& 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

Civil society and confidence building measures in South Asia
CIVIL society groups started to emerge after the First World War. The emergence stemmed from the awareness that politicians were sometimes unable to address issues because of perceived inflexible national positions related to notions of sovereignty. This led to different groups of intellectuals in the UK, in France, and in some cities of the former Austria-Hungarian Empire, coming together, and voicing their opinion against existing inequities and the need for reform.
The Second World War had a greater impact on world opinion, particularly in Europe and the US. The persecution of the Jews, their eventual genocide, and the utter destruction that took place in Europe and the Far East convinced many leading politicians and retired civil servants that there was need for supplementing inter-governmental action in the new era of peace.
It was, however, only in the sixties, when the Cold War was at its peak, that many realised that reduction of tension was vital, and several core issues had to be addressed. These related to fundamental rights, the right to migrate from countries where citizens were facing discrimination and persecution (Jews in the Soviet Union), and the right of workers with regard to privileges other
than just their salaries. In most cases, efforts with regard to these issues were funded covertly by some agencies in different governments.
It was, however, the late seventies and the early eighties that saw the true emergence of civil society as we know it today. It was also the period when groups and associations outside the government started to associate themselves with different facets of the socioeconomic matrix. This led to their
involvement in areas like poverty alleviation and then poverty reduction. Some also got associated in extending healthcare facilities and credit opportunities to the rural sectors in the developing countries. There were others who were at the forefront of informal education and spread of functional literacy.
By the end of the eighties, this involvement of civil society had spread to areas like international trade, gender empowerment, climate and environment, water management, rural employment, and rehabilitation of persons suffering from various forms of medical problems.
With the nineties, came their association with different factors related to governance. This led to some monitoring corruption and the process of elections, and others, the maintenance of rule of law.
It is, however, this decade, that has seen their gradual involvement
in Track-2 diplomatic efforts to raise the consciousness level about the desirability of peace and sustainable development. They have started playing an indirect inter-active role in the maintenance of international peace and security. They are trying to facilitate international trade, ecommerce, and freer transfer of resources.
In this context, civil society representation has been very involved within Nafta, the EU, the African Union, the OAS, and also within
Asean. Unfortunately, this has not been so within Saarc in South Asia.
South Asia faces several problems. Decades of suspicion, open conflicts, and charges of assisted cross-border terrorism have complicated the situation. This has been reflected in the quality of inter-state relations between Pakistan and India, India and Bangladesh, India and Sri Lanka, and also India and Nepal.
The creation of Saarc was a welcome step. It proposed cooperation in various socio-economic areas, but most unfortunately adopted an ostrich syndrome with regard to political issues. This in turn impacted on its effectiveness. The continued charges and countercharges between Pakistan and India, to a large extent, also affected political will. Bureaucratic inflexibility and perceived power differentials have also not helped. In the recent past there have been some efforts to
reduce tension through dialogue at the government level, but that has been limited in scope and content.
The scenario has however not been so bad within the different civil society groups in South Asia. They have been in touch with each other for the last two decades in more ways than one. They have essentially been involved in common efforts towards poverty reduction, ensuring better healthcare, water management, safeguarding the environment, informal education,
fight against human trafficking, creating awareness about Aids and other sexually transmitted diseases. Some in particular have also intensively discussed and shared their experiences in micro-credit extension.
These Track-2 efforts, also termed as soft power, have taken on the difficult task of dialogue and the implementation of measures that can generate confidence among different States in South Asia.
This has however not been very easy for them. Civil society groups within South Asia are generally resource poor and indirectly have to rely for funding either on national governments or on other donor agencies of countries who are interested in maintaining a peaceful South Asia.
It would be worthwhile to note here that most of those involved in this sort of activity are leading economists, educationists, journalists,
and former senior civil servants who have in the past been actively associated in formulation of policy. They also have a large number of sociometric contacts within the existing political structure of South Asia and abroad. It is this nexus which enables them to address issues of substance, advocate steps and measures, and recommend action to resolve problems. Their direct involvement also lends credibility to any inter-active paradigm and also generates resources from diverse
sources.
Lately, their indirect efforts have resulted in the re-starting of sporting activities between Pakistan and India, relaxation in the issue of visas not only for ordinary tourists but also for journalists, revived trade and encouraged talks about investment in related economic activity.
Other civil society groups are also playing an important role in identifying least common denominators in cultural values, tourist potential, and shared needs pertaining to energy and trade issues. These are acting like small stepping stones towards a broader area of convergence.
Some civil society representatives have also been associated in generating pressure and initiating dialogue in sensitive areas like multi-state water sharing and refraining from unilateral withdrawal of water by upper riparian states. These are positive inputs. Civil society representatives from Nepal,
Bhutan, Bangladesh, and India have all played constructive roles in this regard.
I believe that there is not only scope for expanding the areas of their engagement, but that all South Asian governments should also assist them through availability of resources. These civil society groups can then take more positive steps and contribute constructively in areas like the control of trade in drugs, reducing of human trafficking, cross-border smuggling and money laundering, encouraging greater interaction among journalists and intellectuals by arranging for their articles to be published in other South Asian journals, and exchange of television programmes among different South Asian states.
They can also play a significant role with regard to greater technical cooperation in genetic engineering, bio-molecular and pharmaceutical research, software and hardware development related to information technology, agreeing on a common standard with regard to educational certification, carrying out studies to ascertain the feasibility of transborder employment opportunities, and in eventually coming to an agreement to introduce a common currency for South Asia.
We have to be bold and remember that we have little to lose -- other than our own mental shackles and prejudices. Such steps, I believe, will also greatly contribute towards confidence building and consolidation of security in South Asia.
Muhammad Zamir is a former Secretary and Ambassador. Any response to mzamir@dhaka.net