| 16 March 2004 | Tuesday | 24 Muharram 1425 |
Beyond the boundary
A vote for peace at the stadium
The developing world has changed significantly over the last fifty years. It is no longer uniformly poor as was the case a half century ago, after the end of the Second World War. At that time, with scores of countries having emerged from colonial rule, most Third World leaders wanted to address the problem of poverty and economic backwardness.
Many of them got seriously engaged with the task of development. However, the designation of this group of countries as the "Third World" - with the western and the communist countries as the first and second worlds - signified a political approach by the leaders of America and Europe towards the economic problems faced by the dozens of countries that had become independent.
Therefore, if economics was a concern at all it was a reflection of political considerations. That attitude persisted throughout the period of the cold war.
That was no longer the case for a decade between 1991 and 2001 - between the collapse of European Communism and the terrorist attacks on the United States. In that ten year period, the focus was almost entirely on economics.
It was through economic prisms that Washington and other western capitals viewed their own situation and also that of the countries in the developing world. It was also economics that began to drive forward the economies in Asia.
This is not the case any more as the United States has become preoccupied with the war against terrorism and with the project - still being defined - for bringing democracy to the geographical region it calls the "Greater Middle East." This region stretches from Morocco in the west to Pakistan in the east.
I will develop this point in a later article. Today, I will deal with the subject of how the developing world has been restructured. And how that transformation may affect the relations of its many parts with one another and with the world's rich nations.
Many parts of the developing world now exhibit the characteristics of mature and developed economies. The first transformation occurred as a result of the economic take-off in the small countries of East Asia.
They came to be called the "miracle economies" for the reason that what they accomplished had neither been anticipated nor thought probable prior to the occurrence of the change they instigated.
A series of miracles seem to have occurred. There is now agreement amongst the economists who have studied the phenomena of the growth of the miracle economies that four factors played an extremely important role in their transformation.
First, of course was the enormous investment made by these countries in human resource development. It was not just primary education that these countries emphasized and put large amounts of public resources in making it accessible to all children, boys and girls. They also gave an equal amount of importance to the secondary, tertiary, vocational and technical education.
Second, the state played an important role in guiding entrepreneurial activity in the miracle economies. In a way, the participation of the state was based on what these countries had learned from the Japanese experience where the famed MITI was successful in turning a number of domestic but privately owned companies into export power houses. A number of governments in the miracle economies of East Asia were able to successfully emulate the Japanese experience.
Third, most of the East Asian countries were able to save a very large proportion of their incomes for economic investment. The savings and investment rates achieved by these countries had no precedence anywhere in the world, not even in the industrial countries when they achieved their own economic transformation.
With remarkably high savings rates, the miracle economies were able to invest large amounts of capital for economic development and improvement without depending on external capital flows. In other words, growth was achieved without incurring large amounts of foreign and domestic debt.
Finally, these countries focused on exports rather than on domestic demand for creating industrial capacity at home. This was an important piece of national strategy since growth could occur even when domestic incomes were relatively low and domestic demand could not be the propellant for economic activity.
Again, this did not happen in what is today's post-industrial societies. They built their economies mostly on domestic demand or on the demand of the colonies they controlled. But the colonies did not offer the enormously large markets that became available in America and Europe to the small countries of East Asia.
This change in the structure of the developing world brought about by a handful of small miracle economies did not produce many waves. These economies were studied as miracles - a series of unexpected outcomes.
Sometimes the performance of these countries was analyzed in order to draw lessons for other parts of the developing world. But their remarkable growth was never seen as having adverse consequences for some other parts of the developing world.
This, however, cannot be said for the second structural transformation of the developing world. This is happening because of the remarkable growth of China and India, the world's two most populous countries.
In the financial year ending on December 31, 2003, the Chinese estimate that their growth rate reached 9.1 per cent. The Indians expect that for their financial year which will end on March 31, the rate of GDP growth might be more than 8 per cent.
China is following more or less the same development strategy as pursued by the East Asian miracle economies. It also invested massively in human resource development, has the state actively involved in economic decision making, has large savings and investment rates, and has become an export power house.
But one difference which is of considerable importance is that the Chinese industrial output is not entirely in the private sector. State-owned enterprises continue to have a strong presence in the economy and continue to be nurtured by the government.
The big question about China's future will be the management of transition of these enterprises to make them more responsive to the dictates of the market place.
The Indian model, of course, is very different from the one China is pursuing. If the Nehruvian approach had persisted, India would have continued to suffer under the weight of the corrupt, inefficient and largely dysfunctional public sector.
Instead, more by accident and not as a part of a grand strategy, the country allowed large play to the private sector. Private entrepreneurs, once released from the shackles of government control - from what came to be called the "licence raj" - led the Indian economy into the areas where it has gained global prominence.
