Why has South Asia lagged behind other regions in developing a cohesive regional identity and institutional integration?

~ Polity Prober

South Asia’s Regional Underdevelopment: Explaining the Absence of Cohesive Regional Identity and Institutional Integration

Introduction

Despite shared cultural histories, geographic proximity, and post-colonial developmental trajectories, South Asia remains one of the least regionally integrated zones in the world. The South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), established in 1985, was envisioned as the institutional embodiment of regional solidarity. Yet, over the decades, South Asia has lagged behind other regional groupings—such as ASEAN, the EU, or MERCOSUR—in both the formation of a cohesive regional identity and the development of robust institutional mechanisms for cooperation.

This essay critically examines the multiple structural, historical, political, and ideational factors that have impeded the emergence of South Asia as a cohesive regional entity. It analyses the limitations of regionalism in South Asia through lenses of state-centric security paradigms, bilateral antagonisms, economic asymmetries, and weak supranationalism, while also evaluating the normative and functional challenges facing SAARC as a regional project.

I. Historical and Colonial Legacies: Partition and Path Dependencies

South Asia’s post-colonial regional evolution was profoundly shaped by the traumatic partition of British India in 1947, which inaugurated enduring antagonisms between India and Pakistan. Unlike regions such as Southeast Asia or Western Europe, where regionalism emerged as a response to shared threats or common colonial experiences, South Asia began its journey with mutually exclusive nationalisms and contested borders.

  • The legacy of partition fostered deep-seated mistrust, territorial disputes (e.g., Kashmir, Sir Creek), and a zero-sum perception of national security.
  • Colonial administrative boundaries disrupted natural economic flows and cultural contiguities, fragmenting the socio-political landscape.

These path dependencies undermined the early development of a collective regional consciousness, replacing it with competitive post-colonial nation-building.

II. Bilateral Conflicts and India–Pakistan Rivalry

The most significant impediment to regionalism in South Asia has been the intractable hostility between India and Pakistan:

  • Since independence, the two countries have fought three full-scale wars and remain locked in a conflict over Kashmir, resulting in military escalation, cross-border terrorism, and strategic mistrust.
  • Regional cooperation initiatives are frequently held hostage to bilateral tensions, as evidenced by India’s boycott of SAARC summits after the 2016 Uri attack.
  • Pakistan’s insistence on multilateralizing the Kashmir issue within SAARC frameworks has met with Indian resistance, leading to institutional paralysis.

This rivalry structurally limits the possibility of consensus-based decision-making, thereby crippling SAARC’s functional capacity and regional legitimacy.

III. The Asymmetry of Power and the “India Problem”

India’s predominant size, economy, and strategic ambition have generated anxieties among its smaller neighbours, often termed the “India problem” in regional literature:

  • India accounts for nearly 80% of SAARC’s GDP and landmass, which creates perceptions of hegemonic intent and diplomatic paternalism.
  • Neighbours like Nepal, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka often balance against India by cultivating ties with extra-regional powers (e.g., China, the U.S.), thereby undermining regional autonomy.
  • India’s preference for bilateral over multilateral problem-solving (e.g., with Bhutan, Bangladesh) reflects a functional regionalism that bypasses SAARC.

This power asymmetry obstructs the development of a horizontal, trust-based regional identity, as smaller states fear co-option rather than cooperation.

IV. Security-First Statecraft and Absence of Normative Regionalism

South Asian states have historically emphasized Westphalian sovereignty, territorial integrity, and military security, often at the expense of regional cooperation:

  • Regionalism in South Asia has lacked the normative underpinnings of pooled sovereignty, human rights regimes, or democratic conditionality found in the EU.
  • There is minimal convergence on shared regional values or common futures; most states prioritize national regime stability over collective goods.
  • Issues like refugee flows, insurgency, water disputes, and border migration are securitized rather than approached through cooperative frameworks.

This statist orientation limits the space for transnational policy harmonization, regional civil society networks, or people-to-people integration, which are foundational to regional identity elsewhere.

V. Economic Disintegration and Trade Fragmentation

South Asia’s economic regionalism remains underdeveloped despite geographical contiguity:

  • Intra-regional trade within SAARC remains below 5% of total trade, compared to over 25% in ASEAN or 60% in the EU.
  • The South Asian Free Trade Area (SAFTA), operational since 2006, has been hampered by:
    • Non-tariff barriers and customs delays,
    • Lack of trade facilitation infrastructure, and
    • Absence of regional production networks.
  • Overlapping membership in competing regional and global blocs (e.g., BIMSTEC, RCEP, BRI) has diverted political capital from SAARC.

Without economic interdependence or regional value chains, the incentive to develop regional solidarity or institutional mechanisms remains low.

VI. Institutional Weakness of SAARC

SAARC’s institutional architecture reflects its minimalist and consensual ethos, which has rendered it ineffectual in resolving disputes or promoting integration:

  • All decisions are based on unanimity and non-interference, which reinforces the status quo and paralyzes decision-making during political crises.
  • Unlike ASEAN’s secretariat-led initiatives or the EU’s supranational legal mechanisms, SAARC lacks a robust institutional framework for implementation or enforcement.
  • Numerous SAARC agreements remain unratified or under-implemented, and summits are frequently postponed or disrupted.

The absence of political will, leadership consensus, and institutional innovation has rendered SAARC a symbolic platform rather than a driver of integration.

VII. Cultural and Civilizational Plurality

While South Asia shares many historical continuities—language families, religious traditions, and colonial legacies—post-independence identity formations have emphasized differentiation:

  • National identities in Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and Pakistan were constructed in opposition to Indian civilizational dominance.
  • Communalism, religious nationalism, and majoritarian politics have eroded pluralist narratives, reducing the space for regional multiculturalism.
  • The lack of a common regional language (unlike Spanish in MERCOSUR or English in ASEAN) further inhibits cultural connectivity.

In this fragmented cultural landscape, region-wide narratives or imaginaries have failed to emerge, weakening the social foundations of regionalism.

Conclusion: Prospects for Reimagining South Asian Regionalism

The failure of South Asia to develop a cohesive regional identity and institutional integration is not merely a function of geopolitical rivalry; it is rooted in structural asymmetries, statist paradigms, and normative fragmentation. However, the region’s latent potential remains intact, as evidenced by transnational challenges—climate change, health crises, digital governance, and migration—that necessitate cooperative responses.

A new model of South Asian regionalism must:

  • Decenter the India–Pakistan binary by strengthening sub-regional forums like BBIN and BIMSTEC,
  • Promote issue-based coalitions on functional areas such as health, disaster management, and energy security,
  • Empower regional civil society, youth, and diaspora networks to build a bottom-up sense of regional identity,
  • Institutionalize track II diplomacy and regional think tanks to create epistemic communities for dialogue.

Only by redefining regionalism beyond state-centric and security-driven frames can South Asia realize its potential as an integrated and cooperative regional order in the 21st century.

Discover more from Polity Prober

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.