Suravi Pal*
Introduction
Globalisation defines the new age. The new era’s challenges and prospects cannot be addressed without interdependency. Different regions of the world, be it Europe, the Middle East, or South Asia, have their respective contributions towards promoting the overall growth of the world community. South Asia plays a crucial role in promoting world trade. It comprises nine countries: India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Maldives, Nepal, Bhutan, and Myanmar. The ‘Strait of Malacca’ connects the Indian Ocean as the shortest and most economical passageway for maritime trade between Asia, Europe, and the Middle East. Thus, given the regional importance of South Asia and its diverse ethnocultural boundaries, the lack of economic and political stability in this region, coupled with the gruesome violation of freedom of the press, suppression of Minority communities, harassment of human rights defenders, high levels of income inequality and low levels of social security, will impact the overall stability of the world community. Thus, in these instances, there is a need to improve cultural exchange, enhance regional and economic cooperation, and have a shared vision regarding human rights violations. However, the history of territorial disputes, economic and cultural disparity, and different levels of economic development between the nations poses significant challenges to the progress of this region and, more often than not, sets gruesome examples of human rights violations. Thus, the aim of the paper is to analyse whether a coordinated involvement in mitigating prevailing crises could positively improve the region’s geopolitical relations. Further, do regional organisations like the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), South Asian South Asia Sub-regional Economic Cooperation (SASEC), the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC), and the Bangladesh-Bhutan-India-Nepal Initiative (BBIN) play a crucial role in reducing human rights violations in South Asia?
South Asia: The State of Regional Integration
In the times of global integration, adherence to Human Rights becomes crucial in terms of defining accountable governance, regional peace and stability, greater social cohesion, and economic progress. In this respect, regional integration plays a crucial role in strengthening Human Rights norms through monitoring and cooperation. In the era of regionalism and interdependence, adherence to Human Rights through deeper integration and regional checks and balances mechanisms can be transformative. In terms of regionalism, While South Asian nations could have been a classic example due to shared historical and cultural traditions, over the past year, as Amnesty International documents in its Annual Report,[1] poor governance, after effects of COVID-19, the China debt trap, food fuel inflation, declining forex reserves, rising unemployment, ethnic cultural tensions, coupled with unstable democratic governance across major countries like Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, have resulted in increasing violations of human rights in South Asia.[2] One of the earliest efforts at regional cooperation began in the 1980s, which contributed to the formation of SAARC in 1985[3] and later, BIMSTEC, BBIN & SASEC in 1997, 2015, and 2001, respectively.[4] One of the most crucial aspects of regional cooperation, i.e., greater economic integration, is depressingly low in South Asia. Its intra-regional trade is the lowest globally, accounting for only 5% of the region’s total trade, with an estimated gap of 23 billion, i.e., one-third of its potential.[5] The fear of the hegemonic influence of India, coupled with uneven levels of economic development amongst the smaller neighbouring countries, has resulted in them seeking to develop closer relations with external powers like China. The classic example of the same is China’s ‘Triangle of Death’, the three ports in South Asia across Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, and Pakistan.[6] The external powers utilising the opportunity have continued to manifest their ideological agendas to seek dominance and control, compromising the region’s integration. Territorial disputes along India & China (McMahon line dispute), Pakistan and India (Pakistan Occupied Kashmir region dispute), Pakistan and Afghanistan (Durand line dispute), and most recently India and Nepal over the Lipulekh-Kalapani region dispute have often resulted in armed conflicts and strained friendly relations.[7] Religious extremism, terrorism, and separatist movements further play a major role in contributing to geopolitical tensions between countries of India, Pakistan & Bangladesh and have resulted in ongoing political conflicts, making any attempt at fostering cooperation and regional integration difficult. Thus, politics, emotions, and border disputes have stood as barriers to regional integration in South Asia. This geopolitically makes the region “Indo-centric” in its inherently bilateral and intra-regional interactions. Thus, all bilateral conflicts in South Asia involve India, given that it is at the centre. However, the other nations view New Delhi’s regional strategies and policies as hegemonic. Henceforth, such negative factors have become powerful hurdles in regional integration.[8]
The Role of Regional Institutions in Promoting Regionalism in South Asia
