I have seen over the years that in industrially-advanced countries, there has been a continuous trend of economic development. Further, this economic development has spread, though in varying degrees, to all classes. This does not apply to our countries which are not industrially developed.

Indeed, the struggle for development in our part of the world is very difficult and sometimes, in spite of the efforts made, economic inequalities not only remain but tend to become worse.

Normally speaking, it may be said that the forces of such a society, if left unchecked, tend to make rich richer and the poor poorer and thus increase the gap between them. Nobel Peace Prize: I do not know if the meek will inherit the earth, as the biblical saying goes. But whenever anyone among them gets the recognition, I feel inspired, more so when the person happens to be from the region.

Muhammed Yunus who has won the Nobel Peace Prize is a simple, unassuming Bangladeshi who has done the entire South Asia proud. That the honour has come to him for helping the poor for reconstructing their lives is all the more commendable. South Asia is the most exploited area where more than 50 per cent people live on the periphery.

What the Yunus experiment tells is that even an individual, if determined, can make a dent in closed doors behind which the poor have been generally stacked. Thirty-two years ago he loaned from his own pocket some Rs 250 to a group of famine-stricken farmers to save them from the clutches of moneylenders.

Two years later, he opened his Grameen Bank for the same purpose. Today, he has 65 million borrowers, mostly women, who have transformed their living conditions through self-employment.

I had the privilege of meeting Yunus early this year when he was the main speaker at the 10th anniversary of The Daily Star at Dhaka. Standing at the rostrum in his kurta and pajama, he reflected honesty and integrity which is so limited in the region.

In his speech, he said that a poverty-free world was a reachable dream provided the better off in the society were willing to share their riches.

Bangladesh is rowdy, boisterous and drenched in fundamentalism. But it is a democracy all right.

Liberals are divided but they speak out against fanaticism in one voice. The press is free if a newspaper is willing to stand up to the government's blandishments. In any case, Bangladesh is far better than those countries in the region where political parties compromise with the right to rule themselves and "adjust" with autocracy or dictatorship.

An admirable practice in Bangladesh is that a caretaker government is in power three months before the general elections are held. The purpose is to ensure that the official machinery does not take sides. (October 28 is the date for the changeover).

The last retired chief justice is appointed as the chief adviser of the next caretaker government.

So far the experiment has worked reasonably well. But the ruling Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) has changed the rules of the game. This has forced the other main political party, Awami League, to threaten the boycott of the polls. The Election Commission too does not look or behave like an objective body.

The Awami League has demanded for its reconstitution before the party decides to participate in elections. What sustains hope in the democratic setup of Bangladesh is that even the biggest political crisis is sorted out through a dialogue.

The BNP and the Awami League are talking to each other, although haltingly, to find a solution to the appointment of a caretaker adviser to the caretaker government and the Election Commission. Despite all this, Bangladesh is teetering at the edge of violence.

Religious extremism looks like having an upper hand. Bangladesh has come a long way, from domination to liberation, to understand that the society it aims at cannot be brought about through violence.

In fact, all South Asian countries face a challenge from the forces of terror which parade themselves as the protector of their identity and culture.

I feel that any appeal to violence is particularly dangerous in the region because of its inherent disruptive character. We have too many fissiparous tendencies for us to take risk. They are tearing our societies apart.

The basic thing, I believe, is that wrong means will not lead to right results and that this is no longer merely an ethical doctrine but a practical proposition.

True, there is a sense of frustration and depression.

The old buoyancy of spirit is not to be found at a time when enthusiasm and hard work are most needed. In our efforts to insure material prosperity, I feel, we have not paid any attention to the spiritual element of human nature.

I have seen over the years that in industrially-advanced countries, there has been a continuous trend of economic development. Further, this economic development has spread, though in varying degrees, to all classes. This does not apply to our countries which are not industrially developed.

Indeed, the struggle for development in our part of the world is very difficult and sometimes, in spite of the efforts made, economic inequalities not only remain but tend to become worse.

Normally speaking, it may be said that the forces of such a society, if left unchecked, tend to make rich richer and the poor poorer and thus increase the gap between them. This holds good for countries as well as to groups or regions or classes within countries.

Soft as India is, it believes that the affluent nations of the world can build the country.

Practically every field has been opened to foreign investors. Of course, they have the money and the technology. But what will happen to the sovereignty of India or, for that matter, other countries in South Asia. Strange, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh should tell the European Union at Helsinki to take advantage of special tax-free enclaves, Special Economic Zones.

(Finance Minister P Chidambaram reportedly cautioned the government against the loss of revenue running into crores of rupees at a cabinet meeting but was silenced).

I was at Bhubaneswar last week and found how practically every district of Orissa - there are 30 of them - is being handed over to multinational companies. The two natural resources - the bauxite and iron ore - are being leased to them with thousands of acres of agricultural land for the infrastructure.

There is neither consideration for rehabilitation of the uprooted people nor for the depletion of natural resources. The Nobel Prize committee has rightly said that lasting peace cannot be achieved unless large population groups find ways in which to break out of poverty.

But how can this be possible when the working of globalisataion is loaded in favour of developed countries? Is there no way to develop without turning our back on what we can do on our own? Every field does not have to be opened to foreign investment. We can choose as China does.

The message by Yunus from Bangladesh is that the poor can work their way through if they build the nation into a cooperative endeavour. The nation can be stretched to become a region. The South Asia Economic Union is the answer to the problems of backwardness and poverty.