PRC Journal No. 9 India and South Asia
41
INDIA AND SOUTH ASIA Kazi Anwarul Masud former Secretary and Ambassador of Bangladesh
A career diplomat Kazi Anwarul Masud served as Bangladesh ambassador in Germany, Vietnam, Republic of Korea and Thailand. During his over three decades of diplomatic career he served in the Middle East, in Europe, in South East Asia and the Far East. At home he served as Director General and also as Additional Foreign Secretary. His expertise includes both foreign political and economic relations. A widely traveled person Ambassador Masud has written two books and also works as a columnist for an English language newspaper in Dhaka, Bangladesh. PROFILE: 1998-2001 Ambassador of Bangladesh Bonn/Berlin. Germany Promoted to the rank of Secretary to the Bangladesh government. 1996-98 Ambassador of Bangladesh Hanoi, Vietnam 1993-1996 Ministry of Foreign Affairs Director General (South East Asia & Africa) Additional Foreign Secretary (South Asia) 1989-93 Ambassador of Bangladesh Seoul, South Korea 1987 -1989 Ambassador of Bangladesh Bangkok Thailand and Permanent Representative to ESCAP 1967 –1968 Probationary Officer Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Islamabad, Pakistan 1966 -1967 Probationary Officer Foreign Service at the Civil Service Academy Lahore, Pakistan EDUCATION: MA. (Economics) 1964, Dhaka University Dhaka, Bangladesh FOREIGN TRAVELS : Traveled to USA, UK, Belgium, Holland Luxembourg, France, Germany, Switzerian4 Austria, Czechoslovakia, Russia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Morocco, Guinea, Senegal~ South Aft/ca, Pakistan, India, Hong Kong, Thailand, Singapore, and South Korea PERSONAL DETAILS : Date of Birth: 10 October1943 Nationality: Bangladeshi. Marital Status: Married Children: one daughter (married) and one son. Wife: Salma Masud PARTICIPATION IN INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCES : 1. Represented Bangladesh in all EEC- Bangladesh bilateral meetings during 1976¬1979. 2. Represented Bangladesh in Extra ¬ Ordinary meeting of Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers (ICFM) at Amman, Jordan in 1981.
FPRC Journal No. 9 India and South Asia
42
3. Represented Bangladesh in ICFM meeting at Fez, Morocco. 4. Represented Bangladesh in ICFM meeting at Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. 5. Represented Bangladesh at Al ¬ Quds meeting at Rabat, Morocco. 6. Represented Bangladesh Third Islamic Summit Conference at Taif Saudi Arabia in 1982. 7. Represented Bangladesh at Islamic Commission meeting at Conakry Guinea in 1982 8 Represented Bangladesh at ICFM meeting at Baghdad, Iraq. 9. Represented Bangladesh at Non¬ aligned Summit at New Delhi, India in 1983. 10. Represented Bangladesh at Joint Economic Commission meeting at New Delhi India. 11. Represented Bangladesh at Annual General meeting of ESCAP at Bangkok Thailand in 1987. 12. Represented Bangladesh at Annual General Meetings in ESCAP at Bangkok Thailand in 1988. 13. Elected Chairman, ESCAP Trade Commission meeting at ESCAP at Bangkok, Thailand in 1988. 14. Participated at Several Bangladesh Investment Forums at Seoul, South Korea Organized by Korea Trade Promotion Organization (KOTRA) in 1989-1993. 15. Elected President of the Assembly of International Center for Private Enterprises for 1998¬2000 in Slovenia. 16. Participated in Bangladesh Investors Forum at Hamburg in 2001, organized by German East Asia Business Forum. PUBLICATIONS: As a regular contributor to the English language news papers The Independent and The Daily Star, Indian on line think tank South Asia Analysis Group and Pakistan based Quaterly Criterion I had published several hundred articles mostly related to current international affairs. Additionally Bangladesh Journal of National and Foreign Affairs (vol. 4 No. 3. October 2003) published an article of mine titled Post-nine eleven Global Construct. Goethe-Instut published a book titled Dialogue versus Confrontation containing a 38 pages article by me in August 2007. I have published two books¬ ISSUES OF CONTEMPORARY POLITICS and BANGLADESH CRISIS. __________________________________________ INDIA AND SOUTH ASIA Why, one may ask, despite common cultural heritage and long bonds of history and added to these factors was Indian humanitarian intervention during the Bangladesh Liberation War Indo-Bangladesh relations, notwithstanding public diplomacy by the authorities of the two countries, are currently in rough waters. If one were to look for historical roots, proved faulty in 1971, one could try to trace Indo-Pak relations and the history of India since 7th century when Islam entered in the then India with the conquest of Sindh by Mohammed bin Quasem. Skipping the Muslim and British episodes of Indian history exploration of more recent events could be useful.
