Muted mandate: SAARC and the cycle of Indo-Pak escalation
Listen to article
When founded, in 1985, the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) was envisioned as a platform for regional harmony and collective progress. However, its role in mitigating the most recent escalation between Pakistan and India, triggered by the Pahalgam incident of April 22, and the subsequent military and diplomatic fallout, has been conspicuously absent and critically limited.
An objective evaluation reveals that SAARC, hampered by its inherent structural weaknesses and the deep-seated animosity between its two major players, has once again failed to act as an effective mechanism for de-escalation or mediation.
One of the fundamental limitations of SAARC is its charter, which explicitly excludes discussions on bilateral and contentious political issues. This very clause, intended to foster cooperation in socio-economic areas without being held hostage by political disputes, renders the organisation toothless when the most pressing regional challenges are political in nature, as is the case with Indo-Pak relations. Consequently, SAARC summits and ministerial meetings become stages for polite exchanges on trade and culture, while the elephant in the room — the persistent and often escalating tensions between Pakistan and India — remains unaddressed within the formal structure.
The recent crisis, which saw a rapid deterioration of diplomatic ties, cross-border accusations and even military posturing and engagement, demanded an immediate and robust regional response. Ideally, SAARC should have provided a forum for dialogue, a neutral space for both nations to air their grievances, and a mechanism to facilitate de-escalation through diplomatic channels. However, the bloc remained largely silent as bilateral tensions spiraled, underscoring its inability to transcend the nationalistic agendas of its member states, particularly when these agendas are in direct conflict.
The history of SAARC is replete with instances where Indo-Pak tensions have undermined its potential. The 2016 summit was cancelled after the Uri attack. The 2019 Pulwama-Balakot standoff further marginalised the organisation. In each instance, SAARC's structural design and political inertia have rendered it a bystander. The current escalation is no different. With both nations locked in a familiar cycle of accusation and retaliation, SAARC's consensus-based decision-making process becomes a significant impediment. Any meaningful action or statement requiring the agreement of all member states is virtually impossible when the two most influential members are in direct confrontation.
Furthermore, the lack of strong institutional mechanisms for conflict resolution within SAARC contributes to its ineffectiveness during crises. While the charter emphasises peaceful settlement of disputes, it lacks concrete procedures or a dedicated body to mediate or arbitrate in situations of heightened tension. This void leaves the region reliant on external actors or ad-hoc bilateral engagements, bypassing the very regional framework that was intended to foster collective security and stability.
Despite these shortcomings, SAARC could still play a subtle, indirect role. By continuing to promote people-to-people contact, cultural exchanges and economic cooperation in areas where consensus exists, the organisation might foster a long-term environment of trust and understanding that could eventually spill over into the political domain. However, during times of acute crisis, these slow-burn initiatives are often overshadowed by immediate security concerns and nationalist sentiments. The palpable tension following the Pahalgam incident and India's subsequent actions has likely curtailed any such positive momentum.
While the ideal of regional cooperation in South Asia remains vital, the current iteration of SAARC has proven to be an inadequate instrument for managing and resolving the most pressing security challenges facing the region. A fundamental re-evaluation of its charter and a genuine commitment from its member states to prioritise regional harmony over narrow nationalistic interests are essential if SAARC is to evolve from a largely symbolic entity into a meaningful force for peace and cooperation in South Asia.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
2 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Israel-Iran conflict — how the world will change post-war
Listen to article The Iran-Israel short war of ballistic missile exchanges and air strikes is over. Yet the context under which this short war was fought had a deep effect on how independent states view the existing international environment. The challenge for the great powers, the regional hegemons and the medium and the ordinary powers that rally around them is simple: can this international environment in which international norms and laws are violated be allowed to endure? Does it need restructuring or can it be left unchanged? In the case of former there is all the likelihood of another sovereign state being bullied and attacked by a ruthless power; and in the case of latter the setting of a similar event can be prevented and unjust attacks on sovereign states may be stopped from reoccurring. Contextually, there is a greater realisation in the world that terrorism is being used as a pretext by individual states to further their national interests. Particularly in the case of Israel and India, two states that hold different interpretation on the matter of