SAARC’s vision was ambitious but achievable: foster
economic, social, and cultural cooperation to enhance the quality of life in
member states. However, the trajectory of the organization was quickly derailed
by the deep-rooted political mistrust between India and Pakistan. The
unresolved Kashmir dispute, periodic border tensions, and competing security
narratives transformed the platform into a casualty of bilateral hostility.
Since the 2014 Kathmandu Summit, SAARC’s high-level meetings have been suspended
indefinitely, leaving the secretariat in Kathmandu underutilized and
politically irrelevant.
The cost of this dormancy has been immense. Intra-regional
trade among SAARC members remains below 6 percent of total trade — the lowest
for any comparable regional bloc. Transport corridors, energy-sharing projects,
and digital connectivity initiatives have been stalled. The absence of a
collective policy voice has left South Asia peripheral in major global economic
and climate negotiations.
Comparatively, ASEAN and the European Union began with
modest frameworks centered on trade facilitation and economic complementarity,
eventually evolving into influential regional institutions. Their success was
not rooted in political harmony but in the understanding that economic
interdependence can temper political rivalry. SAARC, unfortunately, allowed
politics to precede economics, forfeiting the very logic that drives successful
regionalism.
The failure to institutionalize decision-making has also
weakened SAARC’s resilience. The Secretariat operates with limited resources
and minimal authority. Summits and ministerial meetings, which should function
as policy engines, have instead become arenas for diplomatic signaling.
Moreover, the proliferation of alternative regional frameworks — notably
BIMSTEC and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization — reflects the shifting
preferences of member states toward arrangements perceived as more functional
or geopolitically advantageous.
Yet, it would be incorrect to describe SAARC as obsolete.
The organization retains a symbolic and functional foundation that can be
reactivated. Its network of specialized bodies in agriculture, environment,
health, and disaster management continues to operate, albeit at suboptimal
capacity. More importantly, the shared challenges of climate vulnerability,
energy security, and regional inequality demand precisely the kind of
coordinated response that only a platform like SAARC can provide.
The need is not to abandon SAARC but to reimagine it — as a
mechanism of pragmatic regionalism rather than political posturing. The first
step toward revival is to acknowledge why it failed: not because its goals were
unrealistic, but because national egos overshadowed collective rationality.
South Asia’s sleeping might remain potent; it only awaits political maturity to
awaken.
