The United Nations Of South Asia

| by Ishara de Silva

( June 1, 2013, London, Sri Lanka Guardian) The difference between The United States model for South Asia vis-à-vis The United States of America is this: The USA speaks one language and has a common history, but South Asia is disparate, containing many different languages and ethno-national units, which means thinking outside the box is both necessary and desirable.

It is for this reason that I speak of a United Nations Of South Asia and not a United States, but the message is the same. If the United States can have fifty one - states - as part of its Union, then why can’t South Asia have just as many, if not more – nations - within its geographical arena?

But is this feasible?

The well respected Australian journalist, John Pilger, says, in one article, that the US, in particular, but, I add, the state system generally, wants, he says, to see a state of “permanent conflict” in collusion with media outlets, to fend of what Pilger describes as the real enemy – the Public!

For this, reason, wars are repeated, almost in designer fashion.

If true, this is why, for South Asia, a model of unification, not just independence and separation, is required. And this does seem to tally with, in Sri Lanka, on the surface, the sudden emergence of Muslim-Sinhala tension, almost immediately after the Tamil conflict ended.

But is it necessary, truly?

I think not.

The problem with public agitation towards state authorities, is that state actors may fear opening up more honestly, and instead rely on more historic divide and rule, and Machiavellian tactics, to keep the public at bay, and buttress up the political establishment.

Which is why this article aims to help, rather than harm those with state power, without renegading on what is good for ordinary citizens – worldwide!

So far, the debate has been on “A United States Of South Asia,” not “The United Nations Of South Asia”, a key difference in how the conflicts there can be settled within a unified framework.

So is this possible, and would it lead to new directions in thinking on South Asia’s future?

In one article, even as far back as October 2011, it was reported that Afghan President Hamid Karzai envisioned a borderless South Asia based on the European Union, which was free from violence and turmoil, saying if Europe could do it, South Asia could too. But, the paradigm stays within the United States of South Asia model, something I’m challenging here.

In that article, the reporter says the prospect, is, in any case, far off, largely because of the animosity between states like India and Pakistan. But this is capable, perhaps, of being transcended, if the political will exists and the people remain generous to the cause, however transitory it may be.

Yes, many people recognise that withdrawing colonialists left inappropriate state structures to the social realities when departing and that has fuelled nationalist uprisings in South Asia and beyond. But this can be overcome. The simple shift from “states” to “nations” can make for a United “Nations” Of South Asia that is innovative, fresh and new to the kind of polities we see operating in the world system today.

Of course, ultimately all individual are intrinsically beyond national identities. The purity of mind, at its core, is something all beings possess, and so is beyond egotistical conventions like gender, nation or race. But, for the time being, can the unity between the nations of South Asia, as it exists as a social phenomena, be accomplished, by changing the focus to national unity in the region, rather than state unity?

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:  Ishara de Silva edited Britain’s Asian Times newspaper and was invited by Opinion Leader (UK) to participate in global research on “future leaders”.