The IT sector is not the only one at the front of the Indian economic revival. Other sectors that rely on knowledge accumulation have also begun to gain economic strength.
Latin America is one of the two major regions in the developing world that have as yet to show that they could grow out of poverty and technological backwardness. The Latin countries continue to be caught in a cycle of sluggish growth and deep recession. To get out of them they have also to get connected with the outside world as was done by the tiger and populous economies of Asia.
Any discussion of a structural change in the Third World cannot be complete without touching upon the sorry state of Sub-Saharan Africa. The past year was not bad for several economies of the region.
For the first time in years some of them saw growth not only in their GDPs but also in per capita incomes. But it is unlikely that this change will be sustained unless the African leaders get serious about economic reforms.
Let me get back to the challenge posed by China and India to the global economy. When two countries with nearly 2.5 billion - nearly 40 per cent of the world's population - see sharp increases in their incomes, it is a cause not just for celebration and wonderment.
It also produces anxiety, especially in the developing world. This anxiety is related to the fear the industries, agriculture and service sectors of these two large countries will compete with those in other parts of the developing world.
Those who fear the Third World giants tend to look at the global economy as a "zero sum" game. According to this, China's and India's success will come at the expense of the rest of the developing world.
This "zero sum" interpretation of the consequences of deep global economic structural change is not confined to the worriers in the developing world. There is now a growing anxiety in America and Europe about the impact of outsourcing of jobs to the countries such as India and China that have an abundant supply of well educated and technically savvy workforce.
As America heads towards what appears to be a fiercely contested presidential election, "outsourcing" and job losses will gain traction as weighty political issues. It is hard to tell how the industrial countries will react to continued job losses to many parts of the developing world.
There was a time when the developing world was considered relatively homogenous. It was not only mostly poor. Its economic interest was largely interpreted in terms of transferring large amounts of concessional and semi-concessional government resources from the industrial countries.
Some activists pursued this objective by arguing that the former colonial countries owed the Third World a lot of resources to compensate it for the plunder and pillage they had done of the lands they once controlled.
This line of thinking was behind several movements in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. The South-South movement sought to bring the developing countries together so that they could collectively put pressure on developed countries. Pakistan's Mahbubul Haq, an influential voice in these circles, once argued for the orderly cancellation of the debt owed by the developing to the developed world.
There was excited talk of a new international economic order, or the NIEO, in which rich countries will transfer an agreed proportion of their domestic product year after year to speed up the process of development in poor countries.
That was a quarter century ago. The developing world has lost its homogeneity. First the miracle economies of East Asia broke rank and now the populous countries of the Asian mainland - China, India and possibly also Pakistan - have climbed on to high growth trajectories.
The Latin American, with some luck and some strategizing, may also break away from the cycle of sluggish growth and stagnation. It appears that only two parts of what was once the Third World, will receive special attention from the West - Sub-Saharan Africa and the Greater Middle East.
Beyond the boundary
Karl marx dismissed religion as the opiate of the masses. What would he have made of the cricket hysteria in the subcontinent? He would have scratched his head and stroked his beard.
These were people of two countries, the majority of them desperately poor whose daily lives was a struggle for survival. Quiet despair was a normal condition. Their forbears had been colonized by the British. The British had held on for nearly two centuries with pomp and parade until they were made to leave.
Unlike T. S. Eliot's decent, godless people whose monument would be the asphalt road and a thousand lost golf balls, the British left behind a legacy of the rule of law and the game of cricket. We have made a mishmash of the first and a secular religion of the second.
Cricket is more than a game. It is an instrument of diplomacy. It is a barometer that measures the popular mood in both the countries. When the two governments are angry with one another, they use the game of cricket as a metaphor.
They snap not diplomatic ties but cricket ties. Like all religions, cricket too has its extremists, Bal Thackeray, the demagogue being one of them. No way will he allow Pakistan to play cricket in Mumbai.
But there is a wind of change that is blowing. It is, at present, a gentle breeze. The breeze may pick up or it can turn into a dust storm. Again, it will depend on cricket. The Indian team has played its first match. The tour that acquired a political significance of its own has got underway.
Hopefully, we will stay focused on cricket and will be spared the sweet melodies of fraternal bonds and eternal friendship. The cricket tour must not be invested with properties, the medicinal powers of healing. The tour will last about six weeks and what will happen when the Indian team returns? Will the present euphoria evaporate? Am I being too cynical?
Perhaps, I have been hardened because I belong to a generation that has seen too many false dawns. Cricket matches do not bring about a change of heart. The people of both countries are at the mercy of politicians and politicians are dictated by their own version of what is good for them is good for the people. The people have no control over their lives. Is there now an awakening? Only to the extent that there is an awareness that the fault lies not only on our neighbour but we must share some of the blame for the lack of trust.
