Thursday, February 15, 2001, Chandigarh, India
|
Signals from
Majitha Muddling through Maruti Poaching in Corbett
|
|
SAARC: regional diplomacy
Food for
thought
Fatter the better in Africa
The Self and the
other
Tamil leaders turn to
God
|
SAARC: regional diplomacy When the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) was set up in 1985 to promote the welfare of the peoples of South Asia, its leaders pledged to expand economic, scientific, social, cultural and technical cooperation. They also agreed to work together in international forums on issues of common interest. Even though there have been 10 summits of SAARC leaders, precious little has been achieved either in promoting economic cooperation, or in jointly implementing agreements that have been reached on issues ranging from combating terrorism to expanding trade, investment and industrial ties. The SAARC Convention on Terrorism is full of so many loopholes and inadequacies that securing the extradition of terrorists is virtually ruled out. Despite this convention, people like Dawood Ebrahim live in resplendent splendour in the elite localities of Karachi and Lahore. Further, there has been very little progress achieved in promoting meaningful economic cooperation, primarily because Pakistan is not prepared to develop economic ties with India. While self-styled SAARC enthusiasts in India tend to find fault with their own government for not being enthusiastic about another SAARC summit, they ignore the fact that it is Pakistan that has refused an early meeting of experts in Kathmandu, on further expanding the South Asian Preferential Trade Arrangement (SAPTA). The reasons why SAARC has not been able to take off are obvious. SAARC is perhaps the only regional organisation in the world where only one member (India) shares common borders and has extensive interaction with others. There is precious little by way of economic or other cooperation between say Nepal and Maldives or between Bhutan and Pakistan. SAARC does, therefore, periodically tend to become a forum for “India bashing” by any member that has a real or imaginary grievance against New Delhi. This is particularly so of Pakistan, which tries to make every political level meeting an exercise in theatrics, rather than an opportunity to promote economic cooperation. There is nothing to suggest that Pakistan is going to change this approach. But India does now have an opportunity for setting an agenda for SAARC. It should, however, be made clear to other SAARC members if we are not going to achieve substantive progress on expanding economic cooperation within the SAARC framework, we will seek to achieve this both bilaterally and sub-regionally outside SAARC. In any case, it is now time for us to look beyond the narrow confines of the subcontinent, shed some of our earlier inhibitions on projects of sub-regional cooperation and develop new links and strands of cooperation bilaterally, sub-regionally and regionally across the entire Indian Ocean region. Our “look east” policies have led to vastly expanding economic ties with members of ASEAN. Singapore is today one of the most important partners for economic cooperation and tourism with our southern states like Tamil Nadu and Karnataka. States on our eastern shores will find countries ranging from Myanmar to Malaysia as viable partners for meeting their energy needs. The BIMSTEC — bringing together the countries of the Bay of Bengal — Bangladesh, India, Myanmar, Sri Lanka and Thailand — needs to be activated and specific projects in areas like fisheries, transport, communications and energy resources involving two or more member-countries identified expeditiously and implemented. The SAARC experience has shown that unless there are specific projects identified and implemented, all talk of regional or sub-regional cooperation is meaningless. But in moving ahead on this road we should be prepared to show understanding and generosity in concluding free trade and investment arrangements with countries like Bangladesh and Myanmar. We should avoid the sort of unseemly haggling that we indulged in while negotiating a free trade agreement with Sri Lanka.. Maldives seldom receives media attention in India. But there does appear to be considerable potential for developing a sub-regional grouping involving India, Sri Lanka and Maldives to promote cooperation in areas like trade, tourism and fisheries. There will be considerable interest in the private sector in states like Kerala and Tamil Nadu in such cooperation. Similarly, states on our west coast like Kerala, Maharashtra and Gujarat will benefit immensely if New Delhi expands cooperation in energy-related and other areas with members of the Gulf Cooperation Council and Iran. We have to recognise that in a liberalised economic environment, states in India will develop natural complementarities with countries in our neighbourhood. The identification of specific projects in the growth quadrangle involving Nepal, Bhutan, India and Bangladesh will be of particular interest to the people of Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, West Bengal and Assam. But here again New Delhi should shed its inhibitions in seeking cooperation from institutions like the ADB and the World Bank in studying the implications of and financing these projects. The