"From Promise to Paralysis:
The Unworkable Reality of SAARC."
Submitted by:
Md. Latifur Rahman
BSS (Hon’s), 3rd year, 6th semester
Roll: 41
Submitted to:
Assistant Professor, F.M. Tunvir Shahriar
Peace and Conflict Studies
University Of Dhaka
Table of contents:
I. Introduction
II. The Promise of association
III. Manifestation of Paralysis: The Geopolitical Deadlock
The India-Pakistan Conflict
Failure of SAFTA
IV. Hegemony as an policy: India’s Strategic Role
The "Big Brother" Syndrome
Loss of Dominance
Choice for Bilateralism
Economic Protectionism
V. The Present Reality: Neo- and Open Regionalism
Neo-Regionalism: Functional Cooperation
Open Regionalism: Global Integration
VI. Conclusion
I. Introduction
The South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) was founded in 1985, the lofty
promise to boost economic growth, collective self-reliance, and regional welfare.(Malik 2021,
15). Despite shared cultural and historical roots of one of the world's most famous regions, the
organization symbolizes institutional paralysis. No successful summit since 2014. Four decades
after its founding, visions have remained incomplete. SAARC has become a textbook example.
(Hossain and Ahsan 2023, 72). While there is dominant narrative of blaming India- Pakistan war,
this paper argues that SAARC's paralysis is not merely a result of this bilateral hostility, but
rather a structural effect of the hegemonic dominance driven by India. This keeps SAARC so
weak and irrelevant in the region of South Asia, paving the way for open and neo regionalism.
II. The Promise of association
The Promise articulated in the SAARC Charter, was focusing to unite South Asia through
economic and social cooperatin. Its primary goals included boosting regional economic growth,
the welfare, and achieving collective self-reliance against global powers (Mustafa and Rahman
2022, 4). The mandate focused on tangible, non-controversial, safe sectors like health,
agriculture and tourism, besides diplomatic trust-building. Article X (2) depicts that all decisions
of this platform must be taken critically, unanimously, banned the discussion of contentious
bilateral disputes (Ali 2020, 95). For ensuring the consensus by forbidding the forum from
discussing the region’s deepest disputes, primarily India-Pakistan conflicts, SAARC was made
neutral at its birth, Therefore it could never serve as an exact conflict-resolution platform.
III. Manifestation of Paralysis: The Geopolitical Deadlock
The India-Pakistan Conflict
The internal weakness of SAARC quickly translated into the manifestation of paralysis once
geopolitical India-Pakistan tension grew. (Chakma 2018, 55). While the SAARC Charter clearly
forbids the talks of contentious bilateral disputes, the political environment became chaotic and
full of unresolved conflicts, particularly Kashmir, cross-border disputes, and mistrust, made
cooperation impossible. The clearest demonstration of this functional failure was the
postponement of the 19th SAARC Summit which was scheduled for Islamabad in 2016. After
the Uri attack, India and its allies Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Bhutan boycotted meeting which
effectively isolated Pakistan. This demonstrated that how major powers, specifically India can
make standstill SAARC’s progress at will. (Majeed 2021, 110).
Failure of SAFTA
SAFTA (South Asian Free Trade Area), inaugurated in 2006. There was political mistrust which
affected its effectiveness and thereby the SAARC became weak.
Intra-regional trade is still only 5% of total trade, compared to over 20 percent in ASEAN
which is far lower than ASEAN (Siddiqui 2019, 31).Beyond bureaucracy, SAFTA’s problem is
the lack of political will to eradicate non-tariff barriers, resolve customs conflicts, and increase
the connectivity of land and transit. Thus, the political constraints, the India-Pakistan rivalry
keeps SAFTA and SAARC stuck. Thereby the regional integration goal was become standstill,
SAARC reveled itself as an unworkable reality.
IV. Hegemony as an policy: India’s Strategic Role
The main reason SAARC remains paralyzed is only the passive India-Pakistan hostility, but also
a planned, strategic choice by India to control the direction and depth of regional integration.
This policy is driven by the intention to maintain its regional hegemony.
The "Big Brother" Syndrome
There is asymmetry in size, economy, and military power between India and all other SAARC
nations which creates imbalance. It holds 80% of the region’s GDP and population, which
creates a situation, described as the "Big Brother" syndrome (Bhasin 2020, 15). This “Big
brother” image causes distrust, suspicion among smaller states like Nepal, Bangladesh, Srilanka
who frighten domination and dependence and political subordination. (Rahman 2023, 41). As a
result, when SAARC meets, these unified bloc of smaller nations resists India’s proposals from
New Delhi's perspective.
Loss of Dominance
The prime idea of the argument is that a strong, developed, united South Asia would challenge
India’s regional dominance. If SAARC succeded in boosting connectivity, intra-regional trade,
and mutual trust, self-relience and cooperation ,the smaller member states would be empowered.
