Abstract
The case for closer integration of the south Asian region has always been compelling, not least because that had already been the state of affairs prior to independence in 1947. But it is precisely the legacy of 1947 that has intervened; the bitterness of Partition sundered links across the subcontinent and injected a large dose of geopolitics in the relations between its constituent parts.
SAARC, or the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation, was set up in 1985 but a shadow has fallen over it currently. It is tough to envisage at this moment of time that as recently as approximately a decade back, the South Asian Free Trade Area (SAFTA) was launched in 2006. At the time it was thought that SAFTA would be a way station towards a Customs Union, Common Market and Economic Union, a distant dream now. The 26/11 attacks on Mumbai staged by Pakistani irregulars had the same cataclysmic effect on SAARC as 9/11 had on global affairs.
The outcome? Intra-SAARC trade came to just over 1% of SAARC GDP in 2012. Compare that to the corresponding figure for intra-ASEAN trade: 10% of ASEAN GDP. It is not a coincidence that the region remains poor and underdeveloped, and it is arguable that too much geopolitics has kept it this way.
Manasi Singh’s paper “SAARC for Geopolitical Symbolism: Whither Multilateralism?” broaches the matter squarely and explores why this has come to be the case, as well as outcomes thereof: at this moment in time, hurdles to south Asian stability and integration mean that SAARC appears to have arrived at a point of stagnation. As a consequence, countries in the region are looking beyond it as well as within it by delving into possibilities of sub-regional cooperation.
Other papers in this series go on to explore interesting facets of the south Asian experience. For example Rayees Dar’s “Parliamentary Opposition in the Situation of the Conflict and its implications for the working of the government in Jammu and Kashmir” looks at the situation in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir, which is a microcosm of the larger geopolitical tensions of the region, in terms of the imperatives of domestic political competition in the state which require questioning of the legitimacy of the party in power.
Likewise, Syeda Aziz’s “Role of electoral competition in explaining political violence in Bangladesh – a district level analysis” looks at local determinants of political violence in Bangladesh, by compiling and analyzing data on its district level variations and correlations with other factors such as degree of electoral competitiveness, population density and allocation of development expenditure.
Shantanu Nagar’s “UN Peacekeeping Challenges, Solutions and South Asia’s Stance” examines a frontier region of south Asian cooperation not often looked at – UN peacekeeping operations. It demonstrates that despite (or perhaps because of) south Asia’s internal tensions, this is an arena where they collectively participate and are perhaps collectively taken for a ride – as their troops may be put in harm’s way despite being given insufficient say in their management. This leaves scope for smarter strategy and better negotiation of the terms of engagement.
Amba Pande’s “Migration of Students from India and China: A Comparative View” looks at student exodus from India – the student and educational experience is another arena in which SAARC countries are deficient to a greater or lesser degree and contribute to exoduses abroad. The article also looks at China – a nonSAARC neighbour that has a big exodus as well but has been rather more successful in emerging as a major educational hub – as a comparator that can illumine the south Asian condition by contrast.
Taken together, the articles in this series serve to demonstrate how much SAARC countries have to gain by minimising conflict, stepping up cooperation among themselves and learning from best practices from other parts of the world.