insistence on bilateralism on such economic issues can be counterproductive if overdone. A similar approach needs to be adopted in developing economic and tourism ties among our North-Eastern states, including Assam, and countries in their immediate neighbourhood like Bangladesh, Myanmar, Thailand and even the Yunan province of China. The adoption of measures to place an increasing emphasis on bilateral and sub-regional cooperation in our neighbourhood, does not necessarily imply that we have to give up efforts to promote regional cooperation within SAARC. The “SAARC Vision Beyond 2000” report provides an excellent framework for regional economic cooperation in the subcontinent (one wonders why we fight shy of calling it the “Indian subcontinent” instead of referring to it even domestically as “South Asia”!). The “SAARC Vision 2000” envisages the subcontinent becoming an economic union by 2020 in three stages. SAARC is to become a free trade area by 2008 with the free trade provisions coming into effect for its least developed members by 2010. A Regional Investment Agreement is to be concluded prior to this. This is to be followed by the establishment of a customs union in 2015, before an economic union is set up in 2020. In the meantime, the countries of the subcontinent will adopt a social charter incorporating social welfare targets in population stabilisation, universal primary education, empowerment of women and nutrition and protection of children. A former Foreign Secretary, Mr Muchkund Dubey played the key role in finalising this vision report. New Delhi should even now indicate that it is prepared to commence discussions at the official level to implement the provisions of SAARC Vision 2000. In case Pakistan expresses reservations about moving in this direction as it has hitherto been doing on developing a SAARC Preferential Trade Agreement, we can conclude that it is really not serious about promoting regional economic cooperation. There is little point in holding annual regional summit meetings if all these efforts are meant to merely pave a road to nowhere. India and the other countries of the subcontinent like Sri Lanka, Nepal and Bangladesh are today showing signs of accelerating their economic growth and improving the human development indicators with rates of economic growth varying between 5% and 6.5% annually. Pakistan is, however, fast proceeding in the opposite direction. Pakistan is today the sick man of South Asia. This trend is going to continue, especially if our western neighbour continues to mismanage its financial priorities and remains rooted in its advocacy of “jehad”. While calls to “revive” SAARC are laudable, the hard reality remains that even as we attempt to do so, we must realistically promote alternative options also. —
The writer is India’s former High Commissioner to Pakistan. |
Food for
thought MOTHERS face a peculiar problem! No, it is not the studies of their children or their unit tests or the generation gap this time. It is not even finding a suitable tutor or the right tuition group for their children. Nor it has anything to do with the children’s obsession with the cable TV, the computer or the idiot box. What drives them to their wits’ end is —- what to provide the children in their tiffin boxes, which they find not only palatable but also takes care of their hunger pangs and yet provide them the required nutrition. It is certainly a tall order for the mothers! Vipin, Vinita’s school-going tiny-tot, refuses to carry a “parantha” or a plain sandwich in his lunch-box. He doesn’t like it, it gets cold and his friends get far more trendy stuff in their lunch-boxes. He constantly pesters his mother to give him some money so that he could buy things of his own choice. “What kind of eatables you buy with the money,” his mother asked him one day. “Why, mama, we get lots of “Cheetos”, “fun-flips”, “Uncle Chips”, hot-dogs and even ice-cream from the vendors,” answered Vipin with an innocent grin on his face. “Oh God! now I know why you get your throat infections so frequently...” retorted his mom in despair. With the fast-food trends having picked up at a rapid pace during the last decade, a tremendous change in the food habits of the school-going children has come to the fore. Gone are the “aloo-paranthas”, “puri-chhole”, “dal-vadas” or the all time favourite “kheer” or “halwa” and in come the two minute Maggie noodles or the all bland macaroni, chunks of pizzas or hamburgers or monster-munches and what not? The fast-food bug has caught up in a big way with the tinytots and the nutrition caution has been thrown to the winds. The glut of readymade food-items in the market, be it the “pure-magic” range of biscuits, buns, cakes, doughtnuts, umpteen kinds of crisps and chips, ready-to-eat pizzas or muffins add to the mother’s woes and have forced her to sit back and have a fresh look at the contents of their tiffin-boxes. “The ‘aloo’ or ‘gobhi-prantha’ with ‘aam ka achaar’ is too oily and tastes ‘yuck’ when cold,” say the children disapprovingly. The veg etable sandwich is an all time favourite with chutney but it gets soggy after a while and can be boring when taken frequently. Also, you can’t be sure of the quality of bread since the shelf life is never indicated on its wrapper in the Indian market. “Dals” and curry-vegetables are