Indo-Pakistan differences were partly based on ideological difference between the two countries, one professing undying fealty to the Western bloc through SEATO, CENTO and other ties while the other earning the wrath of the US by attaching itself with the Non-Aligned Movement, compounded by religious basis of the partition of India in 1947. Some analysts (Sumit Ganguly & Manjeet Pardesai –Explaining sixty years of Indian foreign policy) have posited that India‟s post-independence policy makers under the leadership of Pandit Jawarharlal Nehru being acutely sensitive to the colonial legacy sought to keep
FPRC Journal No. 9 India and South Asia
43
India out of the ambit of Cold War rivalry. Besides they explained that “Pandit Nehru was acutely concerned about the opportunity cost of defense spending. Any involvement with the two emerging blocs would draw India into a titanic struggle and divert critical resources from economic development”. The disastrous border conflict with China in 1962 and the Bangladesh War of Liberation of 1971 brought India out of the incoherence of non-aligned foreign policy.Then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi signed a 20 years pact of “peace, friendship and cooperation” with the Soviet Union that resulted in several vetoes by the USSR in the UNSC against the Western sponsored draft resolutions calling for a political solution of the Bangladesh crisis when the entire world was being daily fed with the revolting news of genocide being perpetrated by the Pakistan occupation army on unarmed Bengali civilians in the then East Pakistan. Pratap Bhanu Mehta( Reluctant India-Journal of Democracy- October 2011) described Indian military actions of 1971 “widely and fairly regarded as one of the world‟s most successful cases of humanitarian intervention against genocide. Indeed India in effect applied what we would now call the responsibility to protect principle and applied it well”. The question arises as to why the US followed such an anti-Bangladesh policy during the Bangladesh crisis that was contrary to all fundamental precepts that had endeared the of American way of life to the entire world? It is believed that the driving factor was Henry Kissinger‟s policy of realism that put opening relations with China with Pakistani help having greater strategic value to the US national interest than coming to the aid of the persecuted civilians of then East Pakistan. Christopher Hitchens‟ indictment of Henry Kissinger in his book The Trial of Henry Kissinger mentions Kissinger‟s refusal in 1971 to condemn Pakistan‟s genocidal invasion of Bangladesh because Pakistan was a secret conduit for Nixon‟s secret diplomacy with China. Hitchens further accuses Kissinger of involvement in the overthrow of Salvador Allende in Chile in conjunction with General Pinochet, sabotaging 1968 Paris peace talks with North Vietnam thus extending the unwinnable war by four more years, secret and illegal carpet bombing of Laos and Cambodia, massacre of tens of thousands of Vietnamese civilians and needless sacrifice of 32000 additional American troops. In his defense Kissinger said : “The Vietnam War required us to emphasize the national interest rather than abstract principles. What President Nixon and I tried to do was unnatural. And that is why we didn't make it”. If not the trial Hitchens succeeded in dismantling Kissinger‟s efforts to build a Mount Rushmore image of himself to be remembered by the Americans. The US was also not convinced in the initial years of our independence of the extent of overwhelming Indian influence on Bangladesh and of the reality of our sovereignty. China was opposed because she regarded Bangladesh liberation war as a machination by India to break up Pakistan as was felt by Middle Eastern Arab Muslim countries. Bangladesh had to wait till Islamic countries‟ Summit at Lahore and Pakistani recognition of Bangladesh as a sovereign country for many others to follow.
