& 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

Has South Asian political climate worsened much of late?
CERTAIN developments in the South Asian region in recent times has given rise to speculations whether the overall political climate has worsened causing some irritation in the area where the situation was broadly healthy in the preceding year. The postponement of the scheduled 13th summit of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) for the second time and developments in Nepal marking the dismissal of an elected government definitely caused fissures in the region. Consequently, the political climate in the region is coming in for fresh review with many veering towards the opinion that the climate has deteriorated of late. And they also tend to believe that this may inexorably slide towards further worsening, albeit not seriously. However, it does not seem logical that the situation has nose dived even though signs of some rupture are discernible.
But it was not like that when the new year had stepped in following a year that was largely trouble free for the South Asia. Although a catastrophic tsunami badly struck several countries at the fag end of the 2004 leading to the postponement
of the much-awaited 13th summit meeting of the seven-nation SAARC for the first time, last year had been remarkably peaceful for South Asia. When viewed in the context of perennial political tensions which is undoubtedly the hallmark of the region mainly because of enmity and rivalry of two principal players of the regional spectrum India and Pakistan, the year 2004 was a phase of reconciliation and rapprochement that had impacted positively on the overall political climate of the most densely
and one of the most tension-ridden areas of the world.
Indo-Pak ties took a qualitative change for the betterment from the beginning of the last year and the process continued for the entire year with commendable gestures from both sides in the pursuit of good neighbourliness as well as promoting a positive ambience in the region. While the smaller nations of the area generally spare no effort towards improvement of the overall situation in the South Asia, there is hardly any denying that the positive or negative conditions are largely contingent upon the attitude and policy of two major countries whose hostile relations
fortunately took a back seat throughout the last year and augured well in the new year. The relatively and reasonably good New Delhi-Islamabad bilateral ties had cast a sobering effect in the region that also helped the regional forum SAARC to proceed with its normal activities of collective cooperation including preparation for staging the 13th SAARC summit at the beginning of the new year.
But the scenario changed quickly surrounding the second postponement of the summit in Dhaka as India expressed its unwillingness to
attend just on the eve of the event citing the sacking of democratic government in Nepal by king Gayenandra and security situation in Bangladesh. Deferment of the event expectedly brought sharp reactions from the host, which made elaborate arrangements for the summit. It felt the first postponement was for genuine reason, but the second one was for man-made crisis. The issue came in for varying degrees of interpretations.
Nepal's developments represented a grave blow to democracy and India as world's largest democracy responded in the manner in line with expectation. However, whether such developments really war-
ranted postponement of the SAARC summit remains a big question. The free press in India by and large was critical of the decision of New Delhi on this issue. Certain questions came up like -- did Rajiv Gandhi not attend the first SAARC summit in Dhaka in 1985 when Pakistan was under a military dictator and the head of the government of the host nation was also perceived by many as not a democratic leader? India later scaled down the security situation in Bangladesh as a reason for prime minister Dr. Manmohan
Singh's inability to attend the event concentrating more on Nepal developments. Certainly everything was not normal in Bangladesh following the heinous killing of S.A.M.S. Kibria, the former finance minister, who was also internationally well known. Then again whether New Delhi maintained the diplomatic norms and niceties in conveying the decision to the host also raised some debates. The sentiments of the host were not probably taken into consideration in this regard. Anyway, there is no need for either much despondency or glee in the postponement of the summit. This is nothing uncommon in SAARC history. Twelve summits in 20 years
speak for the record while the event is supposed to be an annual one.
Earlier, SAARC summits had to be postponed for long time owing to the political differences of India and Pakistan. The 11th summit scheduled for Katmandu saw an unusual delay for more than a year as two traditional foes stood on the brink of a war and the summit was made possible only after the decks were cleared following assiduous efforts. Then once again, the last summit in Islamabad was a victim of the same problem as the event was subjected to long delay. Indo-Pak bilateral ties
were inextricably linked with the holding of the summit and finally it was held after improvement of their relations.
The developments relating to the New Delhi-Katmandu ties centering Nepal situation or for that matter Indo-Bangladesh relations stemming from the postponement of the 13th SAARC summit or the reactions caused in other countries including the current chairperson of the SAARC have not worsened the overall climate too badly although there is no denying that the impact was momentarily something not to relish about. True, the dust raised by these developments are yet to fully settle down, but indications are also
there that all countries of the region are willing to put the recent unhappy experience behind and new dates are being explored for the SAARC summit. New Delhi itself is understood to be keen for a new time schedule and this reflects the commitment towards the SAARC even in the midst of differences otherwise. The cynics of the SAARC should nurture not too negative illusion since the regional forum's march is irreversible no matter whatever the progress made by the forum in last two decades.
There is hardly any alternative to SAARC and the achievements are not meaningless given the resource constraint and political problems in South Asia. After all, SAARC cannot roll back and summits are destined to take place and the next one cannot be too far off. However, a convenient time for all the seven countries is not very easy since they have domestic and international commitments. Interactions between the member states are certainly continuing like Indian external affairs minister K. Natwar Singh paying a visit to Pakistan. Misunderstandings and problems are not unusual but must not be allowed to come in the way of larger interests. Goodwill and a sense of understanding must be brought into play as far as possible even under adverse situations for collective good in a region where a vast segment of people still live under abject poverty. Collective efforts for socioeconomic progress in the region must not lag behind because of trouble and misunderstanding that are not uncommon features governing the relations among nations in South Asia.
Zaglul Ahmed Chowdhury is a senior journalist.