Hundreds of visitors are expected to visit Pakistan and they will get a chance to see Pakistan for themselves. They will bring some pre-conceived impressions, images of a country that has been portrayed as a dedicated enemy. A great surprise awaits them and they will wonder, one hopes, what sort of enemy this is that welcomes them with open arms.
Their own cricket team may be blanketed with security, the sight of so many visible policemen and many more invisible plainclothesmen may be unnerving but if the team is under any kind of threat, the danger is posed by the elements that are enemies of both countries.
But this suffocating security was not our idea. It was demanded by the Indian government and its cricket board and the team is accompanied by its own security officials.
But the Indian visitors will be free to roam about, to see the sights, drive their bargains in our bazaars and interact with our folk. If they choose to discuss politics, they will do so at their own peril. But this will not be unique.
When I went to Dublin, I was told the Irish are a very friendly people, unlike their British neighbours, happy to strike up a conversation with strangers. " But don't get into a political discussion, " I was warned.
I would give the same advice but would add cricket too. There are limits to our hospitality! Most of the Indian visitors will not be easily identified as they look like us.
Unless, they are Sikhs but then there will be a double welcome for them. In 1955 when the first-ever Indian team came to Pakistan, the borders had been opened and many visitors came across to Lahore, a large contingent of Sikhs among them.
The Lahoris took them to their heart and restaurants refused to accept payment and they rode the tongas for free, the tongawallas saw them as honoured guests. There was a Sikh visitor who was blind and he said he had come for the smells of Lahore and to hear its sounds.
If the visitors come with an open mind, they will return, convinced of the good faith of the people of Pakistan. That the propaganda that had brainwashed them had been exactly that propaganda, the engineering of public opinion to create phantoms and shadows and a dark world.
It is to be hoped too that the cricket tour will allow our own people to watch the big stars of the Indian team in action. Many of them are household names and Sachin Tendulkar has many admirers.
He may not get the same devotion that he gets in his own country but there are no two opinions about his genius and there is a healthy respect. Many of us will be hoping that he will showcase his talent but I know that he will understand that we wouldn't like him to make too many runs. He has the knack of winning games off his own bat. That won't win too many hearts.
One hopes too that we fully understand that the rivalry between the two teams is a positive kind of rivalry and is confined to the cricket field. Cricket is not war by other means. If I had my way, I would have made Picasso's Peace Dove as the official logo of this tour.
A vote for peace at the stadium
A wag had pointed out that Saturday, March 13, might be the first time in the history of cricket that 14 Muslims would be on the same field. He got it slightly wrong. There were only 13 Muslims among the 24 cricketers in the two teams (don't forget the 12th man).
Yousef Youhana, the Pakistan wicketkeeper-batsman, is a Christian. It could as easily have been only 12, if Pakistan had included their spinner, Danish Kaneria, who is a Hindu. The most devout Muslim in this baker's dozen is an Indian, not a Pakistani: Irfan Pathan, son of a maulvi in a small town in Gujarat, a remarkable young man whose great joy remains helping his father sweep the local mohalla mosque.
You can see the welcome side of the story, of course. Every player, on either side, is there on merit alone. Faith, family, region, bias, the traditional vices of the subcontinent, surrendered to the happy law of ability. The reason is obvious. The financial stakes in cricket are too high for communalism. It is, to quote a famous line, a triumph of rational economics over prejudice.
The players produced a game on Saturday choreographed in dreams. But there was something much bigger in the air. The true revelation was the city of Karachi. The spectators in the stadium gave a phenomenal vote for peace, for goodwill, for normality, for a future without hate and bitterness and war. It was not just the standing ovation at the end. It was the eloquent behaviour through the match.
They were partisan, of course; they had every right to cheer their country as much as I prayed and wished victory for mine. But it was the passion of competition, not the fire of hatred that one has witnessed so often in the past in both countries. India has changed as well.
Fifteen years ago, a politician pilloried Azharuddin because he dropped a catch in Pakistan. Such divisive politics pays no dividends now. I doubt if I will see another catch quite as fantastic as Mohammad Kaif's catch in the crucial last phase when Pakistan was looking at victory. It was not just a feat of acrobatics; it was a definition of commitment.
A year ago, when Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee resurrected every kind of cynic with his "last" call for peace between India and Pakistan, Saturday the 13th of March was unthinkable. Hand it to him: he sensed the power of peace even when the forces of hostility were enjoying their high noon. It required vision and conviction.
He could not have done it alone. I recall a statement made by President Pervez Musharraf while talking to a group of us in Islamabad. He chided us for thinking that there were wild cheers when he returned to Pakistan after the failure of the Agra summit. Indians had no idea how disappointed Pakistanis were that an opportunity had been lost.
On the morning of the match, Delhi's newspapers were awash with the predictable flood of cricket puns: no pitch can ever get as feverish as an editor's vocabulary, no game can be greater than a 19th century hangover.