After Pakistan‟s breakup consequent upon the liberation of Bangladesh India emerged as the leading power in South Asia and it has been most acutely felt by her immediate neighbors. The argument proffered that Indian intervention was not totally altruistic but to deal a death blow to its greatest enemy can be explained in terms of “realism” in that India was never so scrupulous in
FPRC Journal No. 9 India and South Asia
44
honoring the sovereignty of others when its vital interests were involved. Indian occupation of Kashmir( and that by Pakistan as well) on the basis of accession by Maharaja Hari Singh of Jammu and Kashmir, occupation of Goa, Daman and Diu that were Portuguese colonies, and the incorporation of Sikkim into India as a state are examples of Indian use of hard power in her neighborhood. But then it is the nature of both established and emerging powers to flex their muscles as the US has done since the enunciation of Monroe Doctrine. If diplomacy requires deceit and use of force or hard power as defined by Joseph Nye jr then India has been an able follower of Chanykka in her dealings with neighbors.
Disquiet in India‟s relations with Bangladesh began with the non-implementation of 1974 Mujib-Indira agreement that was further aggravated by the construction of Farakka Barrage turning a significant part of Bangladesh into a desert, affecting navigation, agriculture, environmental degradation, and hurting the livelihood of millions of people. Farakka‟s adverse effects have made a section of Bangladeshis suspicious of the proposed Tipaimukh Dam to be built on the river Barak in Manipur state of India. The proposed construction is controversial in both India and Bangladesh. Bangladeshi experts have said the massive dam will disrupt the seasonal rhythm of the river and have an adverse effect on downstream agriculture and fisheries. The government of Bangladesh decided to send an expert team to the Dam area to examine the features and likely impact of the dam on the flow of water into the Surma and the Kushiara. Another is the environmental factor. The Tipaimukh area lies in an ecologically sensitive and topographically fragile region. It falls under one of the most seismically volatile regions on the planet. Additionally huge imbalance in trade favoring India partly due to para- tariff and non-tariff barrier erected by India on exports from Bangladesh has been a thorn in bilateral relations. A recent study revealed that harsh testing requirement, complex harmonized code classification, inadequate infrastructure, and special labeling requirement are among major non-tariff barriers put up by India to thwart Bangladesh‟s export to that country. The report adds that Indian authorities impose mandatory testing requirements , additional technical regulations, and difficult banking norms. Additionally Indians also slap duties other than tariffs, restricting entry of Bangladeshi trucks into India. Inordinate delay by Indian port health authorities in releasing food consignments from Bangladesh seriously hamper export of food items from Bangladesh to India. Besides huge demand for Bangladeshi cement, steel products, electrical and electronic goods in North East India cannot be exported due to the requirement to comply with Indian bureau of Standard( BIS). It is also believed that Indian bureaucracy is reluctant to open Indian market to Bangladeshi products. Non-demarcation of maritime boundary with India that has been taken to arbitration by Bangladesh can lead to tension in our relations. The litany of irritants are endless as is usual between neighbors. The question facing Bangladesh authorities, irrespective of the fact whichever party remains in power, is whether Bangladesh can afford to follow an anti-India policy without thwarting its socio-economic development? Many will raise the issue of safeguarding of vital national interests at any cost. But then definition of “vital national interests” may vary among different sections of society as unfortunately cohesion of all political parties on vital domestic and foreign policies remain a far cry in Bangladesh. Unanimity remains on the question that
FPRC Journal No. 9 India and South Asia
45
economic development should be the guiding principle of governance and hence a cash strapped and resource poor countries like ours have to maintain an open economy and interact with as many countries of the world as possible.
