I thought it was interesting that as my aunt was working on creating a cohesiveness of South Asians in South Asia I was working to create a cohesiveness of South Asians in America. It looks as if though these two may be getting a little more intertwined.

Let the fireworks and cries from MoorNam and the others begin!

And yet ... Taz isn't Indian. She's Bangladeshi-American, and a good example of why some of us find the identity labels of South Asian and South Asian American useful.

Ennis

I know! I agree with you 100%. I was just saying that you know the usual suspects will start emerging now, with their identity issues and complaints ;-)

Firstly - SAARC is a toothless entity. Only good for organizing games and cultural exchanges.
Two of its biggest states are rarely in agreement on anything of substance.
And amongst the smaller states - Bangladesh is only too happy to play one against the other.
AS to why the U.S. wants to join in as an observer - it is to keep an eye on china, whose observer status is being pushed by Pakistan.

From a practical Indian point of view, SAARC has been a disappointment. It has accomplished nothing for India till now. Every significant regional policy proposal from any country has been hostage to the bickering between India and Pakistan. The rest of the countries in the organization have been mere spectators for a long time. Of course, nowadays, Bangladesh finds more common cause with Pakistan because of the "ummah" factor and the supposedly "big brother" attitude of India. I think many Indian diplomats have given up on SAARC till Indo-Pakistan disputes are resolved.

It would be more prudent at this juncture to question the inclusion of China as an observer than United States. China, with enthusiastic support from Pakistan and Bangladesh, has been included to corner India. This is a nice move on the part of Chinese diplomacy as a reaction to India being included as an observer in ASEAN by the South-East Asian countries in order to counter the weight of China.

Regards,

Other countries in South Asia are hostage to the enduring hostility between India and Pakistan and SAARC will have little meaning until India and Pakistan can figure out a way to live with each other. Compared to regional forums like ASEAN, SAARC is a big fat joke.

On one hand, allowing the U.S. into the summits as an observer is granting the U.S. permission to ‘big brother’ and watch over the South Asian countries.

The "big brother" already pretty much drives the geopolitical backstory in South Asia. It makes perfect sense to grant the United States observer status.

Why did SAARC decide to allow “observers” to get involved, after 20 years?

The whole 'observer' thing in SAARC has to do with the regional politics between India and China, primarily. This analysis on China's strategy to contain Indian influence has an interesting bit:

On the first day of the proceedings on November 12, Indian Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran ruled out China's induction unless it signed a memorandum of understanding for being associated with S.A.A.R.C. However, within less than 24 hours, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was forced -- mainly by the pro-China grouping comprising Nepal, Pakistan and Bangladesh -- to come out with a statement welcoming China as an observer. (The only consolation for India was that it managed to extend the same privilege to its friend, Japan.)

India's climb-down occurred in the backdrop of the pro-China grouping threatening to veto Afghanistan's entry into S.A.A.R.C. as the grouping's eighth member, which India supported, unless China was allowed in. The inclusion of China as an observer is seen by most S.A.A.R.C. member-states as a counterbalance to India. Apparently, while India has been preoccupied with fighting cross-border terrorism on its own territory, China has been busy making significant inroads into India's backyard through cross-border economic and strategic penetration of Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and the Maldives

Using the logic from the analysis above, this whole Afghanistan-China-Japan thing maybe cascading beyond what the smaller SAARC nations originally had in mind if the USA joins in as an observer also. Time will indeed tell how this plays out as dynamic economic forces changes this region.

SAARC really stands for anything but cooperation. Perhaps it should be South Asian Adolescents Ranting and Crying to reflect the childishness of member states?

this whole Afghanistan-China-Japan thing maybe cascading beyond what the smaller SAARC nations originally had in mind if the USA joins in as an observer also.

1. Disagree; SAARC was functioning quite badly with SA regional issues and often appeared as yet another forum (like the UN) for Pakistan to bicker with India. Remember the speculation before Musharraf walked up to Vajpayee and tried to shake his hand at SAARC '02 in Nepal? (Are we school kids here or leaders of 1/6 of humanity?) Anyways, the small frys got annoyed, and even Pakistan likes more people in SAARC to counter India's girth.