always troublesome to carry since these can land you in quite a mess. Fruits and salads are an ideal bet but they are hardly filling for the fast growing children and are best taken in the form of accessories to something solid. Chocolates and sugary sweets actually melt during the summer season. The extremes of Indian weather make the work of a mother all the more difficult and challenging. Many times children just refuse to carry their lunch-boxes just for saving themselves the trouble of carrying it along. Research has proved that a sumptuous breakfast goes a long way in keeping the mind alert and the body agile during the daytime and is, therefore, imperative for the young growing children. What happens in practice is quite the contrary. At best, they gulp down a glass of milk and there is no time for eating in the mornings. This further calls for a healthy tiffin-box. Perhaps, the time is ripe for a commission or a committee to be set up so that it can sit together along with the dieticians and experts from the home-science colleges and come out with their recommendations regarding the tiffin-box contents for the school-going children as well as for the parents. In fact, the school authorities, in unison with the parents, should prepare a well-structured menu. A balanced approach and a well-researched effort, on their part, would indeed go a long way in keeping our “hopes of the nation” healthy, energetic and yet bubbling with energy. Dieticians, health freaks, here is some food for thought for you! |
The Self and the
other The Self in its generalised form means aggregation or configuration of soul, mind and body, with different thinkers singling out, or giving priority to, one or the other constituent of selfhood. Plato identified the Self with soul, while Descartes took it as the "thinking I". Some philosophers envision the Self, as a substratum, a container, of the physiological faculties and processes. There are some other theorists for whom the Self is stream-like consciousness with no underlying thread or principle of continuity. However, almost all of the philosophers, particularly since the 17th century in the west, differentiate the (determining) Self from the (determined) Other. They not only trace back the dilemma of the human condition, but also the origin of the social, economic, political and cultural problems of society to the chronic contradiction between the Self and the Other. Religion also has been grappling with this contradiction. By definition, all that is not Self, non-Self, is deemed as the Other - the unknown, the unknowable. The fear of the unknown and the awe of the unknowable conditions the response of the Self towards the Other; the self when unable to fraternise, overcome, or sublimate the Other, tends to demonise it. On spiritual level, the Devil, the Satan, the Asur, is posited as the Other: the opposite of God. On sociological level this tendency takes many forms, depending upon the variables of time and space: The Philistines of the Old Testament narratives; the Jew in Nazi Germany; the bourgeois in communist utopia; the real or imagined enemy across the border; the Kafir in religio-political Islam; the malechha in Hindu caste system and the manmukh in Sikh ethics - these are some of the forms of the Other who are to be wiped out! In this encounter between the Self and the Other, the paradox lies in the point that the Self for its self-determined identity requires the Other, for the very idea of identity means identity in relation to something other than itself. The paradox in life, in a sense, begins (as medical science tells us) when a three-month old infant for the first time starts recognising his mother and other immediate members of the family as distinct from other persons; implicit in this nebulous perception of distinctness is also the diffuse distinctiveness of his own being. From here originates the dialectical relationship between the Self and the Other that persists throughout one's life and spills over to societal levels. Once the infant nebulously perceives this two-layered distinctiveness, he also seeks a bond with his mother and other immediate members of the family, whom he starts recognising as his own different from the other. Conkceptualising this dialectical phenomenon, we can say that the self on he one hand posits its identity in differentiation from the Other, and on the other hand, seeks re-bonding with that from which it has separated itself off initially. The Self, as an object, sets itself apart from the Other so as to re-relate itself as subject with the latter. How the Self re-relates itself with the Other — in diverse, contradictory forms — has been the perennial problem of man and society, both on subjective and objective levels. Overwhelmed by the merciless forces and elements of nature, man (the self) propitiates them (the Other) in different forms of nature worship; the next step in this direction is the deification of the elements of nature. The deified elements of nature-Indradevta, Varunadevta, etc. — are gradually subsumed under an absolute category: God as the supreme Deity, the Other of which, obstinately, re-appears, as mentioned above, qua the Devil, the Satan, the Asur. On actual, practical religious level, the community of the faith-followers draws a line between the insiders