Submit your Article

Forty years ago, the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) Charter was signed. Despite its initial successes, South Asia today is politically and strategically fractured, economically least integrated and stuck when it comes to connectivity and diplomacy. With widening internal divisions and growing external demands, how should we look back to the four decades of SAARC and its future? 

Paradigm in peril: “After experiencing twice in their own lifetimes” the tragedies of the two World Wars, that generation of thinkers and leaders came together to create the United Nations to lead the world in transforming human behavior for “saving succeeding generations from the scourge of war” and other threats. After the deaths, devastation, and despair, the UN, standing on its three pillars, the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), and the Human Rights Council (initially named Commission), was to be the global repository of a new hope of collective human security, prosperity and dignity.

With the UN at the core, the International Financial Institutions (IFIs) and the ill-fated International Trade Organization (ITO), GATT—now the World Trade Organization (WTO)—were to assist in managing global financial, monetary and trading systems. Aimed at intellectually guiding this global transformation, a new academic discipline, International Affairs, Studies or Relations (IR), bringing together knowledge of history, geography, politics, economics, law, diplomacy and national security etc, also started in Western universities, which has now spread to all parts of the world. 

In both these new developments, there was an assumption that the inadequacies in understanding, codifying and guiding human relations individually, but more importantly relations among the highest and most powerful of the human institutions, the nation-states, were primarily responsible for the death and devastation. Now, of course, technology has fundamentally altered the understanding and application of sovereignty, power and interest, further amplifying the need for some form of convergence between national sovereignty and global governance with transformative IR and effective UN. Sadly, the Global Paradigm was in Peril for a long time. With the crisis in IR and post-Cold-War unilateralism the UN is totally marginalized in global affairs.

Regionalism, the next best hope: With the UN unable to come out of the Cold-War chasm, but regional cooperation in post-War Europe doing much better, some scholars and policy makers thought, perhaps, that cooperation for peace-security, prosperity and human dignity among countries within the same geographic region, with similar culture, stages of development, threat perceptions and security needs would have better prospects. Regionalism thus emerged as the next best hope in IR, a better approach to resolve disputes, avoid wars and promote peace and security, development, and human rights.

With European integration, it was assumed that regional organizations, their leaders and officials could better catalyze national interest harmonization, protecting and promoting individual national interests within the collective regional good. This in turn could act as the building block for future global transformation.

Establishment of SAARC: Aware of the power of the idea of regionalism and their region’s common problems of poverty and political violence, like in other parts of the world, seven heads of state and government of South Asia signed the Charter of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) in Dhaka, Bangladesh on 8th December 1985. “Promoting peace, stability, amity and progress in South Asia” for the welfare of the peoples of the region was the main goal. 

Right at the start, South Asian leaders identified two main areas for regional cooperation: Collective prosperity and regional security. With Afghanistan as the eighth member in 2007, the relevance of SAARC  in addressing the twin tragedies increased significantly. 

Early successes: From a modest start areas of cooperation multiplied, encompassing poverty alleviation to trade and finance, culture to environment, social development to security, science and technology to tourism. Eight agreements, including the South Asian Free Trade Area (SAFTA), six conventions including on Suppression of Terrorism and its additional protocol were signed. The Food Bank and Development Fund was meant to promote greater regional integration. SAARC Seed Bank, Multilateral Arrangement on Recognition of Conformity Assessment, Rapid Response to Natural Disaster and Implementation of Regional Standards were also signed.

The Social Charter and Charter of Democracy were steps toward common political and social order. The South Asian University could still spur greater intellectual interaction and innovation for greater regional consciousness, identity and cooperation. Sadly, performance hugely lags compared to potential. 

Intellectual traffic jam: Three decades after its establishment, Nepal was hosting the 18th SAARC Summit from 23-27 Nov 2014. As the host, the political leadership of the organization came to Nepal. For the second time, the secretariat was also headed by a Nepali and the third time the summit was being held in Kathmandu, where the secretariat is located.

All major global and regional actors (the US, China, Russia, Japan, Myanmar, Iran and South Korea) as observers of SAARC, reflected the pivotal position of South Asia in the post-Cold War world. With national leadership of vision and strong SG, this summit could have been a transformative moment for SAARC. 

As a member of the Summit Preparatory Committee, at the first meeting, I began my remarks by quoting a former SG—“SAARC has hardly progressed beyond signs and symbols”—and reminding the participants of the widespread criticism of SAARC for being ineffective. With Nepal assuming multiple leadership roles, I asked, “what kind of agenda should we propose, business as usual, incremental reforms or transformative?” 

Initially there was an all-round support for a transformative agenda. But from the second meeting the “intellectual traffic jam, political timidity and bureaucratic rigidity” started clogging the highway responsible for making SAARC unable to move forward.