Why did SAARC decide to allow “observers” to get involved, after 20 years?

2. Because, for 20 years the cold war powers didn't need to join any association, since they pulled the strings from behind the scenes anyway. With India able to assert itself with increasing confidence due to economic/military advancements, with the vacuum due to the demise of USSR, with China trying to cock-block India left and right, with the smaller guys Bangladesh/Nepal/Pakistan starting to feel the 800lb gorilla in their midst, and for the US to give an impression of actually "observing" as opposed to dictating, SAARC opened up.

Bush: Mushie we need to reign in y'all Muslims... err al Qaeda. Sonia y'all need to submit your rectals to inspections... I mean reactors to inspections.

For India, SAARC is currently less exciting than, say IBSA (India - Brazil - South Africa).

Pravasi, you are missing my point. I didn't make any claims to how efficient of functional SAARC has been, simply answering why observers are finding their way in. When I said, "Originally in mind", I meant their original ambitions for asking China to be included if Afghanistan was to be a part. Not the original intentions of why and when SAARC was setup.

Haha, SAARC is probably the worst example of "South Asian Solidarity."

During the last session, India was eager for Afghanistan to join the SAARC. But Bangladesh and Nepal threatened to veto it, unless China was given an observer status. As posted in the comments above, the minnows want China to counter the Indian influence (Just like some ASEAN countries are eager for India to ocunter China's influence (as an observer) in ASEAN). To get even, India made sure Japan got observer status too.

I am sure soon countries like Australia, UK, France, etc. would want to join the gang. (Hey, free chai-biskoot and samosas for the foreign service guys!)

Gujudude -
At least have the decency to add the indian commies to the list of China fans below.
After all they have done for the last bastion of marxism, the least they deserve is some recognition on sepia, yaar.
come on...

"However, within less than 24 hours, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was forced -- mainly by the pro-China grouping comprising Nepal, Pakistan and Bangladesh -- to come out with a statement welcoming China as an observer."

on a somewhat related note, the new Amritsar to Nankana Sahib bus route has started

@taz mainly,

to me this is another example of good intentions scuttled because "reality continues to ruin our lives". i really like people who genuinely believe in solidarity in south asia. but i am also of the impression that most of these people do not recognize that none of the s. asian govts and a majority in every country do *not* want solidarity.

however, we do have a shared culture and in my opinion, it is trade and cultural exchanges that will lay the foundations of solidarity tomorrow. but again i don't see either happening. many (on all sides) will not allow acknowledgement of cultural links, the stance of most countries will make sure trade will be subordinated to govt diktats, and will not be mutually beneficial. consequently, i am very pessimistic abt the future of s. asia.

@ennis,
i have no qualms abt a s. asia label like you have used here. what i do not see is giving it a functional definition in US politics---be it for lobbies, etc. in that sense, i think the label has fairly limited use. but in the context of americans i agree it may have some, limited in my opinion, use.

you can insist on the label, but remember that carrying it too far will not yield any sympathy from any country in s. asia. most indians hate that label. and for good reason---from their perspective, honor killings become a south asian issue while bride burning remains indian and hindu. why take on others' troubles when you have enough of your own? at least you will solve something if you concentrate on yours.

of course i am assuming that honor killings are not institutionalised and mainly sporadic in india. if not, bad analogy, but i still contend that the same problems have very different solutions in each country.

i am very pessimistic abt the future of s. asia.

no way man! given the choice of static borders and hatred, let's choose bhangra and bengali literature and get together.

if you think of synergy, South Asia in some kind of cultural or economic synergy is such a good idea. leave out politics for now. to me its like the cricket matches, and the new bus routes. One can't deny that, for a punjabi, sada dil parjandha when we move closer to healing this divide

i really feel on a cultural level South Asia can use more inter-action. Perhaps the region was rarely politically unified, but culturally, i think people have truly benefited from the spread of ideas from the Indus all the way to the Bay of Bengal

Sahej, hear hear!

i have yet to see non-sAsian care where u r from exactly, used to be all of us got called indian regardless, or sometimes derogative terms (always the same name for all of us), atleast now, sAsian has broader definition including non-indians.

most people call east asians just that, not being terribly good at distinguishing whether they are japanese or korean etc..

solidarity makes sense on more levels than just because-they-hate-all-of-us-the-same level, as u mentioned, music and literature and visual art is definitely a unifying force (i leave out bollywood movies, as i am no big fan, and dallywood and um...karachiwood are worse)

seems some dislike the label for misplaced nationalism, when its actually, more a case of similar culturalism.

