South Asia: SAARC’s revival should be a diplomatic priority

The people of Bangladesh no longer want a future government that is merely a change of faces produced by a transfer of power, continuing governance along the same old trajectory. There is now a strong public appetite for clear answers: how will the abnormality in relations with neighbouring countries be resolved? What vision will the major political parties and electoral alliances adopt? Clear answers to these questions have become central to public aspirations.

Multilateral diplomacy in South Asia has all but ground to a halt. Bangladesh–India bilateral engagement is at a low ebb. Geopolitical relations are marked by deep unease. With the exception of Afghanistan, India’s relations with no South Asian country can be described as comfortable. Its enduring hostility with Pakistan persists, and the India–Pakistan rivalry has plunged the entire subcontinent into a crisis of trust and insecurity. India’s relations with Nepal, Sri Lanka and the Maldives are also fraught with suspicion and discomfort.

A major reason behind South Asia’s insecurity, economic uncertainty and political mistrust is the paralysis of SAARC (South Asian Association of Regional Cooperation). This paralysis did not emerge overnight. Over many years, a toxic tree of mutual suspicion, unequal conduct, and political and psychological distance has taken root. Normal bilateral diplomatic engagement is no longer sufficient to bridge this gap, because bilateral relations are mired in the politics of emotion, ego and the arrogance of power.

The February election thus represents a historic opportunity for politicians to redefine the country’s diplomatic outlook. The first and foremost foreign policy agenda of the newly elected government should be to initiate the revival and effective activation of the SAARC.

2.

Why does SAARC need to be reactivated? Unilateral and bloody US intervention in countries such as Venezuela has demonstrated that when regional unity is weak, no country’s sovereignty is truly secure. The failure of the Arab League in the Middle East, or the consequences of the lack of regional cohesion in parts of Africa, tell the same story. By contrast, the European Union, ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations), and Latin America’s Mercosur bloc have shown that regional cooperation is not merely an economic arrangement, but a fundamental pillar of political security as well.

Because of the European Union, even smaller states are able to speak as part of a collective force in global economic and political arenas. Without such unity, they would never have been able to negotiate on equal terms with powers such as the United States, China or Russia.

Similarly, without ASEAN, countries like Indonesia, Vietnam, Thailand and Malaysia could never, on their own, have emerged as central hubs of global production and supply chains. Under ASEAN’s umbrella, they ensured political stability, mutual trust and investment security. As a result, South-East Asia has developed into an alternative manufacturing base even amid the China–US trade row.

Regional alliances also serve as an effective shield for political security. When Mercosur member states—Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay—moved towards a common market and customs regime, they were able to consolidate their position in global agricultural and industrial markets. Mercosur is not fully successful or entirely effective today. Yet during periods when the bloc functioned more effectively, its member states were far stronger individually as well, particularly in trade negotiations with the European Union and the United States.

When regional alliances weaken, every country suffers. Despite sharing close linguistic, cultural and religious ties, Middle Eastern countries failed to forge effective political unity through the Arab League. As a result, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen—each separately falling victim to external intervention.

The experience of the African Union is also instructive. When the organisation was relatively active, it achieved some success in democratic transitions and conflict management. Whenever it weakened, countries became vulnerable to civil wars, military coups and external influence.

The consequences of SAARC’s paralysis in South Asia are no different. India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal or Sri Lanka—none is secure on its own. India may believe itself strong in isolation, but in reality, regional mistrust and distance are undermining India’s own strategic security.

3.

Following the recent death of Khaleda Zia, India’s prime minister Narendra Modi swiftly expressed his condolences and sent a personal representative with a message of sympathy. The people of Bangladesh hoped that a long-standing chill was beginning to thaw. Yet amid this seemingly positive development, hostility towards Bangladesh was reignited in cricket when Mustafizur Rahman was dropped from the IPL (Indian Premier League). Public expectation was instantly transformed into disappointment and frustration.

Cricket is a humanitarian and cordial sphere beyond the confines of sports diplomacy—particularly so, given its status as a gentleman’s game. Public emotion, affection and patriotism are deeply intertwined with it. India’s decision, influenced by an aggressive Hindutva mindset, has therefore intensified anti-India sentiment across the region. The incident is not confined to the exclusion of a single player; rather, it has called into question India’s claim to be a secular, tolerant and liberal democratic state.

Under Sheikh Hasina’s rule, India may indeed have achieved a measure of dominance in Bangladesh. Yet throughout history, no country has succeeded in the long term by installing compliant governments in neighbouring states and extracting unilateral advantages. Even if India remains in a state of delusion for now, it will eventually be forced to learn that regional relationships must be built on a blend of education, culture, sport, trade and commerce—and above all, mutual respect and shared interests.

4.

If Bangladesh’s new government genuinely wishes to begin a new diplomatic chapter, it must pursue the revival of SAARC from day one. This is the only dignified path towards normalising relations with India. No party is required to bow its head within a regional alliance. The simple premise is this: if SAARC is strong, everyone benefits.

Division and fragmentation will reduce South Asia to a powerless region, leaving all countries equally vulnerable to external powers. Such weakness cannot be overcome through the arrogance of arms stockpiles, territorial size or economic might.

India has historically shown little enthusiasm for SAARC. From the condescension of being the region’s largest country, it promoted an alternative grouping—BIMSTEC (Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation). In essence, BIMSTEC was an attempt to bypass SAARC and establish an India-centric geopolitical authority. However, South Asian countries failed to find a dignified and equitable place for themselves within this framework. As a result, BIMSTEC has never become, and never can become, an alternative to SAARC. In reality, there is little prospect of BIMSTEC’s success.

Bangladesh now stands at a critical juncture where its foreign policy thinking must be carefully considered in advance. If the new government continues to follow the old bilateral template, the outcome will be either subservience to India or an escalation of hostility, resentment and mutual disrespect. By contrast, a bold and historic initiative such as the revival of SAARC would constitute a genuine step towards thawing relations. Reconciliation requires an appropriate platform—and SAARC can be that platform.

A regional alliance becomes sustainable only when it is founded on mutual equality, respect and collective decision-making. That potential within SAARC remains intact. Bangladesh’s late president Ziaur Rahman, the organisation’s visionary founder, demonstrated remarkable foresight. Not only the BNP, the party he established, but also other parties and alliances could incorporate a commitment to reviving SAARC into their election manifestos. Such a pledge would signal to voters that political forces possess goodwill and proactive intent with regard to positive geopolitics.

* Helal Mohiuddin is a professor of Sociology at Mayville State University, North Dakota, USA

* The views expressed are the author’s own