Mohammad Shehzad

Dr C. Raja Mohan, a professor of South Asian Studies at the famed Jawaharlal Nehru University, is a staunch critic of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation. He firmly believes that bilateral trade between Pakistan and India is the panacea for the tricky situation in the region.

Prior to assuming his position at the University, Raja Mohan the Strategic Affairs Editor at The Hindu, and had also been the paper's correspondent in Washington for four years in the early 1990s. With a master's degree in Nuclear Physics, and a doctorate in International Affairs, Raja Mohan has the background and social standing to influence policymaking. He spoke to Dawn recently in Islamabad when he was in town ahead of the Saarc Summit meeting:

Question: To what extent Saarc, as an organization, has achieved its objectives?

Saarc has not been able to achieve any of its objectives. The moment of truth for Saarc is round the corner. At the Saarc Information Ministers' Conference (November 2003), Indian Prime Minister A.B. Vajpayee had said that if Saarc did not get its economic act together, India will have to look at other alternatives. And that is so true.

There is not enough awareness in Pakistan that the 'alternatives' are already coming up. Barely four weeks after the Saarc meeting in Islamabad, there is going to be another summit meeting, BIMSTEC, which involves Bangladesh, India, Mayanmar, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Bhutan and Nepal. So, five Saarc members will be meeting Mayanmar and Thailand for a free trade agreement.

Question: A Saarc within Saarc sort of arrangement?

No. It will be beyond Saarc. Five countries of Saarc minus Pakistan and Maldives are going to sit with two South East Asian countries and work out free trade agreement. There will be no discussion of Kashmir. There will be discussion of free trade, open skies, air links, transportation links and so on. So, alternatives to Saarc have already been created. If Saarc does not work because of Pakistan's economic cooperation and its veto, the other mechanisms will take off.

Question: Are you putting the blame on Pakistan?

No. If you look at Saarc's history, in the first ten years of Saarc, there was no emphasis on economic cooperation because none of the countries was going ahead with economic reforms. So, they were not interested in trade. It is only when the globalization process started that everyone started opening its market for the rest of the world.

Once the imperative for economic cooperation came up, Pakistan started arguing that if the emphasis was shifted from politics to economics, it would take away the importance of Kashmir issue. As such, Pakistan has been hesitant to move forward on economic cooperation.

The logic of economic integration is driving the rest of the countries to work out trade arrangements. India is signing bilateral agreements with Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, and it is also looking at other multinational arrangements. So, regional economic integration will take place 'with' Pakistan if possible, 'without' Pakistan if necessary.

Question: In that case, is Saarc going to be a dead horse in the days ahead?

I've written quite strongly sometimes that Saarc is already dead. All it needs is a decent burial.

Question: Was it at all a wise decision to form Saarc when everyone knew that hostile India-Pakistan relations will make it counter-productive?

There was no choice. Everyone else in the world was beginning to go to regional forums. The founding father of the Saarc, certainly the Bangladesh, felt that an ASEAN-like mechanism could be developed in the subcontinent.

In fact, when Saarc started, everyone had doubts about it. The problem has lingered on, and Saarc has not been able to do anything. You can blame the Pakistani emphasis on the primacy of political issues over those of economics. But India has to take some blame, too. India was not willing to give generous economic concessions to its neighbours. All its neighbours have complained against India's protectionist market and the lack of enough access to its markets. But now the Indian policies are changing rapidly. India now - ten years after its economic reforms - has discovered that trade is more important, and having regional trading blocks, or free trade agreements, is a sensible idea. And India is now rushing forward in a very strong fashion.

Question: Why is India so averse to discussing 'bilateral' issues at the Saarc forum?

Basically, India wants to promote economic cooperation first, before moving on to the political problems. Our experiment with China has further strengthened our belief. India and China have dramatically expanded trade which is going to reach $10 billion this year. This improved relationship has created conditions under which the boundary dispute is going to be negotiated. So, that's the model we prefer.

Question: But China is a much larger country, and Pakistan a much smaller one!

We also had the same attitude towards China. We used to say how could we negotiate with the Chinese. We should avoid economic engagements, and the boundary issue should be sorted out first. The logic of economic reforms showed India that it is stupid not to take advantage of the Chinese market. And India cannot keep out the world's second largest economy. So, India gave up its previous stand. Pakistan is presently in the position of India. How could Pakistan grow without engaging one of the biggest markets in the world next door? No way.