This collective self-reliance would provide them with greater diplomatic, economic and political
leverage. It will lessen their dependence on India. Therefore, India has a strategic reason to let
the SAARC platform fail, ensuring its regional control remains unquestioned, unchallenged
(Hussain 2022, 120).
Choice for Bilateralism
To avoid the limits of SAARC’s Consensus-based system, to circumvent the frustrations of a
consensus-driven multilateral forum and to strengthen its power, India has preference for
bilateralism over SAARC. In a one-on-one setting, India, as a larger partner transit rights (with
Bangladesh), energy cooperation with Nepal and Bhutan, and river water sharing with
neighbours. This approach allows India to use its economic power as a tool to ensure its national
interests more easily than in multilateral settings (Chowdhury 2021, 63).
Economic Protectionism
India’s protectionist policies reinforce the knowledge that it deliberately shows regional
development to keep its Big Brothership and dominance. Despite the SAFTA, India uses
extensive sensitive lists and imposes non-tariff barriers on goods from its smaller neighbours
like Bangladesh and Nepal. Small countries see this as limitation of economic growth. This
approach stucks them in dependency and maintains the asymetric balance of power. (Siddiqui
2019, 31).
V. The Present Reality: Neo- and Open Regionalism
Functional Cooperation
Neo-Regionalism is defined as the cooperation of smaller, functional, practical groups working together
to avoid the political chaos of big organizations. (Sarker, n.d.) . The BBIN (Bangladesh, Bhutan, India,
Nepal) initiative is key example here. By excluding Pakistan, These counties have focused successfully
on real projects like the Motor Vehicle Agreement (MVA) to enhance seamless transport and the
progress of regional power grids (Karim, 2020).
Open Regionalism: Global Integration
Open Regionalism defines the strategy of integration with larger global or regional blocs.
India’s main focused has shifted to BIMSTEC (Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral
Technical and Economic Cooperation). This platform, centered on the Bay of Bengal, aligns with
India's long-term "Look East/Act East" policy (Carnegie Endowment, 2018). By including
Thailand and Myanmar but excluding Afghanistan and Pakistan, BIMSTEC has become a more
active organization than SAARC.
VI. Conclusion
The contemporary unworkable situation of SAARC stems from a serious institutional wave. The
rules which should be followed by all countries before any decision making, Pak-Indo Conflict
has made it very difficult. As India is a powerful and influential country in the global South Asia,
so they do not fully trust India. They prefer meeting in a small group partnership of bilateral
relationship. So the cooperation in South Asia is now shifting. Open regionalism and neo
regionalism has created a new opportunity to move.
Reference:
Hossain, K. M., and M. Z. Ahsan. 2023. "Geopolitics and the Failure of Regional Integration:
SAARC in Retrospect." Journal of South Asian Studies 45, no. 2 (June): 65–88.
Malik, Salman. 2021. The Promise of Regionalism in South Asia: A Political Economy Analysis.
London: Routledge.
Ali, Riaz. 2020. Regionalism and Conflict in South Asia: The Limits of SAARC. New Delhi:
Oxford University Press.
Mustafa, Farhana, and Anisur Rahman. 2022. "SAARC's Functionalism: A Review of its
Economic and Social Mandate." South Asian Review of International Affairs 15, no. 1 (March):
1–25.
Chakma, I. 2018. "The Failure of Multilateralism: Geopolitics and the SAARC Deadlock." Asian
Policy Review 12, no. 3 (September): 48–70.
Majeed, Zafar. 2021. "Political Rivalry and the Future of South Asian Regional Cooperation."
Journal of Regional Studies 40, no. 1 (January): 99–120.
Siddiqui, R. H. 2019. Trade Integration in South Asia: A Roadblock Analysis of SAFTA. Dhaka:
University Press Limited.
Bhasin, Vinit. 2020. Hegemony and Security in South Asia: The Indian Factor. London: SAGE
Publications.
Chowdhury, S. K. 2021. "Bilateralism and Power Asymmetries in South Asia." International
Relations Quarterly 10, no. 4 (December): 55–78.
Hussain, Maaz. 2022. "Regional Integration in South Asia: The Strategic Calculus of Indian
Dominance." Asian Security Dialogue 38, no. 1 (February): 115–135.
Rahman, Aminur. 2023. "Indian Hegemony, Non-functional SAARC and Fractured Regional
Integration." ResearchGate. Accessed October 26, 2025.
Siddiqui, R. H. 2019. Trade Integration in South Asia: A Roadblock Analysis of SAFTA. Dhaka:
University Press Limited.
Bose, Sumanta. 2017. Secularism and the Future of India. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Das, Udayan. 2019. “Assessing India's Shift From SAARC to BIMSTEC.” South Asian Voices.
June 27, 2019.
Gokhale, Vijay. 2022. The Long Game: How the Chinese Negotiate with India. New Delhi:
Penguin Random House India.