Current multipolar world is strategically vital for Nepal and Bangladesh: Prof Imtiaz (interview)

Retired from Dhaka University, Professor Imtiaz Ahmed is a renowned intellectual not only in South Asia but also in global arena. He had taught International Affairs in Dhaka University for decades. After his retirement from Dhaka University, Prof Ahmed is in Kathmandu for a mission. He is leading a Master’s program offered by Asian Institute of Diplomacy and International Affairs (AIDIA), in academic partnership with Kathmandu University (KU). Since he is leading Masters in International Affairs, Economy and Diplomacy (MIAED) programme, Nepalkhabar’s Consulting Editor Kuber Chalise talked to Prof Ahmed about a plethora of issues including Asian Century, multipolar world, Gen Z movement both in Bangladesh and Nepal, and so on.  Excerpts:

The world is fast changing. You have been teaching international affairs since long. How was the world when you were teaching international affairs in the classroom and how is it today, when you are outside the classroom?
Then the world was bipolar, which means mainly on one hand the west led by US, and on the other hand you had Soviet Union leading eastern Europe. In the 80s, the world largely became unipolar. Particularly after the dismantling of the Soviet Union by Gorbachev. But then midway I think around some people say 86, some people make it later, the world started moving toward a multipolar world. So, I have seen bipolar, unipolar and the coming of multipolar world. So, we are in an exciting time, I think. And I have to say that I enjoyed international relations very much. If I look at the transformation, it has been incredible.

Which is very exciting time for you as a professor?
I think multipolar, there is no doubt about it because the world has never seen multipolar. This is for the first time on a global scale. There were multipolar in Europe. There was little bit of multipolar in Africa, in South Asia. But on a world scale, this is for the first time the world is becoming multipolar. And it is so exciting because all the economies have an opportunity to play a role including Nepal. The big powers were playing their role in the unipolar and bipolar world. But in multipolar world even small powers can play a role. So that means the coming days are more exciting for the small countries like Nepal, like Bangladesh because they have the role.

How do you define that Nepal or Bangladesh, these small states can play a role in this multipolar world?
Well, this is something that needs more brainstorming, including research, including education. And this is where I think AIDIA’s attempt to, and I believe we are already far ahead, in launching this Master's program in International Relations, Economy and Diplomacy (MIAED) can make a difference. Because we still need lot of brainstorming how to handle a multi-polar world. We know that there can be opportunities and there can be good outcomes. But to make that fruitful, it's important we develop the entire structure in a way, where young minds can contribute. And this is where I think AIDIA’s MIAED program can make a difference.

Bangladesh and Nepal both are in South Asia. Once upon a time, we used to talk about South Asia and still we are talking about South Asia region. But in between, there is this institution called SAARC. But now, people think it's non-starter. So, why? What was the problem?
Well, one of the biggest problems with SAARC has been the conflict between India and Pakistan. So, my experience with SAARC also has been quite particular. We have a little bit of success story. I wouldn't say full success story and that is to do with the South Asian University. I was instrumental in establishing it as I wrote the first paper on South Asian University. And later on, I was the original team member from Bangladesh side when Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh agreed to have this which is now called main campus in Delhi but the regional campuses are yet to come out. So, but still that's one kind of achievement.
The idea was to build a South Asian mind. Unless and until we have the regional campuses, I don't think we are having a South Asian mind. What we now have is an Indian University of South Asia rather than a South Asian University. There may be one or two other achievements in SAARC but not much. But now with the political stalemate, I think we need an out of the box thinking of how to revive SAARC. And I would say that we need to take lessons maybe from ASEAN, which now is ASEAN plus three. I think SAARC should also go know, SAARC plus three or SAARC plus four including Japan for example, include China for example, not to mention US. So, if we can include more actors, maybe SAARC will have a better future.

