The tautology of cultural collaboration

At regional meetings, Southasian writers invariably repeat old themes – translate literary works into each other's languages, share common experiences and, most spectacularly, revitalise the common heritage of the region's countries. Additional clichés found their ways into the agenda of such literary meets – as if the countries of Southasia came into existence only after SAARC itself did! At a Southasian writers' conclave in Delhi, there was suddenly a commotion in the middle of one session. Some officials came rushing from nearby Vigyan Bhawan, where SAARC leaders were meeting at the time, with a handwritten message. They were invited to the dais, and the news they had to share was indeed good: Afghanistan had been admitted to SAARC as a new member. But what followed was a travesty. The organisers shuffled around, trying to include some pieces of Afghan literature; some token references were added to the proceedings; a 'poet' was found to read his poems. Those familiar with the language cheered the poet. As such, the entire discussion moved to consider the virtue of including new members to the Southasian writers' organisations. Burma, many hoped aloud, would join the organisation one day. A Sri Lankan writer asked me, "In as dramatic a way as this?"

In reality, the politics of the countries of Southasia are at odds with the cultural and literary heritage of the region. Geopolitical historicism is out of step with geo-cultural reality. The history of cultural commonalities is long, and transcends borders and governmental boundaries. The literary and artistic heritage – poetry, drama, painting, sculpture, architecture, music, dance and poetic-spiritual forms, such as the singing of bards and Sufis and travelling folk performances – is what has created the unique texture of unity in this region. Politics, meanwhile, has both contributed to and disrupted the flow of these traditions and genres. British rule in Southasia has left us with a paradoxical situation, one in which the literary and cultural discourses across the region and its countries are confined to the English language. Speaking in postcolonial terms, English rule left a dual legacy of canon and context – ie, literary and cultural education drew heavily from the canons of the English metropolitan culture, and new contexts were created for the literary, artistic and theatrical education of the Southasian region.

Monolithic mode
We continue to live with this dual legacy. Ironically, the postcolonial context has also generated bases on which to define a cultural unity for the countries of the region. Indeed, the strong heritage of the cultural commonality that becomes manifest in the genres mentioned above does exist in Southasia. But the postcolonial situation of Southasia also appears to have put this heritage of common bonds into some difficulty. There are several reasons for this.

A new nomenclature called Southasia (which also has postcolonial, geopolitical origins) was interpreted by politicians of the region as a geographical unit that could encompass everything that the region had to offer – the vast diversity of nature, the region's varied political systems, the happy and traumatic origins of its countries, and its wonderful possibilities of progress and developments. All of these imaginings had their origin in the monolith called Southasia, and these politicians believed that this fanciful monolith would regulate all activities of all organisations in the region. The idea was romantic; its thrust to emphasise a romantic unity.

This did not seem to work at the political level. It now promises to run into further difficulties unless new and dramatic changes occur in this region in the domains of politics, sharing of resources and the expansion of education and culture, such that everyone in the region can both contribute something to and receive something from the process.

On the cultural plane, too, little appears to have been achieved. For example, participants who coalesce at the regional meetings of litterateurs continue to say that we should read each other, understand each other, facilitate additional exchanges. But they hardly ever offer plans to translate those aspirations into reality. It is tautological to repeat what the people have always been doing in the region: that is, sharing cultural heritage through the millennia. The SAARC countries make cultural exchange an agenda because they find it very easy to adopt such resolutions; but in reality, they are not adding anything that did not already exist in the region. The rhetoric of 'culture' remains perceived as a safe way to keep the organisation from addressing the region's more contentious issues.

The monolithic mode of imagining of the region has another important challenge in a globalised context, on both the cultural and political fronts. The test comes from the creative explosion of pluralistic thinking and events in the region. Thus, the prescription for SAARC should be this: address what you can achieve, and do not harp on the tautology of cultural commonalities of the region. Those commonalities already receive their sustenance from our shared heritage and network of dynamic processes and organisations that are actively working in all of the countries of this region, as they have through the ages.

A unique mix of native-based creative awareness and global consciousness has unleashed an energy in the region today that becomes manifest in creative works, environmental awareness and strong democratic convictions. This force promises to render useless any dictatorial ambition of individuals or groups. If SAARC leaders ignore this energy, they will inevitably find their methods to be merely bureaucratic, and their political ambitions to be couched in non-political platitudes that are always out of step with the region's tremendous creative energy.

~ Abhi Subedi is a writer and poet from Kathmandu.