From Hindukush and Karakorum to Anamudi and Cardamom hills, Girnar and Kalsubai to Mishmi and Lushai hills, and many more in between, the region contains vast swathes of geography: Stunning mountains, glaciers, mighty rivers, tough deserts and dense jungles. Ancient than Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro civilisation, it is the birthplace of Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism. With over 30 major ethnicities, languages and cultures, it houses nearly two billion of the planet's population (and a large number of youth).
For many millennia rulers of different hues had tried to bring this diversity under a unified homogeneity or identity. They mostly failed. From the ancient Hindu kingdoms such as the Maurya Empire around 300 BC to the most recently left British Raj, all tried to unify the region albeit to exploit the vast riches it offered, which in itself has transitioned from spice, grain, indigo, jute, mineral, silk, cotton, tea to present day labour -- skilled or otherwise.
For eons it has been ruled by a diverse group of chieftains, kings or tribal leaders. It remains as divided as its languages and cuisines. And whoever -- ancient Hindu emperors, medieval Muslim Mughals or the colonial Raj -- tried the confederacy, albeit for administrative ease, had done so by inflicting unfathomable human costs.
What then is common about South Asian nations today? And is there a yearning for regional cooperation or peaceful coexistence? Or, is it a mere imagination of the diaspora and/or privileged elites? For its nations are in intermittent conflicts and wars of words.
Sure, there may have been wishes and thoughts of missed opportunities for not being a single nation (or an economic block), and sporadic corporations in arts, culture and sporting festivals. Generations of Bollywood actors or iconic cricketers have enjoyed avid followings across the region and among South Asian diaspora everywhere, and there have been some joint arts and sporting projects (eg the Cricket World Cups).
Yet, differences, especially in religion, culture, language and ethnicity remain far too great. Even within the big penumbra that is India today administrators toil and have toiled very hard to provide a collective sense of being by drawing many boundaries, within, since 1947 for groups of people and providing autonomy in a federated system, to hold a nationhood. For at the time of the partition there were over 500 kingdoms or so called ‘princely states’ which in the course of history have been cajoled or forced to join India. Past mishaps and momentary indecisions of Hindu kings in Muslim majority regions (and vice versa) continue to cause fissures.
The South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation[1] or SAARC initiated in 1985, continued for a while, now seems to run out of steam. Last summit of leaders took place nearly a decade ago in 2014. The organisation, of course, is not completely dead, rather, the idea is indeed alive with efforts continuing in many other forms such as the university and research centre at New Delhi. Headquartered in Kathmandu, it keeps efforts of regional cooperation ticking and governments engaged.
Inevitably some dominate over others. Two big nations -- India and Pakistan -- have struggled to build trust that is a prerequisite to have a harmonious neighbourly coexistence, specially to have a functional cooperation and regional union.
Not for its won't though there have been leaders, activists and general public who preferred to have a cooperative coexistence that would promote people to people engagement, interactions in trade, increased exchange in culture, sports, arts and education which would benefit all involved.
However, as politicians' hyperboles testify, religion remains important. The three-way partition, barely 70 odd years ago, based on religion, when many had to endure unbearable separation from their birthplace, recoils some till today. The bitterness and antagonism have passed to generations including the youth.
Politics and political development are central to cooperation between states. As they shape the national strategies, in particular, dealings with foreign countries. With strong economic growth and a surge in nationalism India dominates agendas at present. It has shrugged off tolerant and secular approaches of its founding fathers of the last century. As it enjoys global clout and consistent economic growth, it is more assertive. Under the popular Bharatiya Janata Party, in government for a decade, a strong sense of Indian supremacy has taken hold. This sense, while recent, is popular and backed by a large proportion of the Indian electorates, including the wealthy and the educated middle class. South Asian regional cooperation – at least, in equal terms -- is not at the top of its agenda. Instead, it seems to have been competing with other global powers to force its interests in the neighbourhood.
Another consideration -- which is common in any associations, be it a professional peak body or an economic union -- is how enthusiastic are smaller nations? How many Bangladeshis, Srilankans or Nepalese now feel positively being in such clubs dominated by the big two nations?
Perhaps it is pertinent to understand the urge of unification, if any, or loss of separation in severed regions: Bengal and Punjab. While not qualified to make any observations on Punjab on either side of the border, I could probably make a few about Bengal.
As a member of the third generation post-partitioned Bengali, we on the eastern side, heard of bias and discrimination faced by eastern Muslims, mostly peasants who had been unaccepting of the British rules and customs which were apparently adopted by Hindus, in erstwhile unified Bengal. The establishment of Calcutta as the centre of the administration perhaps provided opportunities more to the west-Bengalis too. The fact is long before the actual partition, Bengal was divided in 1905 due to this acrimonious disunity.