But again, the problem will be the same. India is there, Pakistan is there and you cannot change neighbours!
Well, it is interesting point but keep in mind that India and Pakistan are both in Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). So, if India and Pakistan can be in the SCO, why can't India and Pakistan together in SAARC, may be SAARC plus three or SAARC plus four? So, I am an optimist. I have always been an optimist person but going back to the old charter, would be difficult. I see it's time for us to reinvent. It's an interesting idea but the world has really become very complex and multipolar. Now, I will give you one more example why SAARC flus three or four can be done. And that is if you look at the trade regimes of all the South Asian countries, the largest you know, in terms of if you look at even bilateral trade, it is with China. Even India's largest trading regime is now China. So, China for example is economically almost a South Asian country.
So, I believe if we want to move further and if we want to develop South Asia to the extent some of the Asian economies have done, we need to work very hard and I believe a SAARC plus three or SAARC plus four can make a difference.

The trade within SAARC countries is less than 5 percent, though the trade outside SAARC is much more. So maybe this platform may not work !
No, you see, I think one of the mistakes was to start with economics and trade. You see, economics is a very complicated because it works on scarcity. And scarcity is also psychologically not an interesting concept because it emanates fear. So, if you start with scarcity, then you can't go very far. And that's the reason why I thought of writing concept of this South Asian University, focus on education and change in the mindset first. The mindset has not changed. So, with the trade and you have rightly pointed out with 5% intra-South Asian trade, we are not going to go very far. But if we had worked on other disciplines, and then come to trade, probably things would have been different.

But again, at the same time isn’t economy the only thing that brings these countries South Asian countries together !
Without Nepal-India trade there is no possibility of growth. Without even China-India, there is no growth possibility. So, trade and economy is the integral part of all these agreements or disagreements across the world, not only in South Asia. So, at the same time they are the most important basic thing also to link countries or to link the societies or people. That is where I think we got stuck because most, well, all the South Asian countries they produce almost the same thing. So, it's more competitive rather than cooperation. And all tend to go outside South Asia to profit.
In economy and in trade also, like you said, the countries in South Asia are producing the same thing and there is competition. But why can't we think that a product can be co-produced with the help of Nepal, Bangladesh and India. We can produce the same thing and sell it outside. There is a large room for that.
Absolutely. Nobody has thought about that till date. Well, on the bilateral basis there are something of that like an Ready-Made Garments (RMG). I think this is where we are failing because the mindset is such and not to mention the rules and regulations are so strict and rigid. We still carry the colonial rules and regulations. We need to change but, as I said, if the mindset is always kind of emanates fear that other is trying to take over because these are all new states, in a sense. All are post-colonial states. Nepal probably would be an exception in that case not been colonized but overall, our education has been highly colonized. And again, I have to say this is one thing that we are trying to address in the Master's Programme that we are launching in Kathmandu. And one of the pillars of MIAED course is decolonising international relations. We need to decolonize ourselves first. The reason we got stuck is because we haven't thought out of the box.

Don't you think multilateralism is much more complex compared to bilateralism?
Well, economically we are already multilateral because we are living in the age of globalization. Take for example, Bangladeshi garments, which is number two in the world after China. But I am wearing made in Bangladesh dress but that's little because the machines come from Germany, now they all they come from China. And cotton comes from India or East Africa or Central Asia. And then the design probably is from Paris or in New York or Italy. This is the unique part of this whole developmental economics because you can't have production of everything in one particular country.

And the electricity to run that company may have come from Nepal?
If you are already multilateral economically, what it needs that we need to transform that economic multilateralism into political multilateralism. And that is where the mindset has not really come up. Economically we are all connected. You can't have an economy now in the age of globalization because production has become international. This is the unique part of the of this whole developmental economics. Because you can't have production of everything in one particular country. So, if production is international, I see no reason why we can't transform ourselves into a political multilateralism.