Globalization in any case has forced even introvert nations to come out in the open. If the main driver of the Arab Spring has been securing citizens political rights the civilianization of reclusive Myanmar appears to be an admission that no nation in the globalized world can remain an island- be it one of plenty or underdeveloped. Changing nature of security threats from traditional to non-traditional ones makes it imperative for nations of the world to unite. But then it was possible in Pericles Athens to have direct voice in decision making which is not possible in a world of 193 members of the UN. Hence it has become necessary, more so now with the Western economies in deep trouble, to have G-20 nations to have summits and high level contacts to smooth out the wrinkles in global politics and economy. Ever since the end of the Cold War and fleeting US unipolar moment various scenarios are being constructed for the next world order. One such scenario urges Washington, Beijing and New Delhi to consider, if a war happens in the 21st century, it will be America-China or China-India. According to this scenario NATO intervention in Libya has shown lack of coherence of Western alliance that had served the stability of the post-Second World War world. Besides neoconservatives like Robert Kagan are convinced of Europe‟s lack of centrality in global politics if not the soft power that is essential for global peace. This school of thought consider China and India to be globalization‟s lead integrating agents. Russia and Japan are not considered to be serious first tier candidates for global power. In this equation Europe too is discounted as is Brazil among the BRIC nations. But the shining China may face impediment as in two decades or so China will lose considerable number of workers who will join the aging senior group of citizens. By contrast America will add few dozen million workers and India is expected to add 100 million to the workforce. In terms of per capita income by 2030 that of the US is expected to be $ 60000/- while that of China will be $ 20000/- and that of India is expected to be $ 10000/-. The US despite its indebtedness will reign over the others because both China and India will remain tethered to the proverbial ball and chain of impoverished rural poor. Besides China may face developmental impediments in the forms of environmental damage, resource constraint, demographic aging, inequitable distribution of income among different sectors of the society, better standard of living leading people to demand greater voice in governance translated into weaker hold of the Communist Party over the people. In case of India fractious domestic politics and inequitable division of the developmental benefit among the growing population may stay the rate of development of the economy. The inequity in the distribution of income can be gauged by the fact that both in China and India increase in per capita income has been flat between 1820 to 1950 but it increased by 68% by 1973 and 245% by 2002 and continues to grow despite global financial meltdown. The situation has been no different if we take the case of the US where between 2002 and 2007 65% of all income growth went to the top 1% of the population. The world has virtually been divided into two classes--plutocrats and the rest. Despite such skewed rich and poor equation recently demonstrated by occupy the Wall Street march in New York the policy makers in the Game Room of the powerful
FPRC Journal No. 9 India and South Asia
46
countries would be working on inclusion of China and India along with the US as future arbiters of global fate and guarantor of peace than the old alliances with Europe and Japan. Zbigniew Brezinski and Fred Bergsten( Petersen Institute for International Economics) have advocated formation of G-2 with the US and China (The United State and China: a G-2 in the making Brookings-Oct 2011). The essence of the proposal is that these two biggest economies working together can provide global public gods that the world required. The convergence between the two at present appears to be difficult because China saves too much and the US consumes too much creating a disequilibrium in their economies and imbalance in trade. China uses its surplus cash to buy US Treasury bonds thus increasing American indebtedness. Unless the trade surplus countries like China starts buying and consuming more US made products the equilibrium will not be achieved. Politically and militarily G-2 appears to be a distant proposition because a rising power has the tendency to expand its influence, often through hard power, that an established power like the US would have to acquiesce in though such expansion may impinge on the areas of influence of the