PS: not writing a theseis here, so i didnt think thru these ideas overtly carefully... and i am not a hippie tree-huggin' liberal either (not that there is anything worng with that!)

Seems kind of idiotic to inflict the trauma of partition on the subcontinent only to 'get together' 60 years later and map out plans for cultural exchanges. The irony of 'regional co-operation' isn't lost on anyone in the partitioned subcontinent and that's the principal reason for the uselessness of SAARC.

sahej and dudette,
i am for solidarity, but we need to have a foundation to build it on. what we have now is a few wars, partition and mistrust, which has clouded centuries of cultural links.

my story speaking as someone who grew up in the konkan-karnataka area. not many here have much of sympathy for pakistan or bangladesh mind you, it is ambivalence at best. it has nothing to do with islam, it is just the way things are. but what got me was mehdi hassan (and several others too, just picking the biggest factor). pakistanis can't be all that backward if they have him, can they?

it is the same story everywhere. culture can be a potent bridge, if only we let it be. but frankly speaking, not many do so---and that is my crib.

dudette, "not that there is anything wrong with it" eh? :) you seem to be a sitcom addict as well.

bytewords, i don't doubt you that there's mistrust. however i have sensed in many people a desire for harmony. i don't think we need to measure it by the amount of desire needed to have a rally in the street. not many people do that kind of thing. but on a more basic level it seems to me there's a groundwater there for people to draw from for more amity between nations

Some people here are probably familiar with Amrita Pritam and the poem Aj Ahkha Waris Shah Nu. this poem, written at the time of Partition, speaks to the common waters of literature in Punjabiayat that sprung forth great works. The poem by Amrita Pritam is known by many people in the region.

My point is not only that there is a desire for amity, but that amity makes good sense. It certainly makes good sense culturally, and probably economically. So its a question that moving to amity is a good decision to make as it would _create_ future goods. Not only to rectify past problems or something, but that the future is brighter

Agree with SMR.
What is the point?
While the South Asian Americans may like to romanticise about a pre-partition India or a United States of South Asia. The feeling is very different in the Sub-Continent - Pakistan and Bangaldesh will never want to reverse the partition...they would much sooner become a vassal of Saudi Arabia or even China.
And I doubt if India would like to allow the nearly 300 million Muslims a free pass to travel within her borders...that would be suicidal..to put it mildly.

bytewords,

:) you seem to be a sitcom addict as well

i watches my seinfeld (i got them memorised by now, though for some strange reason, i have never caught the visit to india for m.s.'s wedding episodes..) and not afriad to quote...

i will further let u know, simpsons is a must see, been so for the last 12 years, and south park, well, just about the best commentary on american culture as can be...

thats my stories and i'm sticking to them...

PS: addict, such a harsh harsh word... i just cant do without, s'all... mkay

NotPC,

they would much sooner become a vassal of Saudi Arabia

woh there! let's not throw ideas around without any basis of fact. i dont know how many bangladeshis u know, or, if u have been there much, but i am pretty sure they dont want to be vassal of the majik kingdom. it takes more than a bunch of fanatics blowing up innocent people or UK high-commissioners in the name of some cultist belief system to make HUGE generalising statements like that...

i am not familiar with pakistan or the views of her citizenry, so cannot speak for them.

PS: um, india has a free pass for the 200+million muslims that are her citizens and that make up the 2nd largest muslim population after indonesia..

maybe a conversation or two with expat bangladeshis working in the majig kingdom will clarify just how much people dont want to be part of the keepers of the kab'bah...

I meant 300 million muslims who have grown up hating India.
As for the bhadralok in the majik kingdom. I would wager, based on my exposure to Bangladeshi Muslims living in the queens area, when push comes to shove they would side with the land of Mecca and Medina.
I am just being realistic. We can barely manage our affairs now, let aside managing matters in a greater India.