and the outsiders. The outsiders are then sought to be brought onto the Self-poclaimed righteous path to God through preaching, persuasion, inducement, allurement or coercion. The non-conformists — the Other — are, then, condemned to hell in the other world and to the ghetto in this world. On psychological level, the Self (the Freudian ego) suppresses the norm-breaking libidinal impulses, as the Other, necessitating their suppression. The repressed Other subsisting in the subconscious and unconscious layers of mind gets either sublimated expression in creativity (sensuous Ajanta paintings; almost nude uakshis-females-figures-excavated at Sanghol near Chandigarh; sexual imagery of some bivalent stands of Bhakti poetry), or de-sublimated manifestation in pathological states of personality. This tendency, on sociological level, takes the form of homogenisation of the Other — the minorities, ethnic communities, trebles, etc., — treated as being outside the majoritarian manistream to the extent to which such sub-totalities seek to preserve their identities, their differential lifestyles and values. This phenomenon is, in a sense, a case of the polarity of the Self and the Other inherent in the Kantian dualism of the transcendental ego and the things-in-themselves. The Kantian Self, in the sense of transcendental ego, super-imposes its inherent, innate structures on the things-in-themselves. This is how we get the structured, mediated, forms of experience of the world. In a goggles-like manner that colour what is viewed, the Self, in imposing itself structures on the reality-in-itself, determines the Other. The Kantian Self incarnates itself on political level in the form of modern nation-state which seeks to determine, to structure, to homogenise the Other — the sub-totalities. In brief, what starts as an infant's perception of recognition gradually takes the form of a distinction between the Self and the Other, changing into differentiation which, when not accepted, invite intolerance and hostility; suppression and annihilation. But a turning point seems to have arrived in postmodernist thought. It is being realised that when the Self can be constituted only under the condition of difference and differentiation, then, the Other is necessary for the very being of the former. The dialectical (contradictory) relationship gives way to reflexive (mutually conditioning) relationship. This new relationship accords respectability, legitimacy and autonomy to the hitherto considered Other — the minorities, ethnicities etc. Autonomy of particularity and heteronomy of societal totality seem to be emerging as the basis of the third millennium civilisation. But the homogenizing trends inherent in globalisation seem to be bringing in, form the backdoor, the old polarity of the determining Self (the consumers under the illusion of being the choosers, the King); the new polarity is more complex, more dangerous. So between the Self and the Other who would have the laugh? |
Tamil leaders turn to
God CHENNAI: With Assembly elections due in three months, the top rivals in Tamil politics, Chief Minister Muthuvel Karunanidhi of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) and former Chief Minister J. Jayalalitha of the All-India Anna DMK (AIADMK) are turning to the Gods. Jayalalitha last week took a list of her party’s candidates to the Kamakshi temple nearby to seek divine sanction. Karunanidhi, whose DMK’s guiding philosophy has always been rationalism, is highlighting how even the late C. Annadurai, the state’s first Chief Minister, accepted the existence of God. Karunanidhi went so far as to “confess” at a wedding on Sunday that he could well have turned out a leftist if “leaders like Anna (Annadurai) were not born in Tamil Nadu.” He, however, hastily added he would have been a “practicing communist” like Karl Marx and Lenin and “not like today’s Communists.” With religious affairs such as the Ayodhya dispute increasingly dominating national politics, the two rival politicians are making their “godly” moves with a view to ingratiating themselves with the various smaller parties that need to align with one of the two if they are to make an electoral impact this summer. At the same time, Karunanidhi has taken to calling the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) that rules the Centre and of which the DMK is a partner, as “Secular”, while he finds Congress Party president Sonia Gandhi to be communal because she took a dip at Allahabad during the Kumbh mela. By the same token, he holds Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee to be “non-communal” as he did not travel to Allahabad for the holy dip. Jayalalitha’s religious forays have seen her go, besides the Kamakshi temple, to Mysore where she offered prayers at the Chamundeswari temple. Her friend and party functionary N. Sasikala is believed to have conferred with Sankaracharya of Kancheepuram and sought his blessing for the AIADMK candidates. — India Abroad News Service |
| Punjab | Haryana | Jammu & Kashmir | Himachal Pradesh | Regional Briefs | Nation | Editorial | | Business | Sport | World | Mailbag | In Spotlight | Chandigarh Tribune | Ludhiana Tribune 50 years of Independence | Tercentenary Celebrations | | 121 Years of Trust | Calendar | Weather | Archive | Subscribe | Suggestion | E-mail | |