Lately, Nepal, India and Bangladesh are trying to create joint venture to invest in hydropower and start energy trade. So, do you think this energy trade or like we have said the garments could propel this regionalism and kickstart the regional platform like SAARC again?
Absolutely. And it can go beyond SAARC. You know, this idea of energy corridor, when it comes to Nepal and Bangladesh it is only limited to 40 megawatts and that again on a seasonal basis. So, you know, once you have the grids and everything, you can really extend that and multiply that. Now, on the other hand, there's also a discussion now when our Prime Minister Tarek Rahman visited this time to Beijing, President Xi Jinping proposed the idea of Bangladesh, Myanmar, China economic corridor. And in that economic corridor, energy corridor is a critical one. After many years even Myanmar, their ambassador sat with Bangladesh counterpart to discuss the energy corridor between Myanmar and Bangladesh. Although we have a serious problem of the Rohingya issue. The issue of energy has become very critical after this Iran-US war and Hormuz. So, I believe we need to work very fast to make ourselves totally autonomous, if not independent, so that South Asia can grow collectively together. But if the mindset is ‘I will grow, I will not let others grow’, or if there is that tension, then we are not going to go very far.

But when we created SAARC, or even BIMSTEC or even BBIM, the whole idea was to grow together by promoting the free flow of goods and people across the border. And at one point of time, we even had envisioned single currency in SAARC before Euro. Single Euro came into practice but we failed. So, where did we fail?
Again, I would say mindset. I'll give you one example. The idea of South Asian University, for example, is a good one because the charter clearly points out that the objective is to develop a South Asian mind. Now, when it started, they insisted in having everything in Delhi for example, which had to be negotiated and at the very end the compromise was that the main campus will be in Delhi. Now, what it means that there will be other campus as well. And so, in the beginning they gave a five years moratorium that for five years regional campus can't be made. That five years has gone, it's already like 20 years now, nothing has come up. But look at the mindset, the idea was that each campus would be called by the name like the city Delhi campus, Colombo campus, Dhaka campus but moment you have a main, then it becomes very problematic for example for Pakistan, you know, or even Bangladesh would say what is this main thing. And there are good examples. The West Indies have done that, universities of West Indies which has campuses in different countries in West Indies. But the mindset is such that they insisted that it be Delhi and it could be called main campus. So, we ended up as I said earlier into an Indian university of South Asia. And more interestingly when the disciplines were decided, as I wrote the concept paper, the original idea was to have post-discipline faculties, something like faculty of peace studies or faculty of water futures, faculty of comparative religion. So, all disciplines can come and work. But then the person, who was given the charge, though he was a nice man and passed away, he insisted on the traditional disciplines, regular courses, regular biochemistry, economics. I think it's still time to rectify that. Now that is again, I go back to the Master's Programme of AIDIA.

The AIDIA-MIAED programme that you are leading, says Asian century. I think around 2010, intellectuals had said the epicenter of global economy is going to shift towards Asia. If we go by data also, Asia contributes almost 50% to the global GDP. So, having all these advantages and economic might also, why Asia couldn't get its role in the global politics?
Well, if you take whole of Asia, no. I believe you can't rule out China has a global position now. It has a very bigger position. It has already economically, if you look at the PPP, surpassed United States. So, some Asian economies have really done well. I would also include Singapore which is only 6 million Island, but it has really done remarkable. Also, you have South Korea and not to mention Vietnam is coming up. I think what has happened with Asia is there is a kind of a re-rise of Asian economies because back in 18th century China for example was the largest economy, even undivided India. I would say undivided India was the second largest economy in the world. Because I always talk about Bangladesh because back in 18th century when undivided India was the largest economy, Bengal was the richest province. And that's the reason why the colonial powers Britain came through Bengal. They stayed for nearly 200 years, which we never thought.
So, what we are having now is a re-rise of Asia. And this is the reason one of the pillars of AIDIA-MIAED is Asian futures. There are altogether four pillars; decolonizing international relations, Asian futures, Multipolarity and artificial intelligence (AI). So, it's structured in a way where we need new scholars, new thinkers and this program hopefully will help build minds which will transform Asia even more.

