Age-old India-Pakistan tensions are often blamed for undercutting the effectiveness of the South Asian Association of Regional Cooperation (SAARC). 

A good rapport between these countries, the two largest in the region in terms of population and military might, is imperative to give momentum to the SAARC process. But owing to bad blood between them the group’s biennial summit-level meeting has not been held after 2014. 

International relations experts say the main reason behind the body’s sluggish progress is its failure to embrace the core principles of regional organizations. 

For instance, the internalization of the notions of collective security, prosperity, and dignity by member states contributed to the success of the United Nations after the Second World War. 

Shambhu Ram Simkhada, former diplomat and professor at Tribhuvan University, says international relations theorists had initially thought that a similar calculus would work at the regional level.  

They argued that countries cannot conduct their foreign policy based only on narrow national interests and called for harmonization of national interests.

“Each country in a grouping has to understand that national interests will be harmonized so that individual country’s national interests are also served in a group-setting. That, at least, was the idea behind regional cooperation. But it could not take root in South Asia,” says Simkhada.

Over the past three-and-a-half-decades, SAARC, the regional bloc of eight South Asian countries, has largely failed to achieve its goal of economic and regional integration. 

While the strained Indo-Pak relations could be the main reason behind it, there are other stumbling blocks as well.  

Good organizations invariably have good leadership, something SAARC has long been missing. As its largest member with strong influence over its neighbors, India can (and should) take such a leadership role. But it has not been ready to do so. 

With India unenthused about regional cooperation under SAARC, other member states have also not come forward to take leadership. Smaller countries can certainly take the lead to revive the stalled SAARC process. This was demonstrated by Nepal and Bangladesh in the 1980s when they played proactive roles in the regional body’s formation. They had convinced both India and Pakistan, which  were initially unwilling to join, to come on board. 

Amit Ranjan, research fellow at the National University of Singapore, says a regional body needs a leader who can lead through consensus. 

“But India-Pakistan tensions and several other issues hinder such consensus,” he adds.

Stability is also a prerequisite for a vibrant and functioning regional cooperation. But political upheavals in member countries have constantly affected the SAARC process. 

The SAARC summit could not be held from 1999 to 2002 following a military coup in Pakistan. Similarly, India withdrew from the 2005 Dhaka summit due to its differences with Bangladesh and King Gyanendra’s coup in Nepal.   

Right now, barring India and Bhutan, all other South Asian countries are battling some sort of political instability. 

In Afghanistan, the Taliban has regained power and the international community is yet to recognize it. Whether other member SAARC countries are ready to share the platform with Taliban representatives remains unclear. 

Democracy-deficit in member countries has created hurdles for regional cooperation, say international relations experts. 

Another factor hobbling the regional body is the tendency of member countries to engage bilaterally instead of prioritizing regional cooperation. On trade, connectivity, and environmental issues, India mostly engages with individual member countries bilaterally. SAARC has great scope in water and energy cooperation, but India is again dealing with these issues bilaterally, mainly with Nepal, Bhutan, and Bangladesh.

India is also signing bilateral free trade agreements with the countries in the region rather than taking steps to operationalize the South Asian Free Trade Agreement (SAFTA). 

“India is giving more attention to bilateral relations instead of working collectively through common platforms,” says Ranjan. 

In her 2018 research paper ‘SAARC vs BIMSTEC: The Search for the Ideal Platform for Regional Cooperation’, Joyeeta Bhattacharjee, a senior fellow at Observer Research Foundation, a New Delhi-based think-tank, says bilateralism decreases the countries’ dependence on SAARC to achieve their objectives, making them less interested in pursuing region-level initiatives.

Bilateralism is easier as it entails dealing between only two countries, whereas SAARC—at a regional level—requires one country to deal with seven, she argues in her paper. 

Preference for extra-regional trade and the general environment of distrust among member states have also diminished the scope of regional cooperation. Not only with Pakistan, India also has contentious issues with Nepal, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka.

The asymmetry between India and other member countries in terms of population, geography, and economy has made regional cooperation difficult. Smaller countries often see the projects forwarded by India as tools to cement its regional hegemony. This became evident in 2015 when Bhutan, Bangladesh, India, and Nepal agreed to a vehicle agreement, known as BBIN, only for Bhutan to later opt out stating that it cannot regulate the flow of people and goods. Pakistan had refused to join the initiative outright as it came from India. 

Simkhada suggests boosting the status and widening the mandate of the SAARC Secretariat to create a more functional regional body. Right now, “SAARC is being treated as no more than a minor administrative body.” 

The position of the SAARC secretary-general, he says, is lower than that of an ambassador or a joint secretary of any of its member states. 

Insufficient economic resources have further hobbled the regional organization. Member countries are not ready to contribute large funds to finance big connectivity projects. At the same time, some member countries are opposed to receiving financial assistance from SAARC observer states like the US, China, and Japan or from other multi-national donor agencies. 

For long, Nepal has been proposing active engagement with observer members to raise funds for big regional projects, to no avail.

A senior Nepali foreign minister official who has long been involved in the SAARC process and who spoke to ApEx on the condition of anonymity, says member countries, particularly India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh are against taking international support. They fear big powers or multilateral institutions could otherwise “impose their own agenda” in the region.

While member countries have divergent and disparate views on regional issues, there is no permanent mechanism to discuss them and bridge the differences. 

“Disputes among member countries often hamper consensus building, thus slowing decision-making,” says Bhattacharjee. “SAARC’s inability in this regard has been detrimental for its growth.” 

Over the past decade, China’s influence in the SAARC process and as well as in its member states has increased. China was brought in as an observer state at the request of member countries, including Nepal, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. This did not go down well with India. 

Indian policy-makers fear China could use the regional body to make further inroads into its backyard. Experts say this is one reason India has shown little interest in SAARC’s revival. 

A former Nepali diplomat who has closely worked with the Kathmandu-based SAARC Secretariat says Nepal, Bangladesh and Pakistan are for China’s greater role in the SAARC process, much to India’s chagrin.

“China itself has shown  interest in playing a greater role within SAARC, and India most certainly does not want that,” he says. “This is one reason behind SAARC’s slow progress.”