Question: How did this better sense prevail in India?

I think essentially by recognizing the urgency of economic development; recognizing that India has fallen behind the rest of the world in the last 30 years because there was not enough trade investment; and further recognizing that if India followed the same policies, it would further fall behind.

Question: Does Saarc have any success stories?

It is really difficult to find one! But, honestly, it has created some kind of an identity. There is a huge seminar circuit; people travel together on Saarc account, meet each other, and that is a good thing. But the interaction between the governments and the intellectuals at seminars is not going to change the dynamics. What will change the dynamics is when businessmen, traders, industrialists meet; when people travel in large numbers, and that can only happen in a free market environment.

Question: How would you react to suggestions of expansion in Saarc?

I think in the present framework, it is not doing very much. I feel strongly that mayanmar and Afghanistan are natural parts of the subcontinent. The pressure of WTO is going to force societies to create conditions under which they may trade more. You could do that formally through Saarc, or informally through other means.

Question: Do others in the BJP share Prime Minister Vajpayee's vision of peace?

The disagreement is not on the question whether we should settle issues with our neighbours - be it China or Pakistan. The disagreement is more on how to go about it. I think everyone will come around if there is progress, if there is reduction in violence.

Question: Could Kabul be the next bone of contention between India and Pakistan?

Kabul is not a playground for India and Pakistan. Afghans are fiercely independent people. It is a country that has a future to be decided by its people. The rivalry between India and Pakistan from Afghanistan's perspective has been highly over-stated. I believe India, Pakistan and Afghanistan can work together eventually. The ideal thing is to start a preferential trade agreement between the three countries along with a transit treaty. If Pakistan allows India to send its goods to Afghanistan through its territory, all three will benefit, but if Pakistan blocks this, India is still going to trade with Afghanistan. Trade has a logic of its won. The win-win situation will be for all three of us to cooperate rather than making it an area of contention between us.

Question: There has been much talk about confidence building measures in recent times. Would not it be a good CBM if India could stop the proponents of Hindutva from spitting venom against Pakistan?

There is a democratic structure in India. Nobody can stop anyone from expressing their views. You can't banish people from saying what they want to say. Due to media, extreme views also get projected, but let me tell you, Bal Thackery represents his party's views. He does not represent India's views. I know that such voices have become stronger in India during the last ten years, but I don't think they have taken over India.

Question: What about the incidents related to the Babari Mosque and Gujarat?

Many bad things have happened across the world. In Pakistan and India also bad things have happened ...

Question: Narendar Modi is still in power. What do you say on that?

He has come through elections. If you think that because of Gujarat, India has seized to be a secular state, you are making a big mistake in judgment. My request to the Pakistani friends is to see the complex nature of democracy in India. And the fact is that a lot of people are opposed to this. The courts have intervened. The media has intervened. You have to understand the core of India, is it essentially democratic and tolerant or has it become a negative society? I believe that given the diversity and complexity in India, you are never going to have the dominance of these forces.

Question: If relations between China and India are improving, then why is India consistently raising its arms and ammunition stockpile?

You don't need any particular enemy for that. Most major countries have to maintain a level of modernization in armed forces. But the Indian armed forces did not spend any money from the late 1980s till the Kargil War. In the whole period, because it was doing economic reforms and there was a resource crunch, it spent very little on the acquisition of new weapons. But Kargil suddenly changed the situation. However, even if there had been no Kargil, there would still have been pressure from modernization.

Question: Do you see any internal factors in India and the domestic factors in Pakistan that have been hampering peace?

In both the countries, there will be people opposing peace for their own reasons. If the political leadership of the two countries is going to take the risk, the opposition could be easily overwhelmed by the positive forces.

Question: Why is Pakistan such a big issue in Indian electoral politics?

It is a misconception. Within a few weeks after December 13, 2001 (attack on the Indian Parliament) there was an election in Uttar Pradesh. Prime Minister Vajpayee and Deputy Prime Minister Advani had been campaigning on crossborder terrorism. They suffered a miserable defeat. Pakistan is not an issue. Bread and butter, economic performance are the issues. Foreign policy is never an issue in most countries, and India is no exception.

Copyright ©2002 Mohammad Shehzad and Dawn. About the author