The charter of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) requires that the summit of the heads of state or government take place at least annually. However, even before the latest cancellation of the 19th SAARC summit, which was scheduled to be held in November this year, on 12 previous years, too (in 1989, 1992, 1994, 1996, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003, 2006, 2009, 2012 and 2015), the summits could not be held.
After the recent Uri attack in Kashmir, many analysts saw it coming. Although the cancellation of the summit is not a surprise, one would struggle to appreciate how the cancellation would contribute in de-escalating the situations which have ignited it. And when the neighbouring countries in Southeast Asia are gaining from strength to strength in forging their ties, it is sad for the South Asian public that one of the least connected sub-regional groups is taking another step backwards.
Indeed, the SAARC secretariat is so tightly controlled by its member states that it has to rely on the member states to perform almost all of its functions as mandated by its charter and other treaties.
The fundamental stumbling block in achieving significant progress within SAARC has been the longstanding Kashmir saga, which is attributable to the negligent, if not the culpably relaxed approach, taken by the British imperial rulers during the partition of the subcontinent in 1947.
Having said that, the fact that for around seven decades, the politicians of India and Pakistan could not resolve this saga is abysmal. Pakistani military establishment may be an intractable barrier for engendering lasting peace between India and Pakistan, which in turn impinges on the performance of SAARC. However, uninspiring politics is no less a reason for the failure of SAARC to live up to its promise. Responsive politicians cannot ignore the issue of security, but abandoning the negotiation table is not an affordable option for either Pakistan or India. Due to the nuclear arsenals at the disposal of India and Pakistan, a war between them is a very frightening proposition.
The other problem contributing somewhat to the cancellation of the summit is Bangladesh expressing its unwillingness to take part in the summit, denouncing the very harsh comments by Pakistani authorities castigating the ongoing war crimes trial of some Bangladeshis who were the collaborators of Pakistani armed forces in the war of independence of Bangladesh in 1971. The criticism of the war crime trial process as unacceptable has not helped Pakistan gain anything in material terms. Indeed, it is probable that history would rather consider it as a testament to the engagement of the accused in a role of collaborators of the Pakistani forces. In any case, this issue is nowhere near as obdurate as the tension between India and Pakistan and in itself, this would not have caused the cancellation of the summit. The same goes to the tension between the governments of Pakistan and Afghanistan, which has prompted Afghanistan to refuse to take part in the summit.
With the already shrinking space for diplomatic exchange between the leaders of South Asia (re: India and Pakistan) getting even more shrunk, the clout of the armed forces of Pakistan would increase and further cripple the political leadership in Pakistan, which is already fragile. As the biggest economy and also a country where democratic institutions are perhaps the strongest among the SAARC member states, Indian leadership should take a more responsible approach to SAARC. The Indian government has indicated that it expects the people of Pakistan to take a more proactive approach in establishing a government that would show greater commitment to the peace. However, if that has to have any prospect of happening, the powerful military establishment of Pakistan has to be contained and the hands of the politicians would have to be strengthened. It is unrealistic that ordinary people of Pakistan will be able to exert significant pressure on their government, which would persuade the latter to change its approach to India and other neighbouring countries (Bangladesh and Afghanistan). The cancellation of the SAARC summit only accentuates tension and thus further strengthens those who thrive on fearmongering and warmongering, and advocate greater militarisation of South Asia.
One may argue that Indian politicians also have to respond to the demands of many of their electorates who would love to see their government take strong measures against Pakistan. As real as such pressures may be, it is the role of leaders to assume the leadership, if they cannot simply join the herd and dance to the tune of each and every popular demand. The alternative to diplomacy is at best a zero-sum game of isolationism and at worst, a war which looks so horrendous that it should horrify all of us. Because of being bigger and a country where democratic institutions are thriving, Indian political leadership has a lot more to get the tough (the diplomatic negotiations) going, even in an environment where the outlook for such looks dim.
Md Rizwanul Islam is an Associate Professor at School of Law, BRAC University