In the aftermath of Bangladesh’s political upheaval, Nobel laureate economist Dr. Muhammad Yunus, now the chief adviser to the interim government, has publicly expressed interest in reinvigorating the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) on a number of occasions. Yunus has expressed his intention to take steps to revive SAARC, including seeking a group photo with all the heads of state of SAARC countries and holding discussions in various bilateral meetings. Dhaka blames the current state of SAARC on the acrimony between India and Pakistan, as well as the Taliban’s return to power in Afghanistan, the last member of SAARC.
Before Bangladesh, Nepal had been trying to galvanize this regional alliance diplomatically for years, but no significant progress has been visible. Bangladesh and Nepal consider it important to strengthen regional cooperation through SAARC and BIMSTEC. However, some policymaking communities in India view this initiative of Bangladesh with suspicion. No less a figure than India’s external affairs minister indicated that Bangladesh was “batting for Pakistan” by attempting to revive SAARC.
SAARC was established in 1985 with the lofty ambition of enhancing economic, social and cultural cooperation in South Asia, one of the most densely populated and diverse regions in the world. However, for nearly a decade, the organization has been dormant. While 18 SAARC leaders’ summits have been held so far, the last was 11 years ago, when Nepal hosted. The SAARC summit lost momentum after the terrorist attack on an Indian army camp in Uri, Jammu and Kashmir in September 2016. At the time, India declared that terrorism and the next SAARC summit – set to be hosted in Pakistan – could not go together, a view echoed by other South Asian countries who joined India in boycotting the event. The 2016 summit was thus scrapped, and no SAARC leaders’ summit has been held since.
SAARC has been plagued by terrorism, particularly cross-border militancy and state-sponsored extremism, for decades, but that is not the only issue holding back the regional grouping. Political rivalries, economic disparities, and changing geopolitical dynamics have also played a significant role in undermining SAARC’s prospects.
The founding members of SAARC were Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, the Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka; they were later joined by Afghanistan. Among the founding objectives, SAARC visionaries hoped to create a forum where regional challenges could be collectively discussed and cooperative strategies formulated. The scope of work eventually expanded to include trade, infrastructure development, environmental conservation, and cultural exchange. However, the diversity of SAARC member states’ historical trajectories, economic profiles, and political ideologies posed significant challenges from the outset. SAARC has never managed to become an effective organization with a unified agenda.
The India-Pakistan Factor
SAARC saw much optimism in its early years, with efforts to develop a SAARC Free Trade Area (SAFTA) and intra-regional connectivity modeled on the European Union. However, the lack of consensus among members, mutual distrust – especially intense political tensions between India and Pakistan – and divergent national interests soon undermined these efforts.
In this context, terrorism became a potent symbol of the organization’s stagnation, reinforcing the already existing fissures. According to global and regional terrorism experts, terrorism in South Asia takes multiple forms – state-sponsored militancy, state-backed extremist groups, separatist groups, and extremists – contributing to overall regional instability. In the aforementioned 2016 Uri attack, militants attacked an Indian army base in the contested territory of Kashmir. India blamed Pakistan-based militant groups for the attack. The incident has had a profound impact on bilateral diplomatic tensions as well as regional cooperation.
Amid Yunus’s efforts to revive SAARC, India issued a stern warning on terrorism during a bilateral meeting between Bangladesh’s Foreign Affairs Adviser Towhid Hossain and his counterpart Indian External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar in Muscat, Oman on February 16. On February 21, at the Indian Ministry of External Affairs’ weekly briefing in New Delhi, ministry spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal, without naming Pakistan, said, “Everyone in South Asia knows which country and what kind of activities have cornered SAARC.” He continued by reiterating India’s stance that “terrorism and dialogue cannot go together” and added, “Bangladesh should avoid normalizing terrorism.”
The reluctance of India, a regional major economy, to participate in SAARC until the terrorist threat is properly addressed is having a huge impact on the effectiveness of the organization. India’s prioritizing national security concerns over the larger, longer-term goal of regional integration has led to a stalemate in multilateral negotiations. Some analysts see New Delhi’s intransigence on terrorism and Pakistan in general as part of a regional strategy to consolidate and strengthen India’s position in the geopolitical context of South Asia.
One of the intricacies of SAARC is the long-standing and historic political contention between India and Pakistan. The two countries, which gained independence after nearly 200 years of British imperialism, have combined the toxic legacy of the post-1947 Partition with the contentious dispute over Kashmir to create an environment in which mutual suspicion and hostility dominate bilateral diplomatic ties. Terrorism, in many instances, is both a catalyst and an outcome of this rivalry and has repeatedly led the two nations to diplomatic deadlock.
The long-standing rift in India-Pakistan relations has directly affected the functioning of SAARC. The divergent stances of the two dominant powers have undermined the potential for consensus on regional issues. This inherent structural flaw in SAARC’s decision-making process has frequently resulted in a paralysis, leaving issues such as economic integration and environmental collaboration unresolved.