established power. So far Chinese use of influence in global affairs has not caused any ripples in the world. But there can be no guarantee that with the passage of time power transition will remain smooth. For example in the case of North Korean sinking of South Korean naval vessel CHEONAN in March 2010 and the shelling of South Korean village China did not take any measures against North Korea disappointing South Korea and the US. Besides disputed Sparatly Islands remain unresolved and the world is not certain yet how the Chinese would finally react to the claims by other countries sovereignty over the Islands. Consequently as the established power cannot be sure of the real intent of the rising power it is likely to hedge its bet by roping in. in this case, countries like India, Japan, South Korea and Vietnam to counter China. So the G-2 condominium appears to be farfetched proposition and would have deprived the world of cooperation in cases like six party talks on North Korean denuclearization, Permanent Five plus one on Iran‟s nuclear program, and finally G-20 assembly of nations that is expected to oversee primarily economic mess afflicting the global economy and gradually expanding the combines power to tackle international issues. For G-20 to have an effective role democratization of the UNSC is essential. The current set up of global powers and the passage of power from the Atlantic to the Pacific demand a realignment of the United Nations for countries like India to play an effective international role. The reform in the UNSC was keenly felt during the Kosovo crisis due to UNSC paralysis caused by veto threat from Russia and China necessitating NATO intervention. It called into question UNSC capacity to perform its functions and revived anew the debate for its reforms. Reforms suggested are basically the following: - (a) an increase in the number of elected members retaining the five permanent members; (b) two more permanent members (Japan and Germany) and three more elected from Asia, Africa and Latin America; and (c) semi-permanent members with no veto power. There is almost universal appreciation of the fact that the present composition of the UNSC and veto power of P-5 reflective of the situation following the Second World War needs reforms. Former UNSG Butros Ghali observed in his Agenda for Democratization that the UN had little moral authority to preach democracy to the outside world when it was not practicing it in its own backyard. It is often pointed out that four out of five permanent
FPRC Journal No. 9 India and South Asia
47
members are European (a concept that includes the US) and industrialized countries, the latter argument that goes against Japan‟s inclusion while in its entirety the argument works against Germany. Besides, Argentina, Mexico and Pakistan question the choice of Brazil and India to be taken in as permanent members. Despite differences over future composition of the UNSC among member states its democratization is essential to arrest the increasing trend towards unilateralism. One has to bear in mind President Bush‟s warning of the UN becoming irrelevant if it failed to act on Iraq as of the US Congress resolution on Sudan urging Bush administration to act unilaterally if the UN failed to act to meet the humanitarian disaster in Darfur. Kofi Annan‟s mild chastisement of President Bush that only the UN can lend unique legitimacy to military intervention fell on deaf ears of the Bush administration. But then one must recognize the fact of irreversible change in the global construct in the post-Cold War era in terms of nation-states responsibility not only in its conduct of inter-state relations but also its treatment of its own people for retaining sovereignty. Boutros Ghali in his Agenda for Democratization laid emphasis on promoting democracy within the architecture of the UN as the world‟s largest and most inclusive organization. He felt for a clear need for an organization in which all principal organs function in balance and harmony. While Boutros Ghali‟s prescription would have been ideal in the changed circumstances prevailing in the world today both the developed and the developing countries should join hands in rewriting the UN Charter that would be capable of meeting the politico-economic challenges of the Twenty First century. In the ultimate analysis the democratization of the UN and its institutions as called for by Boutros Ghali in his Agenda for Democratization is a pressing need and has to be taken into account by the major powers not only to ensure a semblance of distributive justice in the allocation of global resources but also to ensure a conflict free world in which different seemingly competing civilizations can live in peace and harmony.
