By Focusing Only On Terrorism, The BRICS Summit Fell Incredibly Short

Posted on October 21, 2016 in Politics

By Goutam Bhaskar:

The long awaited BRICS summit and BIMSTEC summit on its sidelines is finally over. Though BRICS was the main course, BIMSTEC had it’s own ingredients adding flavour to the main course.

The progeny of BRICS was realised in 2006 by nations having emphatic ambitions in the international arena in terms of geo-political, politico-economic aspirations which entailed the allocation and distribution of natural resources. Though the glimmer did not accrue to the desired fate, the association has been able to strike an indelible dent in the unipolarity and hegemony of the West. The crescendo of small monetary efforts into the New Development Bank is nothing short of sui generis.

Now, let’s take a stroll through 2016 meet. The most significant narrative of BRICS and BIMSTEC was culpable ‘terrorism’. And yes, it’s an issue worth echoing in high decibels. But at a meet aimed at social and economic progress through mutual co-operation of five nations, is this even pertinent? Converging of all issues at a cul-de-sac of terror, further aggravated by our sensationalising media, is least appreciable. The boilerplate of the summit hardly talked of terrorism or state terrorism to be more specific.

Now, this is not to exculpate terrorism but to avoid being overtaken by its awe. State sponsors of proxy terrorism were condemned by the whole world and was alienated by SAARC members in its own soil. That was much of condemnation and bashing. Getting this anathema endorsed by BRICS could only further this condemnation and soothe us a bit more in which we failed completely, as China affirmed its intransigence. There must be some valorisation of politics and duly it must be supplant rendering to the needs of realpolitik. India, acting like a dilettante, doesn’t portend well.

The mainstream media should have splurged news of poverty alleviation, resource allocation, climate change burdens, trade deficits etc. Why did it choose the sole topic of terror?

Belligerents are eager in wanting a war and not in readiness should it happen. When it happens, they gloat at the expense of our invaluable soldiers.

Does the quote “Politicians think of next elections, statesmen of next generation” fall in coherence here?