Despite a wily Pakistan, Modi must not allow SAARC to collapse

The South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation’s (SAARC) summit scheduled to be held in November in Islamabad is all but called off for now. With India pulling out, and Bangladesh, Afghanistan and Bhutan deciding to follow suit, the summit has lost its meaning.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi wants to establish India as the "Big Brother" in the region. But, where is this zero-sum game headed? Does this mean the collapse of SAARC as a functioning regional bloc? And most importantly, has PM Modi put himself in a situation where he cannot go to Pakistan and teach the neighbour a few lessons?

Not lessons on how India can take down or pulverise Pakistan, but critical lessons on the need for peace so that the welfare of people of both the countries, as well as the other smaller nations of South Asia, remains a priority.

The geopolitical scenario is changing rapidly in South Asia. The Indian people are patently upset with the regular terrorist attacks. Whenever one sees hope in the enduring friendship with Pakistan, a militant organisation strikes an Indian territory, and we are - yet again - back to square one. For every one step forward, India is forced to retreat two steps.

Militant organisations and the intelligence agencies backing them achieved what they wanted as the two countries announced suspension of dialogue. In such an event, it is the common man and the creative fraternity who suffer the most. It also means playing into the hands of militants. Keeping this in mind, India and Pakistan need to have uninterrupted and uninterruptible dialogue.

PM Modi began his tenure well in May 2014, when he invited the leaders of SAARC countries - including Pakistan PM Nawaz Sharif - for his swearing-in. He also surprised everyone when he decided to land in Lahore to wish Nawaz Sharif on his birthday on December 25 last year. However, the Pathankot and Uri attacks have changed the scenario and spoiled the atmosphere of peace.

Modi has been put in a situation so he his left with no other option but to adopt a "hawkish" line, at least, to satisfy his war-mongering followers. It is easy to criticise the government sitting in the Opposition, or within the confines of a TV studio. Once in power, you realise the complexity of the issue.

In January 2013, the Pakistani army infiltrated into the Poonch sector and killed Lance Naiks Hemraj and Sudhakar Singh. After visiting Hemraj’s family, Sushma Swaraj, then in the Opoosition, had said ,"If his [Hemraj's] head could not be brought back [from Pakistan], we should get at least ten heads from their side." Thankfully, no such hawkish statements have been made by Swaraj or the BJP now.

The reality is India and Pakistan are both nuclear states and neither can afford attacking the other by breaching the Line of Control (LoC). Even a surgical attack is not advisable. A country cannot be run on emotions. It needs rational thinking to guide its actions.

Emotions might get one votes, as the PM is very well aware. Keeping in mind the forthcoming elections in Uttar Pradesh and Punjab, PM Modi and the BJP cannot afford to convey a message to their cadres that they are going soft on terrorism and tackling Pakistan much like the previous Congress regime.

So, even if there is not much substance, they need to project their actions as feats never attempted by previous regimes.

Under the Indus Waters Treaty, as also under international water laws, the upper riparian country has no right to stop the water flow to a lower riparian. India has decided to suspend talks on the Permanent Indus Commission and review the treaty. PM Modi will also be discussing the possibility of repealing the Most Favoured Nation (MFN) status accorded to Pakistan in 1996 under WTO-General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT).

However, the going won't be simple and even if India decides to repeal the MFN status, it will not "harm" Pakistan economically.

Post the Uri attack, pulling out of the 19th SAARC summit has been the most significant decision taken by the Indian government. Pakistan has also had serious issues with Bangladesh and Afghanistan. Bangladesh’s contention is that Pakistan is interfering in its internal matters. On the other hand, Pakistan is criticising Bangladesh for the execution of the leaders of Jamaat-e-Islami, who were held responsible for the deaths of innocent Bengalis during Bangladesh’s liberation war of 1971.

In fact, Bangladesh’s home minister did not attend SAARC home ministers' conference held in Islamabad in August 2016. And then there is Afghanistan, which alleges Pakistan of sheltering the Taliban, the Haqqani network and so on.

Bangladesh, Bhutan and Afghanistan too decided to pull out of the summit immediately after India’s announcement. Under the SAARC charter, the summit cannot be held if a member state decides not to attend. This also shows how divided South Asia is.

In 2010, the SAARC summit was held in Thimpu, Bhutan, where the then President of Maldives Mohammad Nasheed had said that the SAARC can achieve a lot only if two of its biggest countries - India and Pakistan - leave their disputes back home.

The reality is that intra-regional trade is less than 5 per cent in South Asia. It cannot be compared with neighbouring regional bloc Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN). The intra-regional trade within ASEAN and EU is much higher than SAARC.

Afghanistan has been demanding that Pakistan allow it to use Wagah border to import and export goods to India. Pakistan’s position is that they allow the trade transit route to Afghanistan to export their items to India. But as they only have a bilateral agreement with Kabul, Indian goods cannot be imported to Afghanistan through Pakistan.

Trade is a major issue as is the trade transit route. SAARC was formed in 1985, but it has not been able to deliver much. Smaller countries and the least developed countries (LDCs) have not benefitted to a great extent. Cooperation and trade with neighbouring countries always helps. For a regional bloc to bear fruit, understanding within the bloc is necessary. SAARC has tremendous potential, but the ground reality of mistrust prevents countries from "exploiting" it.

Similarly, connectivity is a major issue in South Asia. The theme for the last two SAARC summits was connectivity, but there has been hardly any progress. In fact, South Asia still remains one of the least-connected regions.

It is the responsibility of SAARC leaders to see that the regional bloc does not collapse. And India’s responsibility is much more as it is the largest country in South Asia.

The SAARC secretariat needs to be proactive in ensuring that the association does not lose its importance. Under no circumstances should SAARC collapse. The leaders of South Asia need to show maturity and behave like statesmen.

SAARC offers hope for the better future of South Asia. It should not be allowed to die.