After prolonged discussion, ‘Deeper Integration (Better Connectivity) for Peace and Prosperity’ was agreed as the summit theme. But support for deeper integration for peace and prosperity started diminishing and eventually the summit ended up being what SAARC summits have always been, rich in fanfare and declaratory rhetoric but little progress in addressing the real problems of the people of the region or a more unified position on external demands. “Neighborhood first or last?” dilemma and “beggar thy neighbor” policies keep South Asia divided and SAARC in “coma” today. 

Essentials remedies: This takes me back to the third SAARC Summit in 1987, the first in Nepal. In preparation for it, the Centre for Nepal and Asian Studies (CNAS) of the Tribhuvan University (TU), with which I was then associated, organized a seminar titled ‘SAARC: Retrospect and Prospect’. I started my paper “Nepal in SAARC, a Long-Term Perspective” with a question: What kind of regional cooperation are we talking about without Trade? Trade became one of the areas of cooperation later. 

The next issue I raised was the provision of the charter excluding bilateral and contentious (political and security) issues. The role of the secretariat only as an administrative unit and the level of the secretary-general (SG), a mid-level career official, was the third issue I identified for discussion. Finally, the overly state-centric nature of the organization was, in my view, problematic. With this diagnosis, I proposed three remedies:

1. Strengthening the Secretariat and upgrading the level of the SG, enabling and empowering him/her to more effectively implement the decisions of the inter-governmental bodies and promote regionalism by harmonizing national interests of individual member-states within the larger regional good

2. Greater role for civil society to take up issues that may seem politically contentious for the inter-governmental process to take up immediately but too important to be left out completely

3. A confidence building process by establishing a Council for Dispute Settlement composed of elder statesmen and intellectuals to discuss issues excluded from the inter-governmental process until the charter can be reviewed and amended to strengthen SAARC as a mature institution able to discuss more substantive bilateral political and security issues, which are the main impediments to real regional cooperation

My conclusions then were, without addressing these issues, SAARC will be busy only in marginal issues and diplomatic fanfare but unable to really move regional cooperation forward in any significant way. Since then, I have moved from academia to public service, diplomacy to conflict resolution and peacemaking. In my academic-professional-diplomatic roles, I have spoken and written on the need to ‘Transform SAARC to Prepare South Asia for a New Age’, with emphasis on the issues identified in that short paper.

Almost three decades later, the 18th summit came and went. Not just the 19th summit remains in limbo, but SAARC and South Asia continue at the same crossroads of time and space, history and geography, only in many ways moving backward in regional cooperation. The only difference is, with the new Asian Century, China in the north and India at its center, the Indo-Pacific, South Asia  and the Central Himalayas have emerged as one of the global political, economic and strategic epicenters, significantly increasing opportunities and risks for the region. 

As a student, teacher and practitioner, I have advocated rethinking IR and regional cooperation for long. Today, I am both happy and sad that the discourse on SAARC, its marginalization or BIMSTEC and its revitalization, revolve around the same issues I have raised for four decades. 

The author deals extensively with these issues in his new book “SAARC to BIMSTEC:Breakdown or Breakthrough in Regional Cooperation in South Asia”, being published by a leading Indian publisher in early 2026

When Lee Kuan Yew first took on the task of transforming Singapore from a Third World port city to a First World peaceful and prosperous nation-state, his initial model was Sri Lanka. What happened to Sri Lanka today and why?

Since the 1980s, Sri Lanka, once the island paradise, started falling into the quagmire of ideological and ethnic conflicts. The leaders who led the campaign to militarily end the devastating ethnic conflict were elected several times. But after their last election victory, the serious financial crisis exacerbated by Covid-19 turned into a crisis of political-economy and governance. The same electorate bringing the Rajapaksas to the presidential and prime ministerial palaces repeatedly also forced them not just to flee their palaces but also their country. The Rajapaksas’ fall from power started worrying many others, hence the question: “Are we going to be the next Sri Lanka?”

In South Asia, when Bangladesh first gained independence from Pakistan in 1971, it was described as a “Basket case”. Defying all odds, Bangladesh not just survived but also thrived. In recent years, it was one of the models of stability and prosperity, with highest rates of economic growth and ready to graduate from the grouping of Least Developed Countries to a developing country.

And then suddenly, in August 2024 what do we see? Angry mobs ransacking the official residence of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, who not only presided over the longest period of stability and prosperity but was also the surviving heir apparent to the leader of the new nation, Bangladesh. Not only was assassinated leader Sheikh Mujib’s daughter forced to flee the country, but angry mobs were seen breaking the statue of Bongo Bandhu, the Father of the Nation. It brought back memories of the statues of Lenin being downed after the fall of the Soviet Union or Saddam Husain’s after the Iraq War and the fall of Baghdad.

