South Asian regionalism, social development and COVID-19: Lessons for SAARC from the EU's social model
| Author | Zahid Shahab Ahmed,Munir Hussain |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/20578911221104275 |
| Published date | 01 December 2022 |
| Date | 01 December 2022 |
| Subject Matter | South Asian Politics |
South Asian regionalism, social
development and COVID-19:
Lessons for SAARC from the
EU’s social model
Zahid Shahab Ahmed
Deakin University, Australia
Munir Hussain
Institute of Business Management, Pakistan
Abstract
There is little research done on the social agenda of the South Asian Association for Regional
Cooperation (SAARC). As an analysis of the organization’s social agenda is relevant to the chal-
from the development model of the European Union (EU). Erstwhile literature on SAARC has
not compared its progress in terms of social development with that of the EU. Hence, this
study aims to answer the following questions: What are the key differences between the social
development approaches of the two organizations, and what can SAARC learn from the EU’s
social model? The analysis in this research is largely based on an extensive review of official docu-
ments from the EU and SAARC. This article argues that collective social development is in line
with SAARC’s functionalist approach that prioritizes cooperation in non-controversial areas like
human security. Based on the comparative analysis, this article proposes a three-tier social devel-
opment approach for comprehensive social development across South Asia. This study argues
that, despite its socio-economic and political challenges, SAARC has a lot to gain from adopting
the EU’s social model.
Keywords
Corresponding author:
Zahid Shahab Ahmed, Alfred Deakin Institute, Deakin University, 221 Burwood Hwy, Burwood, Victoria 3125, Australia.
Email: zahid.ahmed@deakin.edu.au
South Asian Politics
Asian Journal of Comparative Politics
2022, Vol. 7(4) 820–835
© The Author(s) 2022
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/20578911221104275
journals.sagepub.com/home/acp
Introduction
Since the beginning of 2020, the coronavirus pandemic continues to affect almost all SAARC
Lanka, Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan and the Maldives (WHO, 2020). India’s proposal for a regional
response via SAARC received a positive response, and a SAARC-level videoconference was
hosted by New Delhi on 15 March 2020 in which Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi
announced the SAARC Emergency Fund to address the pandemic. Despite initial reservations
on how this fund should be managed through the SAARC secretariat, a Pakistani official did par-
ticipate in this virtual meeting involving heads of state of other SAARC member states (Ahmed,
2020). Notable was the absence of the Pakistan Prime Minister of Pakistan but a Pakistan represen-
tative raised the issue of restrictions in Jammu and Kashmir (Ahmed, 2020). Nonetheless, in April
2020, Pakistan hosted a videoconference of SAARC health ministers at which all SAARC members
shared their experiences of managing the pandemic and supported the idea of a regional approach
(Dawn, 2020). This shows a renewed interest in SAARC from all member states to handle human
security challenges, for example health risks. At this juncture, considering the momentum of activ-
ities at the SAARC level, it is important to see what lessons can be drawn from other more success-
ful organizations to enhance social development in South Asia through SAARC. This research,
therefore, aims to answer the following questions: What are the key differences between the
social development approaches of the two organizations, and what can SAARC learn from the
EU’s social model?
Since its creation in 1985, SAARC has often been a victim of political differences between its
member states, especially between India and Pakistan, its two biggest members. SAARC has often
faced hiccups due to bilateral relations between its members in the form of meeting cancellations.
An example is that of India’s lobbying with other SAARC members, such as Afghanistan,
Bangladesh and Bhutan, to not participate in the scheduled 2016 summit in Pakistan (Dawn,
2007). Consequently, SAARC only organized 18 summits instead of 35 during 1985–2022.
Since the Uri terrorist attacks in the Indian-administered Kashmir in 2016, the relationship
between India and Pakistan has not normalized and this continues to affect SAARC. The costs
appraisal of how SAARC can help its member states deal with such crises. It is therefore important
to examine how other prominent regional organizations have progressed in collective social devel-
We acknowledge that the two contexts, i.e. South Asia and Europe, are very different. For
example, there is no single dominant player in Europe; in South Asia, however, India’s centrality
is prevalent due to its geographic position, population size and share of 80 percent of the region’s
GDP (Chaturvedi et al., 2015: 80). Despite India’s dominance, another major actor is Pakistan, with
considerable influence in Afghanistan. Even within Europe or the EU region, Germany’s economic
influence and France’s political clout are noticeable. The two regions are also historically and cul-
turally different. While Christianity is the dominant religion in the EU (Weiler, 2003), South Asia is
religiously very diverse (SAARC, 2018). SAARC has four majority-Muslim, two majority-Hindu
and two majority-Buddhist countries. South Asia is also home to the world’s largest Hindu and
Muslim populations.
1
The EU region has a population of 511 million (7.3 percent of the world’s
population), a GDP of US$16.48 trillion, an inflation growth rate of 0.09 percent and a life expect-
ancy of 81 years (Vienna Institute of Demography, 2016; World Bank, 2016). By virtue of being a
union of developed states, the EU is the most generous bloc, providing foreign aid to developing
Ahmed and Hussain 821
To continue reading
Request your trial