Economic Cooperation Remains Limited
Economic cooperation has long been envisioned as a path to regional stability and growth in SAARC. The SAARC Free Trade Area (SAFTA) was established in 2006 with the hope of acting as a catalyst for SAARC economic integration by promoting trade, facilitating investment, and reducing barriers to regional trade. Despite this, intra-regional trade has not made significant progress. In fact, economic and trade activity among SAARC countries is still very low. Deep economic disparities among member states pose significant challenges to effective cooperation.
India, with its large and rapidly growing economy, dominates the economic landscape of the region. India alone represents more than 80 percent of South Asia’s collective economy, geographic area, and population. Thus, the entire regional integration of South Asia has been and will continue to be dependent on India’s intentions regarding SAARC.
In contrast, smaller economies like landlocked Nepal and Bhutan, as well as the archipelagic Maldives, are heavily dependent on India for trade, investment, and development assistance. This imbalance often leads to a perception of economic dominance. The resulting economic dependence creates an asymmetry that undermines genuine multilateral cooperation. Many smaller member satellite states are reluctant to pursue policies that may antagonize metropolis India, even though these policies may be beneficial in the long run.
Analysts say India faces two major internal challenges in reviving SAARC. First, anti-Pakistan rhetoric is being used for political gain to fuel anti-Pakistan sentiment and Islamophobia on Indian soil. This domestic politicking is influencing foreign policy in undesirable ways. Second, the Modi government’s economic vision is still unclear, especially the relationship between economic integration and Modi’s slogan of self-reliance (Aatmanirbharta).
China and SAARC
The moribund SAARC is also being affected by the larger geopolitical reconfigurations in South Asia. China’s rise, epitomized by its strategic investments in critical infrastructure under the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), has significantly altered the regional balance of power. It is said that this could be an occasion for the breakup of the SAARC alliance. A study by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace identified three factors behind China’s growing influence in Bangladesh, the Maldives, Nepal and Sri Lanka: “weak state institutions,” “fragile civil societies,” and “elite capture” in politics.
China’s aim is not precisely to build up SAARC, but to create an alternative alliance in the name of development that excludes India. In that regard, Beijing has exploited the opportunity of SAARC’s stagnation due to the India-Pakistan hostility, as China offers its own pathway for regional integration in which all roads lead to Beijing.
India’s immediate response to China’s growing influence in regional geopolitics has been to promote an alternative regional alliance: the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC). Afghanistan, the Maldives, and Pakistan are in SAARC, but not BIMSTEC, which instead brings in Myanmar and Thailand. India’s strategy of sidelining SAARC in favor of bolstering BIMSTEC is geared toward three strategic objectives. First, India hopes to isolate Pakistan in the regional arena – although it is in SAARC, it has not been included in BIMSTEC. Second, India wants to build BIMSTEC only as a trade alliance. The SAARC forum had the potential to discuss all regional issues, from water-sharing to border disputes. Without Pakistan, there is no country in BIMSTEC to oppose India’s position on any issue. Third, New Delhi believes that BIMSTEC, under its leadership, will also be useful in countering China’s emerging dominance in Southeast Asia – thus the inclusion of two states from that region in the grouping.
The changing geopolitical landscape has led to a realignment of national priorities among SAARC members. Regional states are now pursuing a more pragmatic foreign policy strategy that emphasizes bilateral and selective multilateral engagement rather than broad-based regional integration. For example, in the past, SAARC failed to play any role in pressing regional disputes like Kashmir or the sharing of transboundary waters, which gradually led to disillusionment among the common people. Similarly, if the Rohingya dispute cannot be resolved, Bangladesh and Myanmar will not be able to join BIMSTEC and come closer. It is worth noting that BIMSTEC’s role in the Rohingya issue is questionable, while the diplomatic community in Dhaka contends that the organization has failed to effectively represent Bangladesh’s interests.
To sum up, although terrorism is often cited as the main reason for SAARC’s ineffectiveness, that is only one symptom of a broader illness. The organization has lost its course due to the profound political rivalry between India and Pakistan. The failure to achieve meaningful regional integration amid the economic disparities and internal crises of other weak states have further intensified the problem. Meanwhile, amid the changing regional geopolitical dynamics, both China and India have been promoting their own alternatives to SAARC, further reducing interest in the grouping.
To revive SAARC, as Bangladesh’s Yunus wishes to do, would require not only reform of its functional structure but also a fundamental change in the regionalist mentality of the member states. Necessary steps include eliminating long-standing geopolitical conflicts and bilateral animosities between India and Pakistan; reducing trade barriers to enhance economic integration; developing infrastructure and ensuring the expansion of regional investment; and building reliable institutions through transparent governance and effective administrative structures.
Above all, SAARC’s commitment to equitable development through the use of digital technology, track II diplomacy, cultural exchange, collective efforts, and strong political will can revitalize the moribund organization. Only then can we hope to realize the promise of regional cooperation envisioned by the founders of SAARC.