@sahej,
maybe there is a genuine desire for reconciliation. i can't say for sure... it is difficult to pick it up from short stays in bengal (even a couple of years. if you are little, as was in my case, you dont care for these things). besides i am not sure kolkatta is a good barometer. but i hope you are right.

NotPC wrote:

I meant 300 million muslims who have grown up hating India.
As for the bhadralok in the majik kingdom. I would wager, based on my exposure to Bangladeshi Muslims living in the queens area, when push comes to shove they would side with the land of Mecca and Medina.

ah well, u should have said so. here i was thinking u were generalising, but, now that u mention its based on your conversations with queens resident b'deshis, well, i guess u, and they, must be right.

this may come as a SHOCK to you, but, um... many b'deshis actually grew up hating the pakistanis, u know, the lot that killed 3 million of their brethren (i personally dont know of a single family whose member wasnt executed/murdered during the independence), not the indians, u know, the ones who helped them gain independence from the fellow muslim pakistanis who were supported by both the saudis and amerikans, and who managed to kill off very many of the intelligensia on their way out, before they surrendered to the indians/new bangladeshi state...

MOST people i know, and granted, i am such an unsocial introverted quiet person, i dont know that many, would rather goto delhi or kolkata for a bit of shopping and sight seeing than lets say.. um,lahore, or karachi.. (also, darjeeling is popular, as are pune etc for higher eds).

but, then again, u did speak to the b'deshi's in queens, so u must be right.

PS: both b'deshi and indian national anthems writen by the same bengali, who is also b'deshes national poet, and yes, though satajeet rai and robindranath thakoor were indian by defacto location, i think many b'deshis secretly think they were b'deshi, not withstanding rThakoor was born in what is present day bangladesh... i didnt check this up, so i might be completely wrong... but it doesnt get any more b'gli then feluda and lalmohan babu.. sorry...

NotPC:

I am just being realistic.

yes, indeed u must be...

Maybe one day South Asian people will see the light (is fake) and stop being so religious, maybe then we will be able to live peacefully with each other.

Till then South Asian solidarity is a pipe dream, I don't want to see India turn into another Lebanon, Yugoslavia or India (pre 1947).

Dudette,

Have you followed the recent spats between GoI and GoB? If you scrutinize the news items emerging from the subcontinent, you will find that on an institutional level, the relationship has reached a nadir. There are lot of issues that need to be sorted out between Bangladesh and India. Cultural links are important and they play a role. But, in realpolitik, cultural factors only matter upto a point.

It is good that you have a positive attitude towards India, Indians, and Bengalis. More power to people who think like you. Hopefully, the cultural identity will prevail over religious in Bangladesh.

It is also very heartening to hear that some people in Bangladesh do remember the Indian role in 1971. Thanks a lot! I did not mention this in my earlier post because I thought that the present generation Bangladeshis do not like India any more. There is more than anecdotal evidence to support this statement.

Regards,

i dont know that many, would rather goto delhi or kolkata for a bit of shopping and sight seeing than lets say.. um,lahore, or karachi..

Slightly off topic- but same aunt said that the biggest number of tourists to India came from... Bangladesh.

Bangladesh, and all the smaller countries it seems have a lot bigger stake, in the success in SAARC and the frustrations over the bigger nation politics. In theory, if SAARC ran the way it was supposed to, it would be a good thing- it will be interesting to see if the "observers" will help or hinder the process.

I culdn't have said it better, Aninda.
So there...

okie, so here's the deal, we are all clever enough to know, that what we hear onthe news, whether western or at home, do not make a reality be. um, i cannot think of any educated b'deshi who thinks india didnt have a hand in the war of independence, btw, i didnt say i was a b'deshi, i happen to know a lot of them. i cannot think of a single government anywhere in the world, and i dont know all of them, that do not use border disputes and pissing contest with neighbour states to distract from internal issues gone array. a few pot shots between indian & b'deshi border troops, and the ol stray cow, or the ol smuggled cow, or the everyonewhospeaksbengali in india MUST be a b'deshi so lets send em all back, does not a dispute or nadir make. the present b'deshi regime, BNP, is pro-pakistani, and, seeing as how they have islamist parties in their coalition, prosaudi. the other half of th ecountry aint happy about this.

