Many reckon the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) is dead and there is no point in flogging a dead horse. Perhaps. As India, by far the biggest South Asian power, is more interested in alternative forums like the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral and Technical Cooperation (BIMSTEC) and the Bangladesh-Bhutan-India-Nepal (BBIN) initiative—both without Pakistan—it may be wise to go along with the regional behemoth. BIMSTEC just came up with its charter. Granted. Yet it is not without reason that smaller South Asian countries like Nepal and Bangladesh that played a vital role in SAARC’s formation want to retain and revitalize the regional body.

SAARC came into existence in 1985 at the initiative of Bangladeshi President Ziaur Rahman, with unstinted backing and lobbying of Nepali King Birendra. In the Cold War-era, it was common for the US and the USSR, competing superpowers at the time, to try to create blocs of influence. SAARC came into being partly because of the American desire to keep South Asia out of the Soviet grasp—even as India-USSR relations were warming. But SAARC would not have materialized had the smaller South Asian countries not felt the need to collectively bargain for their socio-economic development with the richer world.

SAARC is dear to the likes of Nepal, Bangladesh, Bhutan and Sri Lanka because their leaders have over the years identified with its rationale even as India and Pakistan, the two feuding big powers in South Asia, have not always looked at SAARC kindly.

According to Lailufar Hasmin of the University of Dhaka, “Bangladesh felt that a stable and powerful South Asia was required to ensure its own development. The idea was later crystalized in the organization of SAARC.” Perhaps the same words could be repeated in Nepal’s case.

The idea was that if the region was not consolidated, she adds, its countries could never achieve their potential. This was true in 1985 and it is true today. 

Full story here.