The problem with India as a permanent member of the UNSC, already supported by Bangladesh, could pose a dilemma for her neighbors given her not so friendly relations with them. Indo Pak rivalry dates back to the partition of the sub-continent by the British and more on the unresolved issue of Kashmir claimed by both as integral part of their respective country. Pakistan harps on the decades old UN resolution calling for referendum by the people of Kashmir to decide on their fate while the situation on the ground has radically changed since 1947 in favor of India which retains greater part of the Muslim dominated Kashmir valley albeit under virtual military occupation. Relations with Bangladesh is bedeviled with problems relating to maritime boundary demarcation, land boundary disputes, trade imbalance in favor of India and impediment imposed by India on Bangladeshi exports through para-tariff and non-tariff barrier, border killings of Bangladeshi nationals by Indian Border Security Force, Indian allegation of illegal Bangladeshi nationals entry and stay in India, alleged use of Bangladeshi territory by Indian separatists and Pakistani terrorists etc. Relations have taken a turn for the better after the assumption of power in Bangladesh by Awami League led combine of political parties. Relations with Nepal have been strained after the assumption of power by Maoist leader Puspa Kumar Dahl who openly blamed Indian machination for the downfall of
FPRC Journal No. 9 India and South Asia
48
his short lived government and subsequent failure to form a government. In a party conference he even urged his followers to free Nepal from Indian domination. His successor Dr. Babu Ram Bhattarai who just returned from a visit to Delhi where he signed three agreement of cooperation with India faced strong criticism in Parliament in Nepal both from the opposition and his own party over the agreement. Nepal, a landlocked country, is virtually dominated by India commercially where Indian currency can be used in the markets. Bhutan, another landlocked country, is also heavily dependent on India but the people are ferociously independent minded and refuses to integrate with the globalized world and believes in Gross Domestic Happiness instead of GDP as is understood throughout the world. Bhutan, a country with seven hundred people, has extremely cordial relationship with India. With Afghanistan India has developed special relationship much to the chagrin of Pakistan though it is believed that Indian efforts are directed to counter Chinese influence and not to contain Pakistani influence in Kabul. At the moment Pak-Afghan relations are going through rough waters as both Karzai and the US government are highly critical of the safe heaven enjoyed by the Haqqani group in Pakistan from where the terrorists launch their operations. It would , therefore, appear that unless India meds her fences with her neighbors the US efforts to prop up India as a counter to China would be a difficult endeavor as would be Indian ambition for a permanent seat in the UNSC. Though not at the same economic level India could try to play the role in South Asia as Germany is playing in helping out European countries i.e. Greece to get the country out of the economic difficulties she is facing at the moment. Use of hard power by India in South Asia is going to be counterproductive if she thinks the smaller neighbors have little option but to bow down to Indian dictates. The net result may be to push the South Asian countries into the arms of China as a hedge to counter Indian efforts to dominate the region. Indian policy planners may wish to consider that Indian democratic structure is more attractive to her South Asian neighbors for establishing fruitful bilateral relations with India than with China, albeit a rising power, but with an authoritarian system of governance China yet remains inscrutable to many countries having liberal political system. In the ultimate analysis the scenario of an India countering China in Asia may be a more theoretical than a realistic proposition US wish notwithstanding. The people in South Asia would prefer both giants to have complimentary than a competitive relationship that would help millions of people of this area to get out of the poverty trap and leave a prosperous life for their children and grand children.
Despite Lester Browns anxiety about the global food situation in coming decades ( Who will feed China? Wake Up Call for a Small Planet) the current financial free fall in the Western democratic economies has started a debate whether the free market economy that the world has gotten used to is still the preferred destination of the nations of the world compared to the Chinese model of state control in the management of the economy. Clearly under Deng Xiaoping‟s tutelage China had moved away from Mao Zedong‟s politico-economic management that has borne fruit to the extent that China is now looked upon as a possible savior of the collapse of the Euro Zone as China has perhaps the largest liquidity or disposable income in the world. China has reportedly offered to buy Greek debt in its entirety and of a few other European nations as well.
