South Asia at a Crossroads: Navigating Regionalism Amid Historical, Structural, and Geopolitical Challenges
South Asia remains a region that has received relatively little global attention. Most countries in the region endured prolonged British colonial rule and are still grappling with nation-building and internal challenges decades after independence. Ongoing territorial and religious conflicts, particularly over Kashmir, have drained political and economic resources, further hindering regional progress. Economically, much of South Asia remains trapped in poverty, inequality, and underdevelopment. India stands out as an exception, having rapidly emerged as the world’s fifth-largest economy. Meanwhile, external powers such as China and the United States have become increasingly influential, shaping South Asia’s regional dynamics and cross-border cooperation.
Regionalism in South Asia is losing steam, weakened by historical and structural challenges. The idea of South Asia as a unified geographic and cultural entity, rooted in shared experiences like British colonialism, cricket, and Bollywood, has struggled to translate into effective regional cooperation. Structural barriers and geopolitical tensions have held back the vision of regional integration.
The creation of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) in 1985 marked a significant step toward regional integration, but its progress has been hampered. Challenges such as the principle of unanimity, India’s dominant position, and China’s growing influence have rendered SAARC largely ineffective. Unlike ASEAN, the regional bloc of neighboring Southeast Asia, SAARC has delivered little tangible benefit to its members. Intra-regional trade accounts for just five percent of South Asia’s total trade, a stark indicator of limited economic integration. Political frictions exacerbate this fragmentation: India’s branding of Pakistan as a terrorist state, Pakistan’s ban on Indian media, and declining people-to-people exchanges (including student mobility) have further eroded regional connectivity. India’s closer strategic alignment with the United States has added another layer to the region’s complexity, turning South Asia into a theater for US-China competition. While this shift has expanded South Asia’s global relevance, it has come at the cost of regional cohesion.
Fig. 1: BIMSTEC, BBIN and SAARC Groupings.
The trajectory of South Asian regionalism will hinge on several critical factors: India’s aspirations for greater global influence, the smaller states’ deepening alignment with China, and the capacity of individual nations to drive functional initiatives amid intensifying geopolitical rivalries. Should security tensions rise and economic competition sharpen – particularly under the second Trump administration – functional regionalism may gain traction as states seek pragmatic alternatives to the status quo. This shift could represent a watershed moment for the region, moving beyond the constraints of essentialist regionalism, which relies on geographic proximity and cultural homogeneity, toward a more dynamic functional regionalism rooted in practical cooperation and shared objectives.
Groupings such as BIMSTEC and BBIN exemplify the “South Asia +/- x” model, reflecting the rise of new functionalist regional frameworks that break away from traditional notions of regionalism. These arrangements, along with emerging sub-regional groupings centered on India or Pakistan and composed of “like-minded” or “interest-aligned” nations, are gaining momentum. Though still in their infancy, these evolving forms of regionalism offer a glimpse into how South Asia might address the void left by the decline of multilateralism and conventional regional integration. They suggest a potential path forward for a fragmented region, seeking to redefine its role in an increasingly fluid and competitive geopolitical landscape.
Yoon Jung CHOI, Vice President, Sejong Institute. Email: yoonjung2012@gmail.com