Pavan K. Varma | Why India Must Resolve Not To Give Up On Saarc!

India's rise as a major power requires a stable and cooperative neighbourhood. No country can aspire to global influence without optimally managing its immediate strategic environment. That was the logic behind the creation of Saarc in 1985, although since the cancelled 19th summit in Islamabad in 2016 due to Pakistan-sponsored terrorism, it seems to have almost become extinct.

Saarc was established in 1985 at the first summit in Dhaka. Its founding members were India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan and Maldives. Later, Afghanistan joined in 2007. Its philosophy was simple but important. South Asia contained nearly a quarter of humanity, shared centuries of civilisational interaction, and yet remained one of the least integrated regions in the world. The founders believed that cooperation in non-contentious areas could build trust and improve the lives of ordinary people.

The charter consciously excluded bilateral disputes from discussion. This provision was inserted largely because of India’s concerns that Pakistan would seek to internationalise the Kashmir issue. The declared goals included economic cooperation, poverty alleviation, cultural exchanges, educational collaboration, scientific cooperation, environmental protection and regional connectivity.

History has many examples of nations overcoming deep-seated rivalries to create institutions of regional cooperation. These institutions emerged because leaders recognised that geography is a permanent reality, while conflict is a choice. The challenge was to convert proximity from a source of tension into an instrument of collective progress.

The most striking example is the European Union. Britain and France were rivals for centuries. Germany fought devastating wars against both. National identities were fiercely protected. Yet, after the catastrophe of two World Wars, Europe gradually realized that prosperity and security required cooperation rather than confrontation. The result was a process that eventually culminated in the European Union, one of the most successful examples of regional integration in modern history.

The same pattern can be seen elsewhere. The African Union emerged despite borders arbitrarily drawn by colonial powers, and despite ethnic conflicts and interstate disputes. Asean brought together countries that had experienced mutual suspicion and conflict. Indonesia and Malaysia were embroiled in the Konfrontasi of the 1960s. Singapore's separation from Malaysia in 1965 was acrimonious. Thailand and Cambodia had longstanding border disputes. Yet Asean evolved into a remarkably effective regional forum because its members understood that economic growth and strategic stability were best pursued collectively. Similarly, the Organisation of American States was built among countries with long histories of territorial disputes, ideological divisions, and political instability.

In all these cases, an important factor was the existence of shared cultural and civilisational linkages. This logic is equally applicable to South Asia. Despite political differences, South Asia possesses immense civilisational cohesion. The region's peoples are linked by history, language, religion, cuisine, culture, literature, music, and kinship networks that have long predated modern nation-states.

Although many people think that Saarc was essentially a ‘talking shop’ only — and that perception is perhaps not entirely unfounded — it is not as if when it functioned nothing was achieved. During its more active years, Saarc achieved — or attempted to achieve — several useful outcomes: creation of a framework for regular interaction among South Asian leaders; establishment of regional institutions dealing with agriculture, meteorology, public health and development; expansion of educational and cultural exchanges; launch of the South Asian University in New Delhi; negotiation of the South Asian Free Trade Area agreement; development of regional cooperation in disaster management and poverty reduction.

Perhaps its greatest achievement was psychological rather than institutional. It provided smaller countries with a forum in which they could engage India collectively and where India could demonstrate regional leadership without overt dominance.

Unfortunately, Saarc’s progress became hostage to the troubled relationship between India and Pakistan. Decades of mistrust repeatedly paralysed collective initiatives. Smaller neighbours often feared being overwhelmed by India's size and influence. External powers, particularly China, saw opportunities to advance their own strategic interests by exploiting regional divisions.

Yet the logic of Saarc remains as relevant today. India possesses one significant advantage that China does not. Its relationship with South Asia is not merely geographical. It is civilisational. Sri Lanka's links with India through Buddhism are profound. Nepal's cultural and religious connections with India are ancient and enduring. Bangladesh shares deep linguistic, historical, and emotional bonds. Even with Pakistan, despite political hostility, centuries of shared history, culture, language, literature, and music continue to provide a reservoir of human connection.

Moreover, India is a democracy. Whatever its imperfections, it is not perceived as an authoritarian power projecting influence through economic leverage alone. This gives India the opportunity to build relationships on a more consensual and participatory basis, without, of course, compromising on basic issues like terrorism and sovereignty.

The answer, therefore, is not to abandon Saarc but to revive it patiently and pragmatically. Grand declarations should be avoided. The agenda should not be overloaded. India must proceed incrementally through practical and mutually beneficial measures. It should consciously give more than it takes. It should display generosity without condescension, leadership without dominance, and strength without intimidation.

Trust cannot be manufactured overnight, but when people experience the advantages of cooperation — through trade, tourism, educational exchanges, cultural programmes, greater people-to-people contacts, energy cooperation, climate resilience, disaster management, and infrastructure links — they become stakeholders in cooperation, which can yield enormous benefits regardless of political disagreements.

Of course, legitimate Indian concerns about terrorism and security cannot be sacrificed on the altar of any forum for regional cooperation. These issues are non-negotiable. Yet, while accepting this premise, it is instructive to recognise that in South Asia no alternative framework currently includes all its principal actors, despite deep economic, historic and cultural linkages. Even if Saarc, as it originally existed and was conceived, is not revived because of the memories of its past failure, some forum of regional cooperation in South Asia needs to come up.

For India, as an emerging major power, a first priority must be to consolidate its immediate neighbourhood. In South Asia, geography has made us neighbours. Wisdom should now make us partners.