the main opposition, Awami league, is proindian, them being the party that facilitated independence, the current head being in india when her family was massicred in 75'.

the other opposition is proself.

if the anecdotal evidence u speak of were that completely accurate, i would be hard pressed to explain why b'deshis are going to indian uni's for higher ed, and if the state govs of a few states were to be believed, why they are illegally migrating to india, or why indian good sflood the b'desh market, and are prefered above, home brews, but below, western brew.

from the people i know of who fought in the independence war, it would also be hard to explain why or how they got trained in india, equiped by indian and russian weapons, and backed by indian troops in their guerilla warfare.

look, just because couple of mad mullahs and a bunch of (in b'desh, bunches are big) bornagainmuslims decide to jump up and down and shout "down with [place random country here]", does not make any anti indian sentiment anymore true. and ofocurse, the b'deshis in queens, um..how do i put this, um, dont.. um, exactly represent the masses of the desh.

as for "Have you followed the recent spats between Go[place random country here] and Go[place random country's neighbour here] ?", um, this is called politics 101 in just about every country in just about all of history.

i would say the opposite, there is a proindian culture.

look, folks,dont believe what u read in the media, they are in the business of making money...

There is more than anecdotal evidence to support this statement.

Thanks, dudette. Never knew the national anthem of Bangladesh was composed by Rabindranath...somehow I always assumed it was by Nazrul...but then, I'm admittedly ignorant about Bangladesh.

Dudette,

Whoah, calm down! You have started ranting. No need to get so excited about this. This is just a blog and these are all personal opinions. I am glad that you acknowledge many aspects of my point of view. However, your interpretation of the points is towards the positive side. For the sake of future of India as well as Bangladesh, I hope your interpretation is correct. I would be glad to be proved wrong in this case.

For the moment, lets just say, we agree to disagree. You see the glass half full and I see it half empty. My approach regarding foreign affairs is "it is better to be cautious than sorry." Moreover, the first step in finding solutions to the problems is to acknowledge the problem. All I am saying is everything is not fine between India and Bangladesh. We have lots of problems and we need to sit down and sort them out. The cultural similarities between Bengalis on both the sides can be a starting point for the solution.

My only strong statement will be - you overestimate the power of Feluda, Tenida, Ghanada, Nonte-Fonte in solving international problems.

Regards,

Nanda Kishore, um, it is, i never said it was rThakoor. both by Nazrul, they made him national poet towards the end of his life.. quite sad really, he was not in his best by this pt.

okie, i was wrong:
india thakur
b'desh nazrul

Aninda - I too share your opinion about Bangladesh. I fear they are well on their way to turning into an equally formidable enemy as Pakistan. Pity.

Dude(tte)

Its not Thakur or Thakoor.
Indian National Anthem was written by Rabindranth Tagore.

ur right, wikipedia is better knowledgeable about these things than us sAsians.

btw, its thakur what i grew up with. tagore is what the brits came up with.

dudette is right. tagore/thakur = same name. different spelling only.

SAARC is a talk shop that has achieved nothing, nada, zero, zilch, shunya (and please don't give me the shit about cultural exchanges etc.) It is being held hostage to India/Pak rivalry and both these countries trying to score brownie points over the other. The smaller countries are caught in the cross fire and are collateral damage. Bangladesh, over the last few years, has tilted more towards Pakistan and what with border skirmishes between BSF (India) and BR (Bangladesh), ISI modules/cells, denying access to Indian goods, denial of sales of natural gas to India, training camps by organizations that are hell bent on wreaking havoc in India, has all left a very bad taste in the mouth of the indians. Till the relations between India/Pak and, now increasingly India/Bangladesh, get better SAARC will amount to nothing. They can give observer status to China, Uncle Sam, Aunty sam and Antartica, nothing is gonna happen.

In the media you do read a number of articles laying the blame of SAARC's failure on India's doorstep because as the "big brother" it should be ready to sacrifice more but has not done so because of its "petty" world view. Well, the relations between India and Sri Lanka are as good as they can get, notwithstanding, the support the Tigers get from sections of the Tamil polity in India. There is an FTA between the 2 countries and both have benefited from it and Sri Lanka has not been swamped by Indian goods, the reason given by Pakistan for denying India the MFN status.