In 2024 Bangladesh witnessed Gen Z movement. And in 2026 Nepal witnessed the Gen Z movement, which only in 48 hours the whole regime changed. Compare Bangladesh movement, the media and intellectuals claim that Bangladeshi textbook is followed in Nepal or it's replicated. Do you think it is possible in today's world to go on experimenting the same thing from one country to another?
No, I think, there may be similarities with all uprisings and revolutions. And since it is happening at one time, even in Sri Lanka. Even people connect this with India's recent Cockroach Janata Party movement. Keep in mind that whether it is uprising or revolution, there is always the youth had a role to play. Back in 71 when we had a serious war with Pakistan, a liberation war, I was just a class 9 student. But I left my parents. I did not tell them. I went to India. I literally slept on the pavement to join the Mutibahini. But I was not an exception. There were young students, who also were participating in the liberation war. So, that is always in all age. Every generation has aspiration to change. So, I don't know why they give the name because, if I take Bangladesh, all the regime change that has taken place in Bangladesh, all the uprising and the demonstrations except one or two, all started in Dhaka University. That means students were always involved. So, I don't think this is the end of Gen Z. There will be more Gen Z. Well, naming, branding, is it good or bad? I'm not really sure. I don't want to go into that. But the point is youth getting engaged in social movement is nothing new.
So, what has happened in Nepal or in Sri Lanka or in Bangladesh and you can take Tunisia, Egypt. Yes, there is a little bit of similarity and that's the reason you have to be very careful of whether you are falling into trap or not, whether the expectation is too much or not. Because in our case for example in Bangladesh, the expectation was very high. But that created different kinds of problem. Some wanted early election, some did not. So, we had election one-and-a-half year later. Whereas Nepal held very quickly election on time and Nepal got elected government. So, there may be some similarities but I think each of these uprisings or revolutions, whatever you say, happened due to absolutely domestic issues. You know, at the end of the day, it's people who sacrifice. Yes, external actors may have interest, may have instigated in one way or other, may have even supported one way or other, but that they can do because there is a space for them to do. If the space is not there, if there is no what you call division, if there is no authority and structure or exploitation or dissatisfaction or alienation, then I don't think the external factor works. It's the internal dynamics that we have to look into. And then of course, one can see some similarities but I will rule out that somebody on the top is doing everything. I don't think that is how it works it had been in the past like you say Cold War era, there is the when the world was bipolar one faction and another faction they used to do such things. Maybe that is why people are today also saying someone is orchestrating. All these are all planned things.

What do you think, like you said in the beginning, in the multipolar world, the small states like Nepal has a role. So, how do you think the small states should be prepared to play that role?
Well, first I have to say that I don't take Nepal to be a small state. I think the small power is okay but not a small state. Largely because there is a UN definition of small state and also, I believe if I am not wrong, WHO also has a definition of small state. Nepal doesn't fall into that definition. It's a small power. I think what we need to see the positive side of Nepal is that first Nepal was never colonized. That allows Nepal in many ways to maneuver in a way particular thought processes it doesn't have the hang-ups that some of the South Asian countries have, including Bangladesh or India, we are highly colonized. Ashish Nandy used to always say that the British have left, the physical colonialism has gone but mental colonialism still remains. So, we are highly mentally still colonized. So, Nepal has an advantage of not being colonized. So, it can actually have an education structure qualitatively different from rest of the South Asian countries. Although, because the Nepali scholars studied in the West or studied in India or in South Asia, they also get infected by the colonial discourse and ends up with the colonized mind. So, advantage is in history. The second advantage is Nepal's geographical position. Being at the center, literally the center of the earth. With the Himalayas and Mt Everest, it's the center of the earth, or the third pole. So, you are at the center. But more importantly Nepal has two big economies; one is China and another is India. And what a potential these two countries or two economies have. China has already shown. It's only that India is lagging behind for its own internal dynamics and I'm sure they have to rectify that and come up with extraordinary thinking to go even further. But you know with these two economies, there's no reason why Nepal will not emerge also as a developed economy because it can always fall back on both sides it should decide on not to be either or that's the only thing the moment it decides that we would engage with the multipolar world. And India is a polar as much as China is another polar, and not to mention other polar is also important.  I believe Nepal has a big future, and that is the reason AIDIA-MIAED has one of the pillars as Asian futures with Nepal at the center.
(First published in nepalkhabar.com -- https://en.nepalkhabar.com/news/detail/19802/)