Lost amid the cricket-hype was a story that would normally have got better play. Speaking at the India Today Conclave on Friday, Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee suggested that the time had come for "innovative" answers to the long crisis in Indo-Pak relations. He gave one hint of what they might be when he proposed a South Asian Economic Union. But it was also a suggestion to start thinking.
The best place to begin is at the beginning. India was the first country to win freedom from European colonialism. India and Pakistan became therefore the first modern post-colonial nations.
It was entirely logical that nationalism would be the most powerful impetus of peoples who had rediscovered their freedom after generations of servility. This nationalism was identified with borders: frontiers became inclusive precisely because they were exclusive.
One of the unresolved mysteries of 1947 is why the British left in August that year when they could have easily waited for another six months to resolve the disputes that were inevitable in as difficult an exercise as partition.
Their most grievous error was to rush out leaving the status of the border province of Jammu and Kashmir undefined. What would have been a terrible mistake anywhere else became a terrible tragedy because it straddled the border.
Ironically, the region that had suffered the worst calamities in human history because of national paranoia and border disputes was the same Europe that colonized most of Africa and Asia.
Nothing could match the horrors of the Second World War, and when Europe's leaders pondered over the future they realized that only by surrendering some elements of their 'sovereign space' could they make the fullest use of resources, manpower and economies of scale that would ensure a common prosperity.
And only in common prosperity lay common peace. From this perception arose the European Union. Imitation is the best form of flattery. In the last five decades, in stages, the rest of the world has made the European Union its model for the reorganization of the world into rational entities.
Supranational coalitions like Asean, Mercusor, Nafta and the African Union are the new continents of the modern age, held together by joint will and common purpose. (The Arab League should have been on the list, but, alas, as the old joke goes, there are too many Arabs in the Arab League.)
Why has the urge for peace descended upon South Asia, a region synonymous with conflict?
The difference between a regenerate and degenerate phase of history is often nothing more than the arrival of common sense. Common sense enables one to see a common enemy.
America and Britain forged their bonds in the heat of three wars across a hundred years: against German militarism, Nazi fascism, and Soviet totalitarianism.
India and Pakistan are at last beginning to see that their worst enemies are not each other but rather the poverty and terrorism that threaten the stability and destiny of both neighbours. Their resources make some foreign industrial-military complex rich, their wars leave their people poor.
For half a century, India and Pakistan have placed passion above compromise. We are only seeing the first glimpse of what can be achieved through a spirit of understanding. At one corner of this jumble is a cricket game. At some other corner is a bus route through the deserts of Rajasthan and Sindh, or the mountains of the two Kashmirs.
At a third point the armies of India and Pakistan celebrate Eid al Azha by encouraging the Kashmiris on the two sides of the Neelum river to reach out to one another, sheltered by a cease fire.
Vajpayee's party can hardly believe what it is doing now - turning peace with Pakistan into an election-winner. Since the time of Mrs Indira Gandhi, the Congress and the BJP have sought to measure their nationalism through a politics of suspicion against Pakistan - ably helped by those in Pakistan who thought that their only contact with India should be through a permanent 'jihad'.
The status of Jammu and Kashmir would have reached the discussion table in 1947, for the simple reason that independence was not an option offered to any princely state by the terms of the transfer of power. War sabotaged that possibility, but five decades later it is still the discussion table that will find an answer, not the battlefield. This is where 'innovation' is most in demand.
The first necessity is that all parties must rise above their past positions, and there are indications that they are ready to do so. There is conflict over a line, the Line of Control.
We need to draw a larger line beside it, one that connects the distance between regional honour and common prosperity. We think of solutions in terms of pieces of paper. A solution can also be liquid: you can melt a problem.
The generation that created the problem is dead; the generation that sustained it, is on its last legs. Virtually every fact at Karachi stadium confirmed that we are now a young subcontinent. The young have the energy, education and imagination to recreate this region into an economic powerhouse, on par or even ahead of China.
As the United States seeks to refashion the world according to its strategic and economic needs, there are challenges and opportunities that are common. This is not a call for a permanent confrontation with the United States; that is foolishness. But it is an assertion that it is possible to deal with problems, including those of instability and terrorism, without interference from foreign armies.
A free market in South Asia by January 1, 2006 may still seem like a miracle, but if that first miracle happens then it will beget even more miraculous offspring.
An economic union is best guaranteed by a common strategic vision for South Asia. After all, who is the better guarantor of peace in Afghanistan? A German contingent in Nato uniform, or a Rapid Action Indo-Pak Force? Impossible? That match in Karachi was also impossible a year ago.
Optimism is a much-derided sentiment. But when you have just watched a cricket match which neither side deserved to lose, but which - thank God! - we won, then I may be forgiven my optimism.
The writer is editor-in-chief, Asian Age, New Delhi.