When leaders fall and nations fail

Starting from the Greek City States to the Vietnam War era US, Barbara Tuchman, in her fascinating book The March of Folly, explains how even intelligent people become blind in the seat of power. In my article, ‘Why do nation-states fail?’ I have related the story of the rise and fall of Mobutu Sese Seko and his role in the failure of one of the largest and richest nations of Africa and indeed the world. Working on a research project, causes of state failure, Mobutu’s case caught my attention for many reasons. His is a classic case of crisis of governance leading to the fall of a leader and state failure.

In 1961, after the assassination of the democratically elected leader Patric Lumumba, Col Mobutu was installed as the President of one of the most naturally endowed countries, Zaire, now the Democratic Republic of Congo. As the darling of external powers, he ruled that nation for close to four decades with an iron fist, further impoverishing his destitute people but enriching himself and his mentors. He had stashed unlimited amounts in foreign banks and had numerous luxury villas all over the world, including one in the lakeside of Geneva, where I used to live at that stage of my own life and world history. Besides my extensive travels and sympathy for the common African people, that was another reason his case caught my attention.

Mobutu’s misrule became so intolerable that his own unpaid security forces eventually started welcoming the rebel leader Laurent Kabila and his forces. On 26 May 1997, as the rebels reached the outskirts of the capital Kinshasa, Mobutu fled on his waiting jet to an uncertain destination. As his stars started falling, the external actors, who initially installed him in power, had already disowned him. Countries where he had amassed his wealth also did not give him permission to land. As the airplane carrying him, his family and closest associates started running out of fuel, France gave permission to land in one of its military airfields on the condition that immediately after refueling he would leave.

The King of Morocco finally agreed to give him asylum until he could find a place to go. As he was suffering from cancer, he soon died there. The irony is, stolen from his poor people, he had so much money and palaces all over the world, but couldn’t find even a place to die in peace.

Lessons from the neighborhood

Rajapaksa and Hasina are not Mobutu and knowing the resilience of the people and leaders there, Sri-Lanka and Bangladesh are certainly not going to be DRC. In fact, Sri Lanka is already on the path of recovery and under the enlightened leadership of Nobel Laureate Prof Mohammad Yunus, whom I have the honor of knowing, Bangladesh will be back on its path of stability and prosperity soon.

I recounted the Mobutu story simply to illustrate that leadership motivations and roles explain why despite plentiful natural and human resources, some countries fail whereas other less naturally endowed countries prosper and succeed. With this in mind, how can leaders and nations avoid what happened to Rajapaksas in Sri Lanka and Hasina in Bangladesh?

Once a leader reaches the top, popular demands for a more equitable sharing of political power and economic benefits within and across societies creates a crisis of global political-economy and governance. Dynamics of time and technology, demonstrated by the power of social media, has completely changed state-society relations. The fall of the Berlin Wall saw the collapse of communism in Russia and Eastern Europe. Of late, the relationship between the governors and the governed under liberal democracy, as defined by periodic elections, has also changed. Today leaders are under constant vigil. Any misbehavior and anger of the same electorate, which gives leaders the mandate to rule for a certain number of years, can force them to flee halfway or even before. So, the first lesson is, never take people for granted, just because you have been elected. Leaders too must remain watchful of the popular mood.

Both in Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, there is at least one other significant common denominator. International relations is the study of great power relations and how they affect the rest of the world. It was important to comprehend the Great Game or the Cold War to fully understand the rise and fall of Mobutu yesterday. Today, it is even more important to understand the simultaneously cooperating, competing and confronting nature of great power relations and how it affects leaders and societies in one of the new epicenters of the current global paradigm flux, South Asia. These complexities and challenges demand knowledge and wisdom in leaders interested in managing state affairs successfully.

There is also a lesson for great powers. It is futile to intervene in the politics or electoral processes of other countries as democracy only works if and when popular will is allowed to prevail without considering with me or against me. In this day and age, it will not take much time for people to know who is real and who is a proxy. And when they do, as Newton’s Third Law, it will also create an equal and opposite reaction from the people. 

So, understanding the motivations and mindsets that conditioned the leadership roles and behaviors of Rajapaksa and Hasina, elite culture that supported and later disgraced them, external factors that first helped and sustain them in power and later precipitated their fall, are all important for anyone interested in avoiding their experiences. Amidst these complexities of personal behaviors, national and international challenges, if there is one single but significant lesson from both Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, it is this. In this age of instant information and communication, remote listening, viewing, networking, and great power games, ignorance and arrogance are weaknesses of leaders which can easily turn success into failure, victory into defeat. Sadly, when leaders fall and states fail, mostly it is the people who suffer. The DRC, Somalia and Afghanistan, are examples which must be avoided. South Asia can ill afford another Afghanistan.

Views are personal