Quizzically, I consider this as a cycle repeating itself. Rulers’ religions and cultures in effect, taking hold of places and leaving population without much choice other than to acquiesce and obey. So very broadly, Hindus ceded to Moghuls who then ceded to the Raj.
Take an example of a region that I am slightly familiar with. Even if we consider only snippets from last few centuries and observe at certain points (1600, 1900, 1950 and post 2000) as William Van Schendal have done, for Chittagong, the port city of today’s Bangladesh, it reveals that history makes places. Just by being a long-standing trading post it has accommodated foreigners as disparate as Portuguese (Christians) and Arabs (Muslims). The region had been under Arakan (Buddhist) kings and Hindu inhabitants. At various points the populations must have had to communicate in diverse languages and dialects: Persians, Portuguese, Arabic, Arakanese and Bengali culminating in present day’s Chittagonian, a dialect, spoken in the region which must have been spoken by locals for a long while. In spite of this significant diverse past, today Bengali Muslims are predominant there with little rooms for minorities.
Think also about the neighbouring Arakan (or now Rakhine) state. A place with a long history of people from Chittagong interacting and inhabiting for trades and livelihoods, and in course of recent history has been separated since emergence of the East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) in 1947, leaving a relatively small minority in the erstwhile Burma (now Myanmar). These left-alones are now known as Rohingya whom neither Bangladesh nor Burma accept as their own citizens, suffering as one of the most persecuted ethnic groups. Rohingyas share a common religion and perhaps some culinary and linguistic commonality with present day Chittagonians, yet there are many historical reasons why they are not formally being accepted as citizens of either place. The plight of estranged post-partitioned Biharis in Bangladesh who have been gradually accepted are known.
In short, the post-colonial world has been messy and failed to provide people a sense of harmonious or peaceful belongings. Further compounded by current waves of strong nationalism and ideological firm believes that a place belongs to certain groups of people, culture, ethnicity and religion.
What then would be an ideal South Asian dream? It is to be in peace and harmony, by accepting each other’s faults and follies -- historical and emerging, to understand each other’s perspectives without bias or as little bias as humanly possible and to try utmost that horrific events of history do not repeat, and that future generations do not grow up with acrimonious attitudes. Those have been the approaches of friendship gestures undertaken by celebrities in arts and sports from the region.
Elections in Bangladesh and Pakistan have settled with predictable outcomes. India, supposedly in the world's largest democratic exercise, provided a warning of sorts to the incumbent government and perhaps to its religion centric nationalism. With electorates, mostly the less privileged portions, putting conditions of living, vast unemployment and lack of inclusive growth back into the agenda.
But this is not an analysis of Indian elections or politics. Far better analysis are widely available elsewhere. Rather, this is a conjecture on what such ruthless leadership would endow as it is expected to continue for a little longer, with possibilities of secular and tolerant approaches receding and lacking popular support what chances supposedly peace lovers would have?
I guess peace mongers would have little choice other than doubling down. Notwithstanding, the history and ills of post-partition eras they would need to keep up the hope that the troubled past can be forgotten and harmony based on tolerance and trust can be developed. If not immediately, perhaps gradually in the next few generations when acrimony may subside. As progression of this mordancy would bode further ills.
They would need to continue to highlight common challenges: For example, massive youth unemployment, failing to create sustainable jobs for the growing population, and economic and social wellbeing. To fight growing rifts between well offs and the rest which is growing, alarmingly, with the growth barely tickling to the middle class and not so much to the poor, and fighting other challenges collectively such as adverse effects of climate change.
Their efforts would counter popular perceptions that authoritarian rules hasten economic development, as experienced by South East Asia. They should emphasise that it is a fallacy; would argue many disadvantages of authoritarian tendencies; and that keys to so called development success are well established: sound policies providing educational and economic opportunities, bold political leadership ensuring fair and just systems for all.
South Asia still has a large portion of underprivileged and poor. A large number of its population is engaged in the informal economy and does not have access to reasonable education, reliable health facilities or solid plans for sustainable employment opportunities. The governments have very low tax bases and there are huge challenges in collecting such taxes.
Rulers change places. Subjects submit. The arbitrary Redcliff lines, though unjust in many fronts, lasted till now and will likely prevail for the foreseeable future. The peace mongers have their work cut-out, if nothing else, to keep on educating a vast number of regions youth, living within and outside in the South Asian diaspora, on its troubled past and to keep projecting a tolerant future. As no one else would likely stand against these history defining popular waves.
Irfan Chowdhury is an opinion columnist.
