SAARC – A Case of Perceptual Divergence

Four blind men decided to help each other in collectively exploring the world around them. They ventured to the zoo and came across an elephant. Each one decided to touch, feel, comprehend and then communicate what the elephant looked like. One man held the tusk and explained, “The elephant is like a heavy drain pipe!” The other touched the legs and declared, “The elephant resembles the trunk of a strong old tree!” The third felt the ears and claimed that the animal was fan shaped and the fourth examined the tail to conclude that the elephant was a hairy textured flute like creature.
Each of the men was right in their assessments given the specific examination they had made. The different and partially erroneous judgments were the result of two vital facts. The first was that all four of them were visually handicapped and hence needed to rely on each other’s assistance. Secondly, each of them examined the elephant from only a specific angle and did not assimilate the different viewpoints to create a holistic picture.
The eight members South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) presents a similar case. SAARC is a regional grouping of developing countries in South Asia facing similar political, economic and nation-building challenges. This similarity in the nature of problems makes cooperation among them necessary and desirable. Hence the South Asian countries decided to initiate regional cooperation as a system of collective help. But like in the case of four blind men, their endeavor did not prove to be a success. The expectations from and approach towards cooperation has varied among the member countries. Though the respective national positions may be tenable but the cultivation of a shared perspective essential to guide the regional programme is missing.
The common regional problems do not lead to a commonality of approach among the countries because each views and assesses the problem from a purely nationalistic perspective which creates divergence in final analysis. The usual approach in SAARC has been to make the member countries conscious of the common challenges that they have to encounter. The existence of these challenges is not something that emerged after SAARC was formed and will survive even if SAARC withers away. For example state building is a common challenge for South Asian countries, but each national unit faces the challenge at different levels. In India the issue may involve greater participation of the people in state functioning. Issues of judicial activism, right to information, coalitional power sharing dominate the democratization discourse in India. While in Nepal the efforts are focused on shaping the political institutions for ensuring democratic stability and in Pakistan the debate over the form and substance of democracy holds sway. Hence though the nature of the challenge is similar its specifities are different which lead to obvious differences in remedial suggestions.
In international economic negotiations though South Asia appears to support the collective demands of the South, there are several divergence in their specific demands. In global negotiations on agriculture one common demand is the provision of Special Products and Special Safeguard Mechanism, in Non-Agricultural Market Access (Nama). On this issue the South Asian Less Developed Countries (LDCs) are more concerned about compensation for the likely preference erosion resulting from multilateral tariff reduction. Although, the development-related problems of South Asian countries are common, the negotiating strategies are not similar. While in agriculture India and Pakistan have both offensive and defensive interests, the remaining countries have largely defensive interests. Another difference is that LDCs and Sri Lanka are net food importing countries and may face negative consequences of dismantling of farm subsidies. In Nama, the divergence is sharper. LDCs want some compensatory package in lieu of the likely preference erosion. Both Pakistan and Sri Lanka have expressed their reservations over such a package. In services, too, there are divergences. India is more aggressive on services compared with its neighbors, because of a robust growth in services sector in the 90s, which grew at an average annul rate of 9%, contributing to nearly 60% of overall growth rate.
All countries of South Asia face massive challenges from demands of ethnic, regional and religious conglomerations. The specific demands of each state in the region are different and require unique corrective measures. The Nepalese political process has recently facilitated the Maoists to join mainstream politics under certain conditions, while the Sri Lankan government is struggling to respond to the aggressive onslaughts of the LTTE. In dealing with issues of unemployment and poverty some sub-regions in South Asia are prioritizing micro-financing while others are keen on attracting greater amounts of foreign direct assistance.
The reassertions by regional states about their handicap has not changed the situation in the region. It’s like the four blind men promising to help each other to explore the world better in the hope that their collectivity would counter their handicap. But as long as they stick to their exclusive interpretations a holistic view of the animal will not emerge. Likewise the South Asian countries need to evolve strategies for complimentary analysis which will create a common vision rather than individual assessments which can rarely be fitted together.
The story of the four blind men went a little further. Having failed to assist each other in picturing the elephant, they called their acquaintances, who were visually fit to guide their endeavor. With the instructions from friendly sources the blind men were able to picture the elephant. However, the caveat is that since all four were blind they had no way of confirming their findings and excessive faith on the group of outsiders could mislead them. Moreover, the group of outsiders could only help the blind to piece their vision together and not re-vision their specific assessments. Similarly SAARC has opened doors to outsiders, but the same caution holds good.
Finally did the blind men succeed in correctly picturing the elephant?
Time only can provide an objective answer.