FPRC Journal No. 9 India and South Asia
49
But before the international community runs after adopting Chinese model as “herd instinct” is common in international commerce one has to examine whether China will remain comfortably rich for many years to come. Lester Brown, President of Earth Policy Institute, has warned that limits to food production has already crippled crop lands around the world, water and irrigation has become scarce, additional fertilizer no longer produces more crops as before, and promises of bio-technology have their limits. Chinas rapid industrialization, as in the case of Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, will take away more and more crop land by factories and industrial units and for houses for an estimated i.6 billion people by 2030. Brown points out that China may be huge but only one tenth is arable, half the crop land is irrigated, and four fifths of the grain harvest comes from irrigated land. By 2030 Chinas grain production will fall by 20% and Chinas demand for grain may cross 480 million tons or a short fall of more than 200 million tons. One can well imagine the effect on international food price when a country of 1.6 billion comes to the global market to buy to feed its hungry and possibly restive population. The picture for India and a few other countries will be no different as they will require to import about 200 million tons by 2030. In other words todays net exporters of food grains will become importers in the near future. Skeptics of the dark future of the world could be advised to look up Paul and Anne Ehrlich‟s book Population Bomb, criticized by both far right and far left, that contains the main message that it is dangerous to have a population that cannot be supported by the Earth‟s finite resources and that the future of civilization is in grave doubt. Revisiting the Population Bomb Paul and Anne Ehrlich( Electronic Journal of Sustainable Development) cited the testimony to the US Congress by NASA scientist James Hansen in June 2008 that the world has long passed the „dangerous level” for green house gases in atmosphere and must get back to 1988 level. Today bad effects of green house gas emission is a top global concern and the most affected countries like Bangladesh who contribute nothing to the harmful emissions are clamoring for redress and for control by emitters of gases into the atmosphere. The critics of Population Bomb, mainly from the far left, argue that the world has enough food to feed its now 7 billion people if the distribution is equitable. Unfortunately in a free market economy the rich has the money to feed their people and the poor have to starve. The other argument of population being “human capital” to further growth misses the point that had population and growth been directly related then China and India would have been four times richer than the USA and more affluent than all nations of Europe combined. British environmentalist, scientist and futurologist James Lovelock believes “global warming is now irreversible and that nothing can prevent large part of the planet becoming too hot to inhabit or sinking under water resulting in mass migration, famine and epidemics”. In the case of India demographics occupy 2nd rank among the world's most populated countries. With its current population of more than 1.21 billion people (As per Census of India 2011), the country is estimated to surpass China and be the leading populous country in the world. The total population of the nation is growing at the rate of 1.41 %. Literacy rate is estimated to be 74% in India. India has the advantage of demographic dividend of having a working population of 65 per cent compared to aged population of 5.5% and non-working population of about 30%. China, however, does not have this advantage with a shrinking workforce and
FPRC Journal No. 9 India and South Asia
50
increasing aged population.
Under such adverse situation condition of countries like Bangladesh can be well imagined. But then it is posited that in post-industrial society economic development will proceed in a comparatively equitable manner directed by a knowledge elite with sectional conflict between technical intelligentsia and literary intellectuals or between professional administrators and technical specialists. In Daniel Bell‟s ( an American sociologist and of End of Ideology fame ) post-industrial society knowledge has the primacy that transforms a pre-industrial society where agriculture, fishing and mining dominates the economy to an industrial society which centers on human-machine relationship and application of energy to mass manufacturing and processing of tangible goods and finally to a post-industrial society. It is, however, difficult to imagine a society, particularly in developing countries where most of the people are illiterate, to accept the dictates of a knowledge elite which in any case is contrary to the fundamentals of democracy and denies equal role in decision making to the less educated and consequently disadvantaged section of the society. Besides Harvard Professor Nathan Glazer( Democracy and Deep Divide-Journal of Democracy- April 2010) points out the threats to democracy posed by social