondary national citizens or members of a particular religion, is more
difficult to achieve. Indeed, as Marcus Bussey (www.metafuture.org) has
argued, neo-humanism should not be seen solely as a theory but as a
practice. We must live day to day through neo-humanism, asking ourselves,
how in our conversations, our views, our teaching of children do we recreate
historical identities, or help create inclusive identities.
Nonetheless, it is imperative that we find ways to encourage citizen
to citizen interaction through sports, arts, music and literature, to begin
with. To do this, of course, there needs to be travel between the various
south asian nations. However given the intervention of each nation in the Other:
Pakistan in India; India in Sri Lanka; and given secession movements in each
country, suspicion is natural and travel difficult. Normalization of borders when the nation-state is under
threat appears unlikely especially as violence has become routine in local
and national politics.
One way out of this is to begin to focus on ideal futures instead of
dis-unifying pasts; that is, instead of asking who actually attacked who or
should Kashmir be part of Pakistan or India or independent we need to
practice compassion and forgiveness towards the other, to not see the
gaining of territory as central to the national and personal ego.
What is needed are meetings among artists, intellectuals, and even
bureaucrats to stress areas and points of unity--sufis who are hindu; yogis
who are sufi, for example. We need to remember stories of how difference has
led to mutual benefit, to glorify how intimacy with the other can create
sources of cultural vitality. The usefulness in this citizen to citizen
contact is that it will build amity among people who feel the other is
distant, who fear the Other. While
citizen to citizen contact did not markedly change US or Soviet policy
towards each other, it did create peace forces in each nation, that created
dissension when governments insisted on arguing that the other nation was
the evil empire. Citizen to
citizen contact ideally will develop into contact between non-governmental
organizations that are committed to same ideals: serving the poor,
empowering women, caring for the environment, for example.
The nuclear tests in Pakistan and India have led to numerous
exchanges between Indians and Pakistanis, largely through the medium of the
internet--a dynamic loose association called south asians against nukes has
taken off. It intends to lobby governments in both countries to take steps
to develop conversations of peace, of shared futures, as well as to set in
place fail safe measures to avoid nuclear accidents and provocation by
nationalists on all sides.
But most important is not specific issues but the hope that these
NGOs may be able to strengthen civil society in each nation thus putting
some pressure on politicians to choose more rational strategies, strategies
that place humans and the environment ahead of geo-sentiments and
geo-politics. Currently the
politician who wants to negotiate with the leader of the other nation is
forced to take hard-line aggressive policies ("we will never give up
Kashmir or we will never give up nuclear power") lest he or she lose
power to the Opposition. By having a transnational peace, ecological,
service movement pressuring each nation' leaders they will have more room to
negotiate and pursue policies that benefit the collective good and security
of the region.
Of course, NGOs can as well distort local civil society, as they are
financed by external sources. Trade associations, professional groups and
other forms of community need as well to be activated along these
neo-humanist lines.
While it would be ideal to reduce the likelihood of local leaders to
pursue aggressive/nationalistic strategies most likely positive change,
paradoxically enough, will come from the globalizing forces of
privatization. Irrespective of
how privatization harms labor and small business, it does create a wave of
faith in the emerging bourgeois, who in their search for profits are
transnational. The rational
ceases to be the nation but the profit motivation.
Profit motivation might begin the process of increased trade, and
commercial contacts between the various nations of the south asian region.
For Capital, mobility, the free flow of borders is the key to its expansion.
Historical feuds only limit its accumulation. For south asia, unless
there are increased economic ties then the capital that accumulates because
of privatization will largely go to overseas destinations, Tokyo and New
York. Beginning the process of
developing a south asian economic sphere, even it is created by those who
have little concern for the environment and for social justice, in the long
run will help create more peaceful futures for the region. At the level of
the person, business men and women who have to make deals will have to face
each other, will have to see that they have common interests. Moreover, they
will not be branded as spies by opportunistic political leaders since
business can always claim they are only working for national productivity.
Of course, , creating economic and cultural vitality through social/peoples'
movements, particularly the cooperative movement, or increasing the rights
of labor throughout south asia is even more important - it is creating a
more fair society, not the rise of the bourgois that is crucial.
In the meantime, labor, unfortunately, has far less mobility than
capital. Labor leaders who are transnational will certainly be branded
as unpatriotic, in fact, in contrast to business leaders, labor leaders will
be seen as spies who are attempting to stifle national growth.
Arguing for local economic democracy by contesting the power of the
federal bureaucracy and outside economic interests will also not beholden
social movements to the power of government and capital. Indeed,
decentralization will be misconstrued for secession, in some cases.
However, we can hope that at the regional level as the Other becomes
less distant or because of the pressure of external forces, we can envision
a time when national policy leaders meet to create a south asian
confederation of sorts. To
develop such a larger south asian trade association or confederation, there
needs to be agreement or negotiation in the following areas.
Areas of Negotiation
1.
Water regime. The problems here are associated with the use of water
for the short term instead of the long term, for the benefit of the few at
the expense of the many. Should
water become a joint resource then?
2.
Human rights regime. The
problems in reaching agreement in this area should be obvious since each
will claim that the other violates human rights while it has a perfect
record. Action from global
human rights associations can help create pressure on local levels. Human
rights will need to focus not just on individual rights but the right to
purchasing capacity. The right to religion and language will also have to be
central in any human rights regime. We
must remember that the debate on human rights in Asia is about expanding the
Western notion of liberal individual rights to include economic rights and
collective rights. It is not about the restriction of rights but their
augmentation.