So all of you talking about brotherly love in S. Asia, wake up and smell the bhang. Things are not going to improve in our lifetimes. Every country in the region carries a big fucking chip on its shoulder and I don't see that disappearing anytime soon.

A generallyupbeat article about Bangladesh here - http://www.time.com/time/asia/covers/501060410/story.html

ur right, wikipedia is better knowledgeable about these things than us sAsians.btw, its thakur what i grew up with. tagore is what the brits came up with.

You say "tuh-may-doe" I say "tuh-mah-toe". Horticulturally they're both berries.

As loath I am to cut and paste article, I have to make an axception here.
Below is an opinion by one of Pakistan's respected thinkers - Irfan Hussain - who writes weekly column for the Dawn.
This piece highlight starkly that the direction India and Pakistan are headed couldn't be any more diverse.....thus rendering this talk of "South Asia" quite risible.

Irfan Husain is a Pakistani commentator
Not by words alone
March 30 2006

IN THE wake of President Bush's visit to South Asia, observers have contrasted the nuclear deal he signed with India with the lecture on the need to fight terrorism more effectively he read in Islamabad. This glaring discrepancy in approach figured prominently in the recent parliamentary debate on Pakistani foreign policy. Speaker after speaker criticised the government, complaining that despite Pakistan's key role in the war against terror, Bush had not invited it to enter into a similar nuclear deal.

General Musharaf's critics charge that this imbalance is the result of Pakistan's poor foreign policy. While official spokesmen insisted that the visit had been a success, the fact is that Bush's priorities during his visit is a reminder of the changing equation in the subcontinent. The Pakistani foreign minister termed the American tilt towards India as 'unacceptable'. Actually, neither Washington nor New Delhi need Pakistan's 'acceptance' of a bilateral deal. Even General Jehangir Karamat, the Pakistani ambassador in Washington, lectured his host country on the subject: "Instead of a country-specific deal on a subject as critical as nuclear technology, there should be a package for both India and Pakistan." The theme running through the statements of various official spokesmen reflects a common Pakistani perception that for some reason, Washington should treat India and Pakistan as equals.
However, reality dictates otherwise. By any yardstick, India is now a major player on the global stage. Simultaneously, Pakistan has moved in the opposite direction, descending into sectarian and ethnic strife, and seen to be harbouring gangs of terrorists on its soil. It is true that 9/11 has boosted its economy as well as its standing as a strategic ally in the American 'war on terror'. But remove the '9/11 factor', and we are left with a dysfunctional state in terminal decline. Pakistanis naturally find these harsh truths difficult to digest. However, unless we face reality unflinchingly, we will fail to understand why the rest of the world views us as it does. Equally importantly, we need to see India's rise not in relation to Pakistan, but as an important regional and global event in its own right.
For years after Independence, the Indian economy grew slowly, choked by an over-centralised bureaucracy. By contrast, the Pakistani economy grew faster, propelled by a greater commitment to the free market. But in the Nineties, the picture quickly changed: plagued with political instability and military interventions, the Pakistani economy went into sharp decline, while terrorism played havoc with the entire system. Across the border, India shook off some of its self-imposed shackles, and began making rapid progress. Its large pool of well-educated computer personnel drove Indian information technology to the centre of the world economy, and moved en masse to cutting-edge American IT firms. A growing middle class provided the market for a consumer boom, and now, Indian businessmen are competing around the world. Bollywood movies are hits abroad, and Indian fashions are seen on catwalks from Milan to Madrid.
In London these days, seven young men are being tried on terrorism charges, and the trial is making headlines across the world. Six of the seven are of Pakistani origin, and are alleged to have received training in bomb making in Pakistan. The prosecution is producing a damaging amount of evidence, so whatever the outcome of the case, it will remind the world of Pakistan's role in the global jihad. Similarly, most of the suicide bombers involved in the terror attacks in London last July were of Pakistani origin.
During a conference on Pakistan organised by the Economist in London last month, several speakers dwelt on the country's investment opportunities, as well as its liberal policies. But the elephant in the hall was the security problems involved in doing business there. A British CEO of an energy firm operating in Pakistan did speak about the need for security guards, and mentioned the recent killing of three Chinese engineers in Balochistan. But the Pakistani speakers did not discuss the issue, perhaps because they are so used to it. For investors, the bottom-line is the physical security of their employees. When extremist mobs attack outlets of Western fast food chains, for example, images of the torched buildings flash across the globe in a matter of minutes. The most recognisable image of Pakistan abroad is now one of angry faces, long beards, and men armed with Kalashnikov rifles.
General Musharaf often boasts of Pakistan's role as a key ally in the 'war on terror' by pointing to the large number of Al Qaeda suspects killed or captured on our soil. But the question to ask - and one asked frequently abroad * is what they were doing in Pakistan in the first place. In investigations into extremist terrorism across the world, the 'Pakistan connection' has cropped up time and again. And when we talk of a nuclear deal, we forget just how much damage Dr A. Q. Khan's supposedly freelance activities have done to Pakistan's reputation as a responsible nuclear power. If he acted on his own, it is a poor reflection on the security in our nuclear installations exercised by the army. The other possibility is that he was officially encouraged to export atomic secrets to foreign buyers. In either case, to imagine that the Americans would now supply us with the latest nuclear technology is to ignore reality.
Now when we ask to be treated at par with India, foreigners smile politely, but everybody knows where the reality lies. Had it not been for 9/11 and the ongoing Western operations in Afghanistan, it is likely that Pakistan would have been relegated to the backwaters of the world, together with Myanmar, Somalia and Rwanda. We are responsible for the mess we are in, and we can clean it up, provided we accept the fact that we are in a mess. The first obvious step is to understand that there is no place in today's world for state-sponsored or even state-tolerated terrorism. The presence of thousands of armed men loosely organised under various fundamentalist and ethnic banners is unacceptable to the rest of the world, and should be unacceptable to us.
General Musharaf must realise that words are not enough to stamp out this plague of endless violence. His mantra of 'enlightened moderation' must be matched with action, something that has long been missing from his agenda. What is needed is a sustained, consistent campaign. But political will is required, and for this, a consensus has to be built up. But the reality is that our current military dispensation has been just as divisive as the previous ones were. Now, even when he makes eminently sensible proposals, they are rejected by a fractious opposition that no longer trusts Musharaf. Far from providing a solution, he has now become a part of the problem.