divisions that are essentially formed by birth and are inerasable: race, ethnicity, religion and native language. He cites three cases of USA, Canada and India and tries to explore how these countries have endeavored to solve these divisions through democratic means. In the US deep divisions are marked by racial divides that till today mark the differences in social and economic positions between the whites and the African-Americans. The average income of a white middle class family is more than that of an African-American family. There are more African-Americans in prisons than whites. In Canada the division is between Francophone and Anglophone while in India grave divisions in caste, religion and languages continue to threaten the common thread of Indianism which has also been translated by a section of the people as Hindutva that considers Jains, Buddhists and Sikhs to be adherents of indigenous Indian religions but excludes Muslims and Christians as outside the pale of Indianism though representatives of both communities have and continue to adorn high political, judicial and administrative posts in India. Muslims in particular are at a disadvantage due to unresolved problem with Pakistan on Kashmir and the belief of the opposition Bharatya Janata Party that Muslims cannot be good Indians as theirs is an outsider religion and culture. According to Nathan Glazer influences of democracy have been able to moderate these divides and bring forth a measure of stability, more active in the US, firm in Canada but shakier in India. Globally, however, Muslims continue to be vilified due to their weak politico-economic position, both as Diaspora in Western countries and as minorities in many developing countries. Some leaders in Europe have already declared that multiculturalism is not a workable proposition and as a consequence immigration from Islamic countries are being restricted and Muslim Diaspora are reportedly being profiled as possible terrorists regardless of their having no criminal record in the past. The appeal of Professor Bassam Tibi ( of Gottingen University) that Muslims in Europe be Europeanized but not integrated has fallen on deaf ears because many in the West are convinced that Islam is a belief system- religious but also political that demands violent
FPRC Journal No. 9 India and South Asia
51
suppression of non-adherents. In this narrative the origin of the Palestine tragedy is often forgotten that the Biblical promised land actually belonged to the Arabs and from the Balfour Declaration to Winston Churchill assurance to the Arabs ( when Churchill was Colonial Secretary) that the Jewish exodus to Palestine would not affect then existing demographic and cultural composition of the area proved to be sham. The Arabs faced with Western hypocrisy were given the option of accepting the UN proposal of 1947that would have created a Palestinian state alongside the nascent Israeli state a proposal the Arabs refused but now regretted by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas who termed the refusal a mistake. The points of this discourse is to highlight the possible global scenario in the coming decades relating to food security, global warming, energy scarcity, conflict centering water scarcity, growing anti-Muslim sentiment thus dividing the world along religious lines and possibly giving encouragement to the spread of radical Islam who basically believe in Taliban philosophy of forcible transformation of the world into rule by pristine Islamic code , and myriad of insoluble problems increasing the number of failed states, inter-country conflict( refer to Condoleezza Rice‟s recent revelation of Indian deployment of nuclear-capable missiles along Indo-Pak border to punish Pakistan following terrorist attack on Indian Parliament in 2001 in her memoirs No Higher Honor) etc. South Asian expert Bruce Riedel has for long termed this region as the most dangerous place in the world. Apart from the bitterness borne out of the bloody partition of 1947 Pakistan‟s refusal to acknowledge the changed status of India as an emerging global power and also Pakistan‟s acquisition of nuclear capability compounded by military domination of Pakistani politics and ferocious anti-Pakistani feeling nursed by a section of Indian population indeed makes the South Asian region as a very dangerous region. Pakistan also eyes with suspicion growing Indian involvement in Afghanistan long regarded as „strategic depth” in case of Indo-Pak conflict. All said and done India to have global influence has to first ensure that she has cordial relations with her neighbors, not hegemonic but on the basis of equality and respect of each country‟s sovereignty. Indian authorities should shed any pretension of Seymour Martin Lipset‟s concept of “American Exceptionalism” that in any case is being challenged by both friends and foes in this age of multilateralism. Unless due respect is given to the legitimate concerns of her neighbors Indian conduct of international affairs would be suspect to the world at large. Such advice should not be taken as attempt at diminution of Indian primacy in this region but to enable her to play a role expected of a major G-20 nation.
**************