South Asian countries, though they occupy the same geographical space, do not share a common security perception. The doctrine of borders, principled on the idea of ‘uti possidetis juris (as you possess), which advocates for territorial integrity and sovereignty, not only emphasises the physical demarcation of territory but also the socio-political relationships that arise at these crucial interfaces between states.[9] At present, South Asian borders are grappling with the challenges of Transnational crimes like Drug Trafficking, Human Trafficking, and illegal immigration due to their geographical proximity to the Golden Crescent and Golden Triangle.[10] Thus, over the years, although ‘Globalization’ has advocated for omitting national borders as they are regarded as barriers to prosperity, and increasing international recognition exists for borders not being exempted from human rights obligations, concerns for internal security and porous borders being misused for illegal purposes, has made political leaders in South Asia wary of cross border relations, prioritising ‘Nationalism’ over ‘Regionalism’. Thus, the need is to have in place such a model of ‘Economic integration’ in the subcontinent which will restore the natural flow of goods and balance the challenges of increasing border security concerns in the name of free flow of trade and business. Political divisions that create a negative atmosphere must be reduced through regular contact and dialogue diplomacy. Despite all the concerns about regional cooperation, there is still hope for integration and unanimity among SAARC nations. South Asian countries must realise that cultural bonds, economic necessity, and security requirements must act as necessary factors for the region’s nation-states to integrate. However, given the present political climate in South Asia, is regionalism possible in the region, or will it remain only as a normative philosophy? To bring the philosophy into practice, Regionalism in South Asia should not be limited to developing regional connectivity through cost-effective routes for the faster flow of goods and services. Integration in terms of politics and economy is crucial. Regard for Human Rights should transcend boundaries in South Asia. Any form of Human Rights violation across regional nation-states should not be met with the ‘non-interference principle’ of prioritising sovereignty over cooperation. As the host of the 18th SAARC Summit 2014, Nepal recognised the need to ensure the participation of civil society representatives in SAARC processes and took the initiative to form a Citizen Advisory Committee to give voice to the people of South Asia in SAARC.[11] Other organisations like BIMSTEC should also establish such committees to effectively identify the areas of focus and deliver people-centric regionalism.
Should India Take the Lead in Efforts at Regional Integration in South Asia?
Authoritarian tendencies are on the rise worldwide. Concerning South Asia, the need for an important pillar respecting democratic ideals is more so needed, due to the rising influence of China’s aggressive policies in the South China Sea and the Indian Ocean,[12] followed by failing democratic regimes across Afghanistan and Pakistan.[13] Having by far the largest economy in the region, geographic centrality, and its adherence to democratic ideals, India can play a central role in reigniting regionalism in South Asia. However, the geographical advantage of having a large territory, coupled with India’s high ambition for achieving the status of world power, has been a major factor hampering regional integration in South Asia. There is a need to have a coordinated regional action plan that focuses on countering common goals of the region, such as climate change, counter terrorism, disaster response, transnational crimes, and water sharing, rather than nation-centric goals. Further, India can act as a democratic counterweight to China’s aggressive debt trap policies in the region. The same will result in reducing concerns of hegemonic dominance of India in the region. Lessons must be learnt from the failure of organisations like SAARC due to Pakistan’s whims and fancies, and organisations like BIMSTEC, with the potential of having both South and Southeast Asian countries as members, can be utilised for India’s Act East Policy. The advantage of BIMSTEC over SAARC is that it has two major powers, Thailand and India, reducing the chances of it being completely Indo-centric. Further, BIMSTEC has 14 sectors identified for regional cooperation idealized on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), with each sector having a lead country responsible for it, ensuring substantive bargaining power in dialogue diplomacy with smaller regional countries like Sri Lanka, Nepal, and Bhutan.[14] Landlocked countries like Nepal and Bhutan will have a platform to leverage their geographic proximity to the Bay of Bengal and act as an alternative to China’s massive inroads in Southeast Asia. With the frequency of its meetings increasing,[15] it portrays a deeper shift in the attitudes of countries in South Asia towards regionalism. Other efforts at regionalism in South Asia are the SASEC & BBIN. SASEC, focusing on facilitating ‘Regional Trade Agreements’(RTAs), is a project-based cooperation group, with its initiatives being funded by the Asian Development Bank (ADB). As of March 2025, ADB has approved 91 regional projects with an investment of around $22.53 billion.[16] The BBIN Motor Vehicle Agreement has facilitated the seamless travel of trade goods between India’s North-East and neighbouring countries by reducing the travel distance and opening shorter routes for exports.[17] Thus, the present approach towards regionalism across these organisations is on improving greater economic integration. However, the focus must be shifted from broad policy objectives to specific issues like Terrorism, rising Transnational Crimes, and illegal migration. Also, capacity-building measures, such as establishing Training and Coordination centres, mandates on sub-committees or working groups to report annually on the impact assessment, must be given due adherence alongside promoting trade, to achieve similar levels of integration across the region.