3.
Nuclear non-proliferation. This
is problematic since India believes that it has to fear China as well as
Pakistan. China sees itself as
a global power and thus will not agree to any nuclear agreement, especially
given the inequitable structure of the present global nuclear and arms
regime. However, nuclear
proliferation promises, as with the US-USSR case, to bankrupt first one
nation and then the other - Pakistan is already on the verge of financial
calamity. Given the lack of
safety of nuclear installations, it might take a meltdown before some
agreement is reached. Pakistan
believes that it must have a dramatic deterrent since it believes most
Indians have yet to truly accept partition, independence. Indeed, Indians
generally see Pakistanis as double traitors, first for having converted from
hinduism to Islam and second for having carved Pakistan from India.
4.
UN peacekeeping forces in troubled areas.
This step while impinging on national sovereignty could ease tensions
throughout south asia. For one,
it recognizes that there is a crisis that the leaders of each nation,
particularly Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Nepal and India, have failed to resolve.
Will we see blue helmets throughout south asia in the near future?
However, peacekeeping should be not restricted to weaponed officers
but rather should include community builders--therapists and healers. Recent
breakthroughs in Sri Lanka have partly come about through intervention of
mediators from Norway. This external peace building as been essential in
moving Sri Lanka from its abyss.
5.
Regional conferences at Cabinet level.
While governments often obscure truth, more meetings might begin a
thawing process and, unfortunately, if not properly structured, they might
further reinscribe half-truths and vicious stereotypes of the Other.
Still, meetings on specific points where there is a great chance of
agreement are a great place to begin. Start slow, reach agreement, and build
from there, would be a place to begin.
6.
Regional conferences of ngos (environmental groups, feminist groups,
peace movement, universal spiritual groups, artists, human rights
activists). This is even more
important as it helps build relationships among like-minded individuals who
are tired of the symbolic efforts of their own governments, who crave a
different south asia.
While all these steps begin the process, the long run strategy would
be to encourage a rethinking of identity and an alternate economic and
political structure.
Long Term Steps
The long terms steps would be:
1.
Denationalize self, economy and identity.
This the larger project of delinking the idea of the nation, whether
India or Pakistan, from our mental landscape and replacing it with more
local--community--and global concepts, that of the planet itself.
2.
Essentially this means a rewriting of textbooks in south asia. Moving
away from the neo-realist real politics paradigm and toward the neo-humanist
educational perspective. This means rewriting history as well rethinking the
future.
3.
Create Peoples' movements centered on bioregions and linguistic and
cultural zones, that is, begin the process of rethinking the boundaries of
south asia along lines other than those that were hammered out by Indian
political parties and the British in the early half of this century. This is
Sarkar's notion of samaj movements.
4.
Encourage self-reliance and localism in each zone.
While trade is central between nations and the economic zones, it
should not be done at the expense of the local economy.
This is not say that poor quality products should be encouraged,
rather on non-essential items there should be competition. The State should
not give preferential treatment to a few businesses at the expense of
others.
5.
Barter trade between zones is one way to stop inflation.
In addition, it leads to a productive cycle between zones, especially
helping poorer zones increase wealth. These
will especially be useful given the upcoming world recession or depression.
6.
Encourage universal dimensions of the many religions and cultures of
the area. While this is much easier said than done, it means that
individuals have a right to religious expression with the role of the State
that of ensuring non-interference from local, national and regional leaders
who desire to use religion and its strong emotive content to gain votes.
7.
Develop legal structures that can ensure the respect of the rights of
women, children, the aged and the environment. The latter is especially
important given that environmental issues are transnational. Indeed, the
disastrous climatic after effects of recent nuclear explosions show that the
environment is a genuine global rights issue. Eventually, while this is a
long way off, we need to consider the creation of an Asian International
Court.
8.
Transparency. Governmental
decisions need to be open. Ideally meetings should be televised. Promises
made by politicians need to become legal documents so that citizens groups
can initiate litigation against corruption and mis-information. The same
level of transparency should be expected for corporations as well as ngos.
What this means is
that we need visions of the future of south asia that are not based on
communal violence but are based on the possibility of dynamic peaceful
coexistence - what P.R. Sarkar has called, prama.
The task while seemingly impossible must begin with a few small
steps, of Indians and Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Sri Lankans, Nepalese and
Bhutanese and other historical groups in south asia finding ways to realize
some unity amongst all our differences.
The challenge is to use local categories but not within traditional
frames, ie to move through the traditional and the modern to a transmodern.
Future generations will remember that there were those that did not
accede to narrow sentiments, that kept alive the idea of south asia as an
historical civilization, and thus managed to transcend its Indian birth to
become a true universal movement. Let us begin together to create a new history for future
generations.
Certainly with the day-to-day violence through south asia, whether
Gujrat or Kashmir, it is difficult to imagine a better future. But by
staying within current identities and politics, we doom future generations
to poverty. When will we choose otherwise?
[i].
Quoted in Syed Abidi, Social Change and the Politics of
Religion in Pakistan. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Hawaii,
Honolulu, Hawaii, 1988, 239.