& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

Stalled summit, dashed hopes

Brig Gen SHAHEDUL ANAM KHAN ndc, psc (Retd)
BANGLADESH cannot be blamed for feeling upset about the postponement of the much- looked-forward-to annual summit of Saarc; twice postponed, this time it was not because of any act of God, but of man. Having felt that the developments in the neighbourhood was not conducive to holding the annual summit, the Indian Prime Minister preferred to stay away from the planned head of state and government meeting of the regional body. This is not the first time that a Saarc summit has been postponed, if that is any comfort. Interestingly, the previous postponements have had to do, in most cases, with India's reluctance or inability to attend. The last time a Saarc summit in Dhaka was postponed was in 1992, following the demolition of the Babri Masjid.
Apart from the preparations that went into the arrangements, including security, going to waste, the hopes of the people have also been frustrated. Bangladesh's association with Saarc is more than just a symbiotic link. Our affiliation is deep, not least because of the
stellar role that Bangladesh had played in its gestation and birth as well as its commitment, expressed and implied, to see that Saarc becomes an effective and viable instrument of collective self-reliance. The very last moment postponement was an unexpected and exasperating development for Bangladesh.
It was the nation that was the host of the 13rh Saarc summit, not any particular party or a government. Turning it down is a slight to the nation and we have the right to feel let down.
Regrettably, Saarc's progress has been everything but consistent. The motivations behind a regional set-up were initially seen as less than pious by some of its members, and the tremendous centrifugal force that acted on it, because of the Indo-Pak animus, reflected on the institution and manifested itself through the utter lack of progress on the substantive issues on which there was woeful lack of action.
Bangladesh had attached special significance to the 13th Saarc summit, which was going to be held on the cusp of the third decade of its existence. Not only did the aborted summit coincide with the 20th anniversary of Saarc, the fact that Bangladesh would have been the first country to host three summits "and thus start a new cycle" according to
the Bangladesh Foreign Minister, is also a matter that Bangladesh could rightly feel proud of. But that was not to be, at least not just yet.
What needs to be stressed upon is the fact that the 13th summit in some ways would have stood apart from the previous ones. Its focus was to be more on the follow-up to the decisions of the recent summits as well as implementation and progress of various programmes and decisions that were conceptualised and taken in hand by various committees of the regional body, rather than on new issues. One has no reason to doubt the Bangladesh Foreign Minster's comments that, "The 13th summit would be a summit of working out ways for implementations of the Saarc decisions, instead of making mere declarations. It would really be a businesslike summit."
We have no idea what the draft agenda looked like since the summit was called off when the Standing Committee was into its final stages of deliberation and before it could be formally presented to the Council of Ministers. But going by various reports one can visualise that issues with topicality were to be brought under the ambit of the summit discussions. Of particular mention are tsunami and disaster management as
well as tackling of terrorism. The most import issue of poverty alleviation was also high on the agenda while the issue of water resources was slated for serious discussion. The Saarc members -- Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, the Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka -- were also to sign four different conventions on customs, double taxation, investment, and arbitration during the 13th summit to facilitate the implementation of Safta.
Thus, the postponement of the summit means a setback to many of the programmes that are in their initial stages of operation and many that are waiting to be taken in hand.
One is thus compelled to delve into India's pretext for deciding to stay away from what might have been a landmark summit. While many commentators have bared India's underlying motivations to stay away from the summit we shall comment only on what was said by its officials. According to the Indian Foreign Secretary, "The summit has to take place in a conducive political and security environment. If you have the kind of environment…which prevails today, we genuinely believe desired outcomes are not possible. So we should wait until the time is propitious to have such an important and significant summit."
The perception of threats, of the destabilising events and of propitious times, are matters guided much on subjective considerations and one cannot, therefore, question the compulsions that predicate the diplomatic decisions of a country. But one can certainly analyse the ground realities that are supposed to have influenced the decision.
Surely, the recent political change in Nepal does not bode well for democracy in the kingdom. But that is a matter for the Nepalese and the Nepalese alone to address and sort out. While one may take umbrage at what has happened there, one fails to see the security slant that India has attempted, unconvincingly, it must be said, to attach to the developments in the Himalayan Kingdom. The Indian assertion that the summit would have been adversely affected by the developments in Nepal is hard to comprehend. Given the political complexity of the region and the constant state of ferment that it is in, it is more likely that summits in the region cannot be held at all, if the Indian condition of "conducive political and security environment" remains the deciding criterion.
The dastardly killing of Mr. Kibria and the situation that followed in Bangladesh had also much to do with India's decision,
but the gravity of the events as viewed by the Indians was again a matter of perception. No doubt the recent developments could be construed as disturbing, but these are in no way worse than what some previous Saarc summits were held under. The assurances of the host should have been enough to assuage any misapprehension of the Indian policy makers. It is regrettable that that was not the case. India, in the same breath, while citing the situation in Nepal and the "deteriorating law and order situation in Dhaka," has suggested determining an appropriate date for rescheduling the summit, and that is what begs the question. Since feeling of insecurity is a subjective proposition one wonders what the definition of "propitious" might be in the context of India's apprehension, and what would be the determinants of a, "conducive political and security environment."
Given the disposition of various states of Saarc, one also wonders whether others may not resort to the same arguments and employ those that India has, as a ploy in future to stay away from a summit. After all, so far eight summits have not been held or cancelled.
While Bangladesh has been hard done by due to the stalled summit, what is even worse is that Saarc has suffered and hopes have been dashed -though temporarily only, one hopes. The author is Editor, Defense and Strategic Affairs, The Daily Star.