India's lost opportunity

India had cited the recent political developments in Nepal and the security issues plaguing Bangladesh as the reasons for its withdrawal. On the face of it, the reasons stated are indeed factual, but to make a unilateral decision as one of the leading nations within Saarc just didn't seem right. This decision of India is at the very least a debilitating blow, especially when the organisation is still struggling to get its act together. For Saarc to survive and be a viable economic force to reckon with, the bigger nations in the grouping have to start leading from the front and not use other members' domestic issues as an excuse for withdrawal. If anything this was an opportunity for India to demonstrate its leadership and foresight, rather than to hide behind the diplomatic cloak.

The developments in Nepal are indeed a matter of concern; an instance where the democratic government has been summarily dismissed and replaced by an autocratic rule of the king. And it is not only India, the world is also up in arms about the untoward developments. The official communique from Nepal about the circumstances are the usual bland, prosaic statements, revealing very little about the real situation and circumstances that lead King Gyanendra to take matter into his own hands.

Which is why the Saarc forum would have been ideal and fortuitous to find out more about what is really happening in Nepal. Under the circumstances, perhaps a more appropriate action should have been, to seize all opportunities to get a better understanding of the situation through direct contact with the king. Nothing can be better than hearing it from the horse's mouth. And what better stage could India have asked for than the imminent Saarc summit. It would have given Prime Minister Manmohan Singh an opportunity to have a face to face dialogue with King Gyanendra of Nepal, assess the situation, and possibly come up with some conciliatory solutions and guarantees which could help ease tension and provide better appraisal of the state of affairs.

With the Saarc conference taking a view and providing an explanation on the matter, the world would have certainly benefited. It is in situations like this that more dialogue is better than less. This is not the time to isolate Nepal but to understand its predicament and if needed apply the moral suasion that a body likes Saarc could only provide. One has to just look across to the Asean grouping to see how Myanmar is accepted within its fold.

As for the excuse of lack of security in Bangladesh, this seems to be more a chimera of the mind than real. Bangladesh is not a battle zone; people move about freely without the fear of been killed. Admittedly there have been lethal attacks, which seems to bear a pattern of largely targeting politicians, unacceptable indeed, the most gruesome being the recent regrettable death of SAMS Kibria from a grenade attack. Much as such incidents inevitably shock the world at large, people from the sub-continent are accustomed to these heinous and reprehensible acts of violence and are well adept in working around it. A characteristic that reflects the people's defiance and challenge to the forces of evil and perpetrators of such crimes. Life must go on, is what the South Asian motto has always been. For India to use it as an excuse for its withdrawal seemed more a case of undue apprehension.

By letting the Saarc conference stick to its original plans and schedule, India would have had the opportunity of demonstrating its leadership within South Asia. India by its sheer size, both physical and economic, holds an unwritten and "unproclaimed" position of primus inter pares (first among equals) within the South Asian cluster of nations. Its growing stature as an economic power is well recognised globally let alone within the region. Its recent invitation to attend the forthcoming G7 meeting along with China, Brazil, and South Africa is a case in point. If India wants to be readily accepted as a global leader, then it better start demonstrating its leadership and statesmanship first in its own backyard.

Where sovereign nations are involved and especially within one's own ethnic lot and neighbours, it is emotionally and diplomatically unacceptable to explicitly proclaim a fellow nation as an outright leader. But a true leader can earn a tacit approval if it is willing to conduct itself like one. In this instance India had a golden opportunity to show to the world that as a country it has matured and is willing to take up the mantle of leadership within its own region by helping to voice and resolve local issues.

This is not the age for unilateralism; one has to just look at the US and its almost unilateral action in Iraq and how the world had reacted aganist it. In a globalised world the essence of it is interdependence for the greater good of all, helping to sustain the fabric of co-operation and mutual respect. It is important that successful economic nations demonstrate their benign leadership and win respect from peers and others. South Africa is a good example in Africa; China offering to tackle for the world the North Korean nuclear threat, and the EU (albeit not a regional issue) taking the initiative to forestall Iran on nuclear proliferation. India as it grows in economic stature has an opportunity within the Saarc region to emulate some of the leadership roles played by other nations in the world, but it has to earn it by examples and honest actions. Unilateral decision to withdraw from your own regional conference shows more diffidence and lack of self-confidence than bold leadership.

Ghalib Chaudhuri, a former investment banker, is based in Singapore.