terrorism from rest of the world. Both states have demonstrated that diplomacy can be set aside, pushed back and unjust military action can be taken to punish states considered weak on flimsy grounds. Two matters of diplomatic significance, both related to India and Israel, suggest that there is hope that 'Islamophobia' that both these states suffer from may no more be the sickness with which the rest of the world may suffer. The American president's interference in the Indo-Pak conflict and his political preference to host Pakistan's military chief in White House is a clear message to India that Washington doesn't agree with the Indian position and its terrorism context that created the circumstances for its unwarranted aggression against Pakistan. The victim scale that had long been tilted in India's favour seems to be settling back in the balance and the US may have set the future global trend of no more viewing Pakistan from the Indian position of blaming Pakistan as a terrorist state. Add to this the recent diplomatic setback that India suffered in the meeting of the Defence Ministers in Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), when the Indian defence minister refused to sign a draft of joint statement which omitted a reference to the 22 April Pahalgam terror attack in occupied Kashmir. If there was evidence that India could share with the rest of the participating countries, surely the Indian position would have been strong in advocating the inclusion of this terrorist attack in the draft of the joint statement. Pakistan has consistently maintained the absence of such evidence and also maintained a consistent diplomatic posture that encouraged India to hold bilateral dialogue. But India believes more in bullying and subjugating Pakistan rather than treating it as an equal. In case of Israel, no American President has used the language that President Trump used when Israel violated the ceasefire agreement of which he was a guarantor. There is no doubt that President Trump is the most pro-Israel president that America ever had but when it came to the possibility of American interests being hurt, President Trump sounded determined to force Israel to change its behaviour against Iran. Tested and jolted by recent events, the international environment is not likely to remain the same. Wars are being fought in a manner unknown in previous history and how the nation states will change and adjust will determine what kind of international environment will prevail as we approach 2050. The lead up to 2050 and the pathway that leads the world there cannot be discussed without mentioning the role of the other three great powers in determining how the world travels on this pathway. Recent events prove that the US has failed to make the world safe. It has failed to construct the rules-based system in which international laws could be respected and it has also failed to ensure that states cooperate and not engage in conflicts. In case of America, it is sufficient to say that its thesis of end of history has not ended. The coming back of history is the new antithesis and under the return of great power competition this antithesis will be written by China and Russia. How America brought the world to the ending notion of its liberal order of internationalism is a topic that requires detailed answering and needs to be dealt with in a separate space and time. Here I would just like to conclude by giving some of the assumptions on how the world and the international system that runs it may be restructured given the context under which the recent wars have been fought. Dynastic politics will be on the decline and nation states ideas of freedom and liberty will not remain the same. More and more nationalism will hatch as authoritarianism will mate more frequently with ending civil liberties as more and more military preparedness will demand quashing of domestic dissent as national economies will reorganise to equip their militaries to adjust against the shifting military capabilities between the states and to maintain the fracturing balance of power. Military preparedness will trump political mindsets and create military mindsets and eventually more and more military states. Russophobia and China-phobia are considered as the greatest geopolitical threat of 21st Century. These two diseases from which the West suffers will contribute to how these great powers will challenge the international system together with the states that will rally around them. The US will regret mistreating the twenty-six years of unipolarity (1991-2017) by favouring realistic and militaristic foreign policy in promoting the order of liberal internationalism that only backfired. Disastrous foreign policy in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Lebanon, Yemen and Iran is what constituted the current international system of chaos and anarchy and which is hardly what the world deserved as America led it as a sole superpower. Nation states will no longer tolerate being at the centre of any American intrigue. Autocracies will demand intellectual climate that should support nationalism as guns will be preferred over butter in a national environment in which military preparedness will be expedited. States either grow or decay but in a reordered world fashioned by the Indian and Israeli military aggression most states will neither grow nor decay, they will spend more time, effort and resources to stay where they are as growth of militarism and not socialism will become the order of the day.
Express Tribune
2 days ago
- Express Tribune
Escalation hotspot
Listen to article Kashmir is being ranked among the world's most critical escalation hotspots, as nuclear-armed India and Pakistan face "perilously high" tensions. The Global Peace Index, published by the highly-regarded Australian think tank Institute for Economics and Peace, noted how the four-day Indo-Pak conflict in May 2025 — the deadliest in years - exposed how quickly the Kashmir dispute could ignite a catastrophic war. The report also notes the fragility of the ceasefire - India won't even explicitly admit the circumstances around the agreement, including the role Washington played. The May 2025 clashes saw BrahMos cruise missiles, Rafale jets, J-10Cs and hundreds of drones in the skies above the Indo-Pak border and the Line of Control. Pakistan's downing of advanced Indian aircraft, including French-built Rafales, also proved that even "limited" conflicts risk rapid escalation. The embarrassment of having to ground the pride of the Indian Air Force saw the conflict spread well beyond traditional skirmish zones in Kashmir, dragging the world toward crisis. Meanwhile, the threat to cut off Pakistan's water — a war crime — shows that India's leaders are more than willing to act like a rogue state just to keep up their prime minister's strongman image and delusions of grandeur. India's spokespersons can run themselves hoarse calling Kashmir a bilateral issue, but that doesn't make it so. Remember the day India asked the UN to intervene in the first conflict over the region. Modi and his regime are clearly not students of history — not even Indian history — so they are unlikely to be familiar with the events of 1914, when a regional conflict tainted by mistrust and disinformation exploded into what is now better known as the First World War. India's far-right government has been using conflict as a political tool for the past decade. Without domestic or foreign intervention soon, one day it will end up going too far.
Express Tribune
2 days ago
- Express Tribune
The current situation in Afghanistan
The writer is an academic and researcher. He is also the author of Development, Poverty, and Power in Pakistan, available from Routledge Listen to article Although the international community is preoccupied with the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, and the lingering crisis triggered by Israeli aggressions in the Middle East, the situation further afield in the South Asian region remains tenuous as well. Besides the potential risk of another Indo-Pak flare-up, Pakistan's relations with Afghanistan are tense. The possibility of cross-border proxies engaging in terrorist attacks within Pakistan is a major threat. In addition to trying to secure the long and porous Af-Pak border, around 800,000 Afghans seeking refuge in Pakistan have been expelled since 2023. The latest UN report on Afghanistan describes the troubled state of our northwesterly neighbour. It points out how the security situation in Afghanistan has not stabilised despite the end of major military conflict between the US-led NATO forces and the Taliban. The Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant-Khorasan (ISIL-K) continues to defy the domination of the Taliban regime. Besides attacking 'soft targets' such as religious minorities, ISIL-K continues high-profile attacks, for example, at the Ministry of Urban Development and Housing earlier this year. Other opposition groups such as the National Resistance Front led by Ahmad Masood, and the Afghanistan Freedom Front, comprised of former government and military officials, are still operational. However, neither the ISIL-K nor these other opposition groups have the capability to threaten the Taliban's vice-like hold on the war-ravaged country. The above-mentioned UN assessment further notes how the new school year, which started in spring, has again barred girls and women from going to secondary schools or from pursuing higher education. Humanitarian needs in the country remain dire too. Yet, the UN's own humanitarian response plan for the current year, which aspired to support nearly 17 million Afghans barely managed to secure over 15 per cent of its proposed $2.42 billion budget. International funding, on which nearly half the Afghan population remains so dependent, has been shrinking, and it seems unlikely to rise again under present circumstances. Global US aid cuts have severely undermined UN affiliated efforts by the World Food Program, for instance, as well as the work of many major non-profits, such as the International Red Cross. Other rich western countries are not stepping up their commitments to compensate for the loss of American aid. Conversely, China's influence in Afghanistan has grown. China is currently trying to mediate the resumption of bilateral ties between Islamabad and Kabul, which had been suspended for nearly four years. Earlier this month, Pakistan announced that its charge d'affaires stationed in Kabul would be elevated to the rank of ambassador, and Kabul followed suit by announcing that its representative in Islamabad would also be upgraded to the same rank. Only a handful of countries — including China and Russia — have yet agreed to host Taliban-appointed ambassadors since their return to power in 2021. However, none of these countries, including Pakistan, has yet formally recognised the Taliban rulers. The Taliban have been in power for nearly four years now, so they have had ample time to make a transition from an insurgency movement to a more functional government. Their hardline and iron-fisted stance was initially explained as being motivated by their fear of losing the support of hardline elements who may have joined even more extreme outfits such as the ISIL-K. However, the Taliban regime now has no excuse. It must broaden its myopic approach, and make a genuine effort to deliver responsible governance, via incremental representation rather than continued repression. Otherwise, Afghanistan will remain a pariah state.