Conclusion
These integration challenges, demonstrated by the ‘least integrated’ region of the world, despite having shared history & culture, have prompted the urgency for all nation states across South Asia to apply longstanding and mutually agreed-upon principles of international human rights. Lessons in this regard can be inculcated from the policies adopted by the European Union (EU) and the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN). A strong political will to integrate, which is predominantly present among EU countries, is absent in South Asia. Regional organisations must present a platform for the member countries to deliberate upon the challenges to democratic governance in the region and unanimously respond through mitigating strategies for countries that lack support for human rights protections. Organisations lacking the ability to effectively engage in dispute resolution lose their functional relevance. Thus, the establishment of dispute resolution centres focusing on Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms must be the agenda for the next decade for regionalism in South Asia. To bring the normative principles of regionalism into practice, South Asia lacks the trust that exists among the countries in the EU. Nevertheless, regional organisations have grown rapidly because of their ability to fulfil the requirements of member countries. Scholars have called Regionalism the “dominant note of the contemporary world.”[18] A global organisation is too ambitious a proposition and thus cannot command the allegiance needed to fulfil its objectives in a world of opposing power groups. Thus, regionalism in South Asia for the next decades should mean working together with better cooperation and efficiency in areas of mutual benefit and interest. Though the progress has been slow, principled diplomacy and greater coordination amongst regional organisations are expected to dominate the next decades for regionalism in South Asia.
* The Author is a Practicing Advocate at the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court. The author may be contacted at suravipal001@gmail.com.
This blog reflects the personal views of the author and does not necessarily represent the views of The Policy Chronicle.
[1] Amnesty International, The State of Worlds Human Rights, (April 24, 2024), https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/04/amnesty-international-sounds-alarm-international-law-flagrant-rule-breaking-governments-corporate-actors
[2] Alyssa Ayres, Human Rights and Democracy in South Asia, Council on Foreign Relations, (Sep 20, 2022), https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep26155
[3] VP Haran, Regional Cooperation in South Asia, 13 Indian Foreign Affairs Journal, 197, 195-208 (2018)
[4] Id.
[5] World Bank Group, The Potential for Intra-regional Trade for South Asia, (May 24, 2016), https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/infographic/2016/05/24/the-potential-of-intra-regional-trade-for-south-asia
[6] Ritu Sharma, China’s ‘Triangle Of Death’: India To Counter PLA By Solidifying Ties With Bangladesh And Sri Lanka, Eurasian Times, (Aug 5, 2023), https://www.eurasiantimes.com/of-death-india-tries-to-woo-bangladesh-and-sri-lanka-to-its-corner/
[7] Shiv Shankar Menon, Border disputes? Let’s make boundaries irrelevant without changing them, The Print, (17 Aug, 2021), https://theprint.in/opinion/border-disputes-lets-make-boundaries-irrelevant-without-changing-them-shivshankar-menon/716830/
[8] Rakhi Sehgal, South Asian Regionalism: A People’s Movement Perspective, 41 India International Centre Quarterly, 212, 210-215 (2015).
[9]Haran, supra note 3, at 2.
[10] Anondeeta Chakraborty, Twin Menace of Golden Triangle and Golden Crescent for India: Analysis, Eurasia Review, (Jan 26, 2021), https://www.eurasiareview.com/26012021-twin-menace-of-golden-triangle-and-golden-crescent-for-india-analysis/?__cf_chl_f_tk=rJWObNL7pJmzQLT5UaPK.OhpjwD1qRGL_Yga2heb2Q8-1783168911-1.0.1.1-jb_lIv0YOYaamVqk_a9GMHNU4yfvuEHs2OBjQdbyWb8.
[11]Aishath Velezinee, Developing a Regional Human Rights Mechanism, 41 India International Centre Quarterly, 207, 203-209 (2015).
[12] Dipanjan Roy Chaudhury, China’s Aggression in South China Sea Faces Strong Global Pushback, Econ. Times (Nov. 15, 2021), https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/chinas-aggression-in-south-china-sea-faces-strong-global-pushback/articleshow/87351835.cms.
[13] S. Akbar Zaidi, Why Islamic Democracy Failed in Afghanistan — Because It First Failed in Pakistan, Providence (Apr. 2, 2024), https://providencemag.com/2024/04/islamic-democracy-failed-in-afghanistan-because-it-first-failed-in-pakistan/.
[14] Xavier Constantino, “How to Institutionally Strengthen BIMSTEC.” Bridging the Bay of Bengal: Toward a Stronger BIMSTEC, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 16, 15–24, (2018).
[15] Id.
[16] Asian Development Bank, South Asia Subregional Economic Cooperation (SASEC), https://www.adb.org/what-we-do/topics/regional-cooperation/sasec
[17] Khalid Rahman, Regional Cooperation, Global Changes, SAARC and China, 9 Policy Perspectives, 13, 5-14, (2012).
[18]Anasua Basu Ray Chaudhury & Nilanjan Ghosh et.al, BBIN: Opportunities and Challenges, Observer Research Foundation (August 10, 2018), https://www.orfonline.org/research/bbin-opportunities-and-challenges.