If you cut down SAARC to just three countries - India, Bhutan and Nepal.
It's perfect, we (Indian nationals) can travel visa free* and the Indian rupee is accepted just as local currency (*Bhutan limits the number of tourist each year and you have to be a part of an organized group). Indians can work in Nepal without permisson and Nepalese and Bhutanese can do the same in India in addition to studying and.... if they really want to...join the Indian armed forces.

Now if you add two more countries, Sri Lanka and Maldives to the equation, it gets more rigid. India rupee goes a long way and Indian nationals don't need visas to visit them. Sri Lankans and Maldvians however need to apply for a visa to enter India.

Add Bangladesh and Pakistan to the equation and this is where the idea of SAARC dies. Forget visas, you can't even get a telephone call across the border unless you keep trying for hours. I think (as an Indian), we should work out bilateral deals with Maldives, Sri Lanka and Afganistan, we can work towards a more effective SAARC-like body. Let Pakistan and Bangladesh sit out until trust builds up on both sides.

well it wouldnt be south asian then would it.. jj... it was only time, and am surprised it didnt happen before, where anti bg/pk sentiment arose...

saarc like many other such pacts, andean, nafta, original eu, ecowas, asean, all have great opportunities, but what stops them from working is the idiotic nationalistic sentiments on all sides. u gotta give to receive, and if no one is willing to give up something in order for the greated regional good, then its unlikely to work. i never said saarc is a good thing or it would work, i said regional cooperationmakes sense given the cultural similarities, and the economic benefits potentially huge...

but if ur going to bring out the old pk/bg thing, and so do others, then these sorts of things will fail.

Can someone explain the "cultural similarities' between Pakistan and India or Bangladesh and India ??..

