By Ruma Dubey

An energy pact signed at the two-day South Asia Association for Regional Co-operation (SAARC) summit. That’s the sum-total of the meet.

After all the hi-drama, with expressions and emotions of PM Modi and Nawaz Sharif being played out like leading women in TV soap’s, this is all it ultimately comes down to. This deal is just a face-saver; it’s like buying something at the airport duty-free because you cannot go back home empty-handed. Maybe, India should have gone ahead and inked the other connectivity and trade deals with the other members, bypassing Pakistan.

The ongoing tensions between India and Pakistan have torpedoed yet another SAARC summit, making one question the very relevance of these meets. Every time the meet happens, expectations run high though history should have ideally taught us by now to expect nothing, maybe just a ‘handshake’. This regional forum has time and again failed to bring the South Asian countries closer. If we have seemingly better ties today, it is due to Modi’s bilateral meets with these nations, which is outside the forum.

The agenda for SAARC was same as ever - better connectivity between these nations, rail as well as road and increased trade. The SAARC nations are so close geographically and in an ideal world could have presented a united front to the rest of the world, like the EU. But trade itself between the SAARC nations is a piddly 5%. Indian goods reach Pakistan via Dubai. Transit between the two nations is very difficult as the relationship continues to remain frosty. But the question is – if political differences between India and Pakistan will continue to torpedo every SAARC meeting, what is then the point of this meet?

The big overhang created by the media is also to be blamed – did Modi look at Sharif, did they greet each other, where are they sitting, did Modi clap after Sharif’s speech, did they shake hands – with a