It came as no surrise that the 18th summit of the regional grouping called South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (Saarc) was adjudged a ‘success’ by officials of all the eight member countries while the ‘non-official’ view was differenmt. Even a cursory glance at reports on the meeting held in Kathmandu on November 26-27 will suggest that its most notable ‘achievement’ was the ‘handshake’ between the Indian and Pakistani prime ministers that supposedly amounted to a ‘thaw’ in the frosty relations between them. Does a regional group that is populated by a quarter of the humanity hold summit level meetings only for the sake of a handshake between two old ‘foes’?
If that is not to be dismissed as a joke, the only ‘tangible’ outcome of the two-day meeting was an agreement on electricity cooperation that was reportedly reached almost at the eleventh hour. And that became possible when the perennially grumping Pakistan condescended to accept the agreement even as it successfully sabotaged agreement on two more important agreements to extend road and rail connecivity in Saarc countries.
Maybe it is the media in India that is to be blamed for it, but over the years Saarc meetings have been reduced to a contest between the two South Asian adversaries. Media reports in India are only about what happens between India and Pakistan and what their leaders say or do; there is very little about what the leaders of the other six nations say. The other Saarc members resent the undue focus on India and Pakistan. They cannot be faulted.
The narrow focus does not project Saarc as a serious regional entity and the expectation that it will be an important bloc of nations like Asean, EU or ECOWAS are not likely to be met.
It was surprising, for instance, that the Indian media barely took notice of what the Afghan president, recently elected, said at Kathmandu about terrorism and the use of non-state actors to export terror—a clear but a cautious reference to Pakistan. His opinion needed more careful attention in India because only days before flying to Kathmandu, Ashraf Ghani, the Afghan president, was in Islamabad where he said things that pleased his hosts no end. He even suggested, in so many words, that he would revrese the policies of his predecessor, Hamid Karzai, and veer towards Pakistan. Karzai was a much hated figure in Pakistan because he was relentless in criticising Pakistan for exporting terror to his country.
It does not require much guess work to undersatand why the Pakistanis agreed to the electricity agreement after creating a deliberate hard-to-get charade and ‘save’ the Kathmandu summit. The next summit (in 2016) will take place in Islamabad and the Pakistanis did not want to set a precedent of complete non-cooperation at a Saarc summit to end it as a ‘failure’. Islamabad would like to save itself from the embarassment of the Saarc summit in 2016 being dubbed a ‘failure’.
Energy crunch is one of the biggest problems in Pakistan and the country looks for even the smallest of opportunities to increase the eletricity supply. The 2014 Saarc agrement may not yield any results straight away for some years but at least the Pakistani government can instil some hope among its people who often resort to street violence to register their anger at electricity shortage.
The desperation on the electricity front inside Pakistan will be clear from the fact that till some months ago, when their soldiers and ‘non-state actors’ were not shooting at and killing innocent Indian civilians at the line of control in Kashmir and the international border (defiantly called ‘working boundary’ by the Pakistanis), the country was keen to seal an agreement with India to import ‘energy’ that was to include petroleum and electicity. Of course, the plan fizzled out.
The exact reason for the failure of the energy import plan is not clear, but the fraught India-Pakistan relations should be one of the obvious reasons. The question is: Where is the surplus in electricity in India that can be exported to Pakistan or any other country? Some states may have surplus electricity but that can be, and is, used to meet demands in other parts of the country. The government of India itself has admitetd on many occasions that there is a serious shortfall in electricity supply in the country.
Agreed, sometimes exports take palce even in the face of domestic shortage of the commodity. But what is the compulsion to export something that is so fundamental to the nation as electricity? Chronic shortage in electricity supply has hampered India’s development, though it is not the only factor.
In the context of Saarc, it may be argued that the electricity transmission to a country like Pakistan need not originate from India; it could be Nepal and Bhutan both with rich hydro-electric potential. But the electricity lines will have to traverse through a vast Indian hinterland. India will be ready to facilitate that transfer but many would like to question whether such a gesture will be reciprocated by Pakistan which has determinedly refused to allow land movement of goods between India and Afghnaistan through its territory. Not for any good reason but simply to grate India because of its imaginary fears about India’s desire to ‘control’ Afghanistan.
It is forgotten that the idea of Saarc was pursued vigorously by the head of Bangladesh in the 1980s, a military dictator not known to harbour friendly feelings towards India. He was fearful of India as the so-called ‘hegemon’ in the sub-continent. This idea was more actively pursued by Pakistan which, of course, continues to talk about Indian ‘hegemony’. Now Pakistan is working frantically to rope in China as a Saarc member to thwart Indian ‘hegemony’.
The creation of Saarc has not seen Pakistan give up its imaginary fears about India and its ‘hegemony’. The spirit of cooperatuion, so vital for the success of Saarc, has not touched Pakistan. It simply refuses to respect a Saarc free trade agreement, signed in 2006, because it might ‘benefit’ India. The advantages and benefits from stepped up regional trade and cooperation are known to all, including Pakistan. But the first and foremost concern in Pakistan is to remain staunchly anti-India. If it results in undermining a regional bloc that has the potential to do some good and reduce to a farce, so be it.
No surprise, therefore, Ambassador, T P Sreenivasan, writing in the Rediff.com, said Kathmandu is a summit Modi could have done without. But then, Modi doesn’t share such a view.
It is clear from his observation at the summit: “Nowhere in the world are collective efforts more urgent than in South Asia; and, nowhere else is it so modest. Big and small, we face the same challenges – a long climb to the summit of development. The future I wish for India is the same future I wish for the entire region. There is much to learn from each other; even more – to do together”.
And answered the question: What next from Kathmandu?
“The bonds will grow. Through Saarc or outside it! Among us all or some of us!”
The Modi-speak must have made the egg heads in Islamabad to search for their thinking caps. Because India has already demonstrated what it can do with or without Saarc.
With Bangladesh, India has deepened its links through rail, road, power and transit. With Nepal, it started new era of cooperation in energy. With Bhutan, it is hydel energy cooperation and with Sri Lanka it is Free Trade Agreement that have transformed the ties. Soon, India will launch a new arrangement to meet Maldives’ need for oil. Distance and difficulties have not held back India and Afghanistan either. India has provided assistance of nearly 8 billion US dollars to its South Asia partners over a decade, which is in addition to duty free access to 99.7 percent of their goods.
Well, all this fits into the framework of the adage- practice is better than precept.
– by Malladi Rama Rao
