THE SIKKIM INITIATIVE & NATHU LA

The Sikkim Initiative

By:KP Vasudevan Nair

OVER the past six weeks four international conferences were held on issues directly concerning regionalism and sub-regionalism in the contemporary Asian context.

The first, in the Cambodian capital of Phnom Penh, on how the Asian regions should face the challenges posed by globalisation was indeed the most international of all of these, with high-level participation by ministers and congressmen from several Asian countries, scholars from Europe, Asia and Australia and, adding to its weight and glory, even Lord George Carey, former Archbishop of Canterbury.

The second, at the Chinese heritage city of Dali in Yunnan, deliberated on the prospects of socio-economic cooperation between southwest China and eastern India with special focus on West Bengal and Yunnan. It received wide media attention from within China and even Hong Kong and was followed by a high profile visit of a 30-member delegation headed by the governor of Yunnan to Kolkata to work out details of cooperation in various fields.

The third, a low-profile but meaningful exercise, was held at the Asiatic Society, Kolkata, with an India-China Interface in the aftermath of opening Nathu-la for border trade that was to have been inaugurated by Union external affairs minister Pranab Mukherjee but he could not attend. Chinese Consul General Mao Siwei was chief guest and there were a number of specialists from Delhi and Canada. A new sub-regional Silk Route from Nathu-la to Namyung was conceived among other things.

The fourth, the immediate reason for this article, concluded on 21 December at Sikkim University, Gangtok. Titled “International Conference on Sub-regionalism Approach to Regional Integration in South Asia”, this was also to have been inaugurated by Pranab Mukherjee but again he could not make it under circumstances understandable to Indians. Sikkim governor BP Singh delivered the presidential address. Pranab Mukherjee’s speech was read out and it contained significant messages to Pakistan on the issue of terrorism, reflecting the prevailing mood.

That his message found prominent place in the regular newscast from Delhi made it clear that it was not meant only for those at “Chintan Bhawan” of the University. The need for a peaceful periphery which Mukherjee often emphasises during his speeches is, it seems, not different from “the need for a rise in harmony” that Chinese leaders also seek in their neighbourhood. That the foreign minister dealt with policy aspects of India’s current relations with almost every country in the region indicates his approval of the concept on which the conference was held, the first of its kind in a North-eastern border state.

A quick look at the concept note prepared by vice-chancellor Mahendra Lama with emphasis on the urgent need for a new sub-regional approach, has enormous logic behind it, for no one can dispute that in effect the regional approach in the shape of Saarc has not brought about the expected gains to the region. Boastful claims made at Saarc summits made the region almost a laughing stock in the eyes of even small Asean countries.

Have we forgotten the assurance our leaders gave at the Colombo meet in 1999 that poverty would be totally eradicated from the region within three years? Leaders of the same countries at the last summit in the same city this year sheepishly admitted over 25 per cent of the region still survived on less than a dollar a day! The major share of the responsibility for this pathetic situation rests with the two larger countries, India and Pakistan. India’s literacy rate is lower than that of most of the countries and so is the human development index. More alarming, there is still no serious attempt to correct the situation. No wonder the smaller members do not find Saarc a sustainable mechanism and are resorting to multilateralism, following, interestingly, India and Pakistan!

In the field of tourism, the recent gains look impressive only because of the low base which it rose from. Small Cambodia, with 12 million population, receives two million tourists a year, and India with a population nearly 100 times larger still has not reached five million!

From an Indian perspective, a new sub-regional approach seems necessary since the existing ones, some of them like Mekong Ganga, have been week-kneed reactions to successful initiatives like the Greater Mekong Sub-regional Cooperation and the gains, if any, have been negligible. New geographical configuration cannot be avoided when a fresh effort is being made and this justifies the Sikkim Initiative’s inclusion of Bhutan and the whole of southwest China, including Tibet, although there is scepticism among some observers about effectively including Bangladesh and Nepal. This view is endorsed by the fact that official representation was absent at the conference from these two countries, unlike Bhutan which sent an official.

As it happened at the Margherita (Assam) conference three years ago, two important officials, one from the Yunnan Development Research Centre and the other from Yunnan Academy of Social Sciences, could not attend due to a procedural delay in receiving their visas, but an academic from Sichuan made it to Gangtok, perhaps the first Chinese national to be present at an international conference there.

Among the participants were some who could not help wondering whether this Sikkim Initiative was anything more than “Bangladesh, China, India and Myanmar Plus Two” — the plus two being Bhutan and Nepal. Having been a participant at the last few BCIM meetings, this writer is not too optimistic of the BCIM, at least in the short term. For instance, a Kunming-Kolkata car rally, which was agreed upon at the 2007 Dhaka meeting, has not yet materialised due to problems now linked to Bangladesh.

Even in its eighth year, the BCIM remains non-institutionalised with a poor progress report. Coming from India as it does, the new Sikkim Initiative will have a freshness of its own and could convert Sikkim with its unique location into a new and commonly acceptable economic and cultural hub. Only those who spend some time in Sikkim and closely interact with its people will know how great its attractions are. Participants from “mainland” India were also astonished at the high intellectual level of the young professors and the cool efficiency of the executives of the university which is not even two years old. One major omission noticed at the seminars was the apparent absence of participants with adequate practical experience, especially in the case of trade and tourism. The involvement of the chambers of commerce may be considered in future deliberations.

Detailed presentations on forests and other bioresources by the Sikkim forest department officials brought to light the immense natural wealth waiting to be exploited. From an academic angle, it may not be out of place to suggest that Sikkim University, with its sub-regional aspirations, joins the trilateral academic projects initiated by the New York-based India-China Institute involving New School University, Yunnan University and Calcutta University, the details of which will soon be finalised in Kunming, capital of Yunnan.

(The author is Director, Asia Centre, and Honorary Fellow, Maulana Abul Kalam Institute of Asian Studies. The views expressed are personal. He can be contacted at kpv@asiacentre.org)