As giants fight, small nations should unite

Devendra Gautam

Call it sheer confidence. Just days after an internationally-educated and renowned economist floated a Monroe doctrine 2.0 projecting the sphere of influence of the world’s largest democracy and the fifth largest economy with smaller nations from the neighbourhood forming the periphery and the semiperiphery, Bangladesh erupted. 

There’s no dearth of experts, who call it the corollary of the Sri Lankan crisis that erupted two years ago, and those who differ, arguing that Bangladesh and Sri Lanka are like chalk and cheese. This scribe leaves it to experts par excellence to conclude whether or not it’s a domino effect playing out in our neighbourhood. 

A groundswell of protests against the Sheikh Hasina government, especially over her labelling of those protesting against the generous job quotas for the children and the grandchildren of the 1971 war of independence against Pakistan as the Razakars (the collaborators of Pakistan in that war) brought her regime characterized by dictatorial streaks to an abrupt end on August 5, almost 20 long years after her ascension to power marked by rigged elections and a brutal suppression of dissent. The situation on the ground was so dire on that fateful day, it did not even allow Hasina to deliver an eleventh-hour address to the nation before fleeing the country to India on an army chopper, leaving behind a trail of death and devastation. In a different context, this hasty flight reminded this scribe of a very powerful ambassadorial warning issued to a beleaguered monarch while he was trying his bit to revive a country bleeding dry due to a sponsored insurgency.   

Alas, the country in flames at present is the same country that had been, for a decade or so, witnessing jobless growth—a  GDP growth of 6-7 percent—despite a paltry job growth rate of around 0.9 percent. 

The fall of a regime presiding over a jobless growth has huge implications for a corrupt-to-the-core leadership across political spectrum in Nepal, which has been having a free rein in a things-fall-apart-the-centre-cannot-hold scenario for decades on end. Much to the envy of tinpot dictators, this cartel has been having one long party by plundering this nation and her peoples, with full support from powerful collaborators. 

Back to Bangladesh. During her roughly 20 years in power characterized by a brutal suppression of dissent and imprisonment of opposition leaders, including her nemesis Khaleda Zia, the matriarch of the opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party, Sheikh Hasina had been quite accommodative of the interests of the regional power emerging as a global superpower both in terms of economic and military might, as well as China, the world’s second largest economy in terms of nominal GDP.      

But with a plummeting popularity graph and unwillingness on the part of western nations, including the UK where her relatives have been residing, to provide her refuge, the guest at the Hindan air base in Gaziabad may, in the long run, become some sort of a liability for the host country, which will seek to normalize her relations with Bangladesh, given her high stakes in terms of investment there and certain defence-security sensitivities. 

A question arises: Will Hasina’s stay at Hindan lead to some sort of a compromise over her country’s national sovereignty marked by some agreement/treaty, more or less of the kind that was forced upon Nepal as a result of King Tribhuvan’s stay at the Hyderabad House as part of a struggle against the Ranarchy about 75 years ago? 

Anyway, the recent developments in the neighbourhood, including in Sri Lanka, the Maldives, Myanmar, Bangladesh, Afghanistan and even in Pakistan do not give the reigning regional power with global ambitions much comfort, even as some pundits endowed with unparalleled expertise on geopolitics and geostrategy see in chaos in smaller countries great benefits for their country on ascendance. Do they truly believe that the superpower and the hyperpower will sit idly by while their country tries to make the most of the situation?  

As the ensuing chaos in smaller countries in the neighbourhood can indeed provide the regional power, the hyperpower and the superpower an opportunity to pursue their conflicting interests and turn these countries into one large warfront, will it not be in the best interest of these countries to develop closer relations and stand together for a common cause by not aligning with any of these big guys?  

In this crisis situation, these countries have a unique opportunity to show to the world that they have standings of their own, voices of their own, core interests of their own and they have not appointed any country to represent their interests in very many fora on global south, climate change, geopolitics, geostrategy, digital security and a world order for the future, among others.    

A working unity among them will be vital in protecting each other’s vital interests, both in crisis situations and in normal times. A well-coordinated process for the revival of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation headquartered in Kathmandu, without the two ever-fighting giants if they so desire, can be a right step in that direction. 

Lastly, the developments in the neighbourhood, in Bangladesh and Sri Lanka in particular, offer Nepal’s political leadership some sobering lessons. It can ignore these lessons at its own peril.