India is a vast and diverse country with probably overlap of cultural values between neighboring states.. I find this "constant talk" about "cultural sameness" between Pakistan and India very superficial and irritating. A Tamil is "culturally" as close/different to a Punjabi as a Sindhi to a Bengali..
Bollywood is a "very misleading representative" of what you call Indian culture.. I don't think it represents a Manipuri / Malayali ..

Because 60 years back, Punjabi and Bengali Muslims / Hindus decided to part (thanks to Jinnah, violently killing around a million) we get this constant rantings about "cultural sameness" between different political entities.

Though it is a good intention to have SAARC and some kinda co-operation etc.. I am very pessimistic.

Right. And if you're an Indian Punjabi, you have more in common with Punjabis across the border than you do with a Tamil.

Right. And if you're an Indian Punjabi, you have more in common with Punjabis across the border than you do with a Tamil.

i dont know, i see more similarities between b'deshis and indians, and yes, there is a huge diversity in indian cultures, then in b'deshis and pakistanis. this might explain why there was a language movement, language being central to a community's identity and cultural values, in b'desh in the mid part of last century where the pakistanis were trying to do away with bangla.

look, fine, some dont see the need, or necessity, to find similarities or a need/desire to look for points of congruency. this is their perogative. others do. this is ours.

i once visited a relative in upstae ny, soon afetr my import to the US. very small town. i was amazed when i was dragged to a community dinner that people who would otherwise have nothign to do with eachother, were quite well getting along. later, i found they were extremely good at helping eachother out in preofessional as well as daily life ways. i had rarely found this anywhere else as all other communities i had been around had enough of their number to snub the other lot. when in need, afterall, these "few" similarities in language dress cuisine mutual suspicion upon by other non deshi locals created a tightknit ommunity of south asians. anywhere where there were small enough numbers, there seem to be no problems forming miniture saarcs for mutual benefit.

I don't understand this affliction amongst some Indians. And yes, this seems to ba only an indian thing.
This inane compulsion to find solidarity with Pakistani's, even while they do not wish to have anything to do with you. They have been trying to get this point across to you for more than half a century now. Witness - the partition, followed by the "kabali raid", 1965, 1971 and the most recent peacenik gesture - the kargil outing.

The Pakistani's would much sooner be considered West Asian than South Asian, which by the by,most of them think is an Indian ploy to revert the partition. I know, I know, they wish.

Gandhi tried that we are wll brothers crap and look what it got us?
Live and Learn kids....if not from me...learn from history.

India by itself is a perfect model for SAARC. One billion people of various tounges, Gods and cultures united under one flag, anthem, army, currency, tax...

Pakistan and Bangladesh will never agree to this model for SAARC, it would go against their very basis for existence.

my, my, arent we quite the nationalistic freak.

i dont think there exists quite the harmony internally, and disharmony externally in the region, as some may/would like/dreaming of.

not being an indian, i can only surmise based on what indians have told me about just how much internal SAARC is going on. and unless ur a b'deshi or pakistani, u should refrain from asserting what would, and what would not go against their very basis for existence. very tall sentiments, very low probability.

I think the sooner we get rid of the "south asian" mentality, the better.. India (just by itself) by population and diversity is comparable to the European Union. A developed India would be like what EU wants to be in the future, single currency, single defence force (NATO) etc..

We (Indians) already have it thanks to the English.. Just concentrate on economic development within India.. having safe and secure borders. It is sad that Pakistani and Bangladeshi Muslims decided to have their own political arrangement. but it is their wish and they got what they wanted.. Let's move on and not repeat the crap of "same culture" etc.. etc.. If that's so why did they decide to split in the first place??.

And if you're an Indian Punjabi, you have more in common with Punjabis across the border than you do with a Tamil.

Culturally, yes, but not politically. Not politically. Examine how you'd feel if a gora American made statements about having more in common with a gora Canadian across the border rather than someone like you who was born and raised in America.

And I find it necessary to add as clarification - I have no issue with SAA solidarity in America (to each their own). I just take offense to the sort of sentiment revealed by statements above: 1) it delegitimizes India and 2) it misses the whole point of the aspiration to pluralism at the heart of the idea of India (especially funny when progressives miss the point).