SAARC Deadlock: Choose Dialogue Over Distance

Once upon a time, South Asia believed in meeting each other. Many leaders argued and disagreed but they still sat across the same table. The table was called SAARC (South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation) which today sits untouched, gathering dust, while the region it was meant to serve grows more divided, more suspicious and more silent.  It has now been more than a decade since the last SAARC summit was held in Kathmandu in 2014. These long years is not postponement; it is a political statement. And the message is clear: regional cooperation in South Asia has been quietly deprioritised.

The immediate trigger for SAARC’S paralysis was the 2016 Uri Attack which killed 18 Indian soldiers. India blamed Pakistan and boycotted the Islamabad summit, a move later followed by other members. Since then, India has maintained a consistent position that SAARC cannot function so long as terrorism, allegedly emanating from Pakistan, remains unresolved. Terrorism is indeed a real and grave challenge. However, the broader question is whether indefinite institutional paralysis serves regional security or undermines it.

Institutional limitations

Historically, SAARC has witnessed crises before. The nuclear tests, the Kargil war and prolonged diplomatic freezes delayed summits but never suspended them for a decade. What makes the current hiatus unprecedented is its duration and finality. Beyond India-Pakistan tensions, SAARC suffers from deep institutional limitations: whether it be consensus-only decision-making, prohibition on discussing bilateral disputes or weak enforcement and implementation mechanisms.

International precedent suggests otherwise. The United Nations continues to function despite wars among its members. By contrast, SAARC has been held hostage to bilateral tensions, despite its own charter explicitly barring bilateral disputes from its agenda. This contradiction has steadily eroded the organization’s credibility. India’s growing global stature has understandably shifted its diplomatic focus toward platforms such as the G20, BRICS, and BIMSTEC. These forums offer strategic reach, economic leverage and geopolitical alignment. SAARC, burdened by internal divisions and slow decision-making, appears less attractive by comparison.

Yes, this shift comes at a cost. The South Asian Region remains one of the least economically integrated regions in the world. Trade, connectivity, climate adaptation and disaster response areas where SAARC was meant to lead remain fragmented. Abandoning SAARC without offering a truly inclusive alternative risks deepening regional asymmetries rather than resolving them. Former diplomats rightly note that India, more than any other member, had the capacity to shape SAARC in ways that aligned with its interests. Instead, prolonged disengagement has allowed inertia to replace leadership.

Adding to SAARC’s uncertainty is Afghanistan. Since the Taliban takeover in 2021 AD, very few members state has formally recognised the regime. Including an unrecognised government in a consensus-based organisation raises legal and diplomatic complications: another excuse for inaction. Yet, the SAARC Secretariat in Kathmandu continues to function. Budgets are approved, staff are retained, and the new Secretary General has been unanimously appointed. These are not the actions of member states that are responsible for the downfall of the organisation. 

This structural weakness is now compounded by external challenges: Afghanistan’s unresolved status, shifting regional alliances and growing great power competition. In such an environment, regional dialogue is not a luxury- it is a necessity. The most telling symbol of SAARC’s stagnation came recently, when the former foreign minister Arzu Rana Deuba, during her visit to India, raised the issue of reviving the SAARC Summit. The response from India’s External Affairs Minister was blunt: if your citizens were killed, would you hold a meeting? 

The question reflects genuine security concerns. Terrorism cannot be minimised, nor can the pain it causes. But diplomacy, by definition, exists precisely for moments when relations are strained, not only when they are comfortable. If dialogue becomes conditional on perfect trust, multilateralism becomes impossible. The United Nations still functions despite wars. The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation brings India and Pakistan onto the same platform despite deep hostility. Yet SAARC, an organisation designed to insulate regional cooperation from bilateral disputes, has been frozen by them.

According to Cambridge University: “Ten years of inaction are a very serious turning point for international intergovernmental organisations.” By that metric, SAARC stands on the edge of irrelevance. Still, many diplomats caution against premature obituaries. While the secretariat continues to function and budgets are approved, symbolism matters in diplomacy. Without political and diplomatic level of engagement, institutions gradually lose relevance, purpose and public trust. 

Former Nepali Ambassador to India Nilambar Acharya once stated that India, by disengaging from SAARC, is missing a strategic opportunity. As the region’s largest economy and emerging global power, India could have shaped SAARC to its advantage- economically, politically and diplomatically. Instead, it has allowed the vacuum to widen further, enabling fragmentation rather than integration in South Asia. SAARC was envisioned as a platform to tackle shared South Asian challenges- poverty, food security, caste and religion discrimination, climate vulnerability, connectivity, education, health, employment, trade and socio-cultural and political instability. None of these problems respects borders and can be solved bilaterally. 

Failure to adapt 

SAARC’s current state reflects not the failure of an idea, but the failure to adapt that idea to political realities. Security concerns must be addressed but disengagement is not a strategy and silence is not stability. If the SAARC is allowed to fade quietly, it will not be because South Asia lacks common challenges, but because its leaders choose distance over dialogue. And in a region as interconnected and as fragile as South Asia, that choice carries consequences far beyond any single summit.

To miss SAARC is not to remember the past. It is to recognise that absence has consequences and that no alternative forum has yet filled the space it once occupied. If it doesn’t happen again, the empty chair at the SAARC table will remain a quiet reminder of a region that gives a short shrift to the meaningful engagement among its leaders.  And that is why quietly, persistently and emotionally many in South Asia often say: We Miss You, SAARC!

(Aditya Tiwari is a Kathmandu-based writer and Yuwaditya N. Tiwari is a media professional.)