The revival of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) has become a contentious issue, particularly in the wake of Muhammad Yunus’ push to reinstate the dormant regional body. The Nobel laureate, now heading an interim government in Bangladesh, has signalled a desire to bring SAARC back to life. However, India abandoned SAARC for good reason: Pakistan's sponsorship of terrorism against India made it an untenable platform for economic and strategic cooperation. With the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC) proving to be a more viable alternative, Yunus’ motivations raise questions. Why would he advocate for SAARC’s revival when BIMSTEC offers a better future for Bangladesh and the region at large?
India’s Strategic Exit from SAARC
SAARC was established in 1985 with the goal of fostering economic and regional integration in South Asia. However, its effectiveness was consistently hampered by tensions between India and Pakistan. While SAARC was intended to serve as a platform for regional cooperation, Pakistan’s persistent use of terrorism as state policy against India made constructive engagement impossible.
India took decisive action by shifting its focus away from SAARC after the 2016 Uri terrorist attack, which was conducted by Pakistan-based militants. In response, New Delhi opted for BIMSTEC, which excludes Pakistan and instead includes Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Myanmar, Nepal, Sri Lanka, and Thailand. This grouping provides a functional alternative to SAARC, aligning more closely with India's ‘Act East’ policy and fostering stronger economic and security partnerships. BIMSTEC’s progress, while slow, has been far more productive than the stagnation of SAARC.
Yunus’ Calculated Move: A Return to the Past?
Muhammad Yunus’ call to revive SAARC contradicts the strategic logic that has guided Bangladesh’s foreign policy shift in recent years. Under Sheikh Hasina’s government, Bangladesh had aligned itself with India’s vision, favouring BIMSTEC over SAARC. So why would Yunus push for an outdated platform that has long ceased to be relevant?
One plausible reason is his attempt to recalibrate Bangladesh’s geopolitical posture. Unlike Hasina, Yunus may be seeking to distance Bangladesh from India’s strategic orbit, forging a more independent identity in regional politics. By reviving SAARC, he could position Bangladesh as a key player in an organisation that could, at least in theory, counterbalance India’s growing regional dominance.
Furthermore, Yunus’ long-standing ties to Western organisations and global NGOs suggest that his motivations might not be purely economic. A revived SAARC, which includes Pakistan, could be seen as a way to dilute India’s leadership in South Asia and introduce external actors into regional affairs. Some Western governments and policy think tanks, such as the U.S. State Department, the European Union, and organisations like the International Crisis Group, have expressed support for broader regional cooperation in South Asia, even when SAARC's inefficacy was apparent. Human rights organisations like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have also at times, criticised India's influence in its neighbouring countries, portraying it as overly dominant. While these actors may not explicitly call for a 'neutral' regional order, their advocacy for a more balanced regional framework indirectly supports the idea of keeping Pakistan engaged in multilateral platforms like SAARC.
Umran Chowdhury, Research Associate at the Cosmos Foundation and the Bay of Bengal Institute in Bangladesh, captures the significance of SAARC in South Asia: “Anyone in a South Asian country would know about SAARC. We grew up watching annual SAARC summits on our TV stations. It was one of those things which happened every year (then towards the end it became a biannual meeting after every two years). SAARC is literally a household name.” His reflections highlight how deeply embedded SAARC is in the political consciousness of the region, making its decline all the more striking.
Chowdhury further contrasts SAARC and BIMSTEC: “SAARC was supposed to be our version of the EU or ASEAN, whereas BIMSTEC is like a sub-regional organisation on the sidelines—like the Council of Europe or Union for the Mediterranean.” This distinction is critical. SAARC sought to integrate South Asia in a way that mirrored the European Union’s success. However, its internal dysfunction, primarily caused by Indo-Pakistani tensions, rendered it ineffective. BIMSTEC, by contrast, has a more focused economic and strategic role, less free from SAARC’s political baggage.
Who in Pakistan Wants to Revive SAARC?
Pakistan has consistently pushed for SAARC’s revival. Former Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif emphasised Pakistan's readiness to play its part in rejuvenating the organisation, highlighting the vast untapped potential for regional development, connectivity, and cooperation among South Asian countries. On SAARC Charter Day in December 2022, he reiterated this commitment, lamenting that the people of SAARC nations were victims of missed opportunities.
In December 2024, during a meeting with Bangladesh's Chief Adviser Muhammad Yunus, Prime Minister Sharif discussed the importance of reinvigorating the SAARC process. Both leaders agreed on the necessity of holding regular SAARC summits to boost ties among South Asian nations. Additionally, Pakistan's caretaker Prime Minister Anwaar-ul-Haq Kakar stressed SAARC’s immense potential to transform the lives of over two billion people in the region, calling for adherence to the SAARC Charter and revitalising the organisation to address shared challenges. These actions reflect Pakistan's ongoing commitment to reviving SAARC as a platform for regional cooperation and development.
BIMSTEC: The Better Alternative for Bangladesh
If Yunus were genuinely interested in Bangladesh’s economic growth, he would focus on strengthening BIMSTEC rather than reviving the dysfunctional SAARC. BIMSTEC provides Bangladesh with access to not only India’s vast market but also the dynamic economies of Southeast Asia, particularly Thailand and Myanmar. The regional connectivity projects under BIMSTEC, including energy grids, trade corridors, and security cooperation, are far more promising than anything SAARC has ever achieved.
BIMSTEC Secretary General Indra Mani Pandey, in an interview with me last July, highlighted the organisation’s growing international appeal: “The BIMSTEC is open to developmental partnerships with non-members as well as UN, International and Regional Organisations in areas of mutual interest. BIMSTEC has already signed MoUs with Asian Development Bank (ADB) and International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), and MoUs with IORA, World Bank, UNODC, UNESCAP, and UNOPS are under consideration.”
He further elaborated on BIMSTEC’s potential collaboration with the European Union, stating: “BIMSTEC is open to engage in developmental cooperation with the EU in various sectors for regional cooperation identified by BIMSTEC. The existing Sectors for cooperation under BIMSTEC are Trade, Investment and Development, Environment & Climate Change, Security, Agriculture and Food Security, People-to-People Contact, Science, Technology & Innovation, and Connectivity.” This demonstrates BIMSTEC’s evolution into a robust and internationally engaged platform.
Conclusion: BIMSTEC Over SAARC
While Yunus may believe that SAARC’s revival could offer Bangladesh a more independent role in regional politics, the reality is that SAARC is a relic of the past. India’s pivot to BIMSTEC was a calculated move to avoid the roadblocks posed by Pakistan’s intransigence. For Bangladesh, aligning with BIMSTEC ensures deeper economic integration, better trade prospects, and stronger regional security. We still do not know if Afghanistan is part of SAARC further complicating matters. Having the brutal Taliban regime as a SAARC member would severely tarnish the brand. Many believe the Taliban are another product of Pakistan's strategic mess in the region.
Muhammad Yunus must ask himself: Is he willing to risk Bangladesh’s economic future by reviving a defunct organisation that was long abandoned for valid political reasons? Or will he recognise that BIMSTEC, with its forward-looking approach, is the better path for Bangladesh’s prosperity? The choice should be clear. SAARC is a dead end, while BIMSTEC potentially offers a gateway to a more prosperous and secure future. Another question is does Yunus have the time? It will take a lot of political capital to give CPR to SAARC. Yunus' critics would probably say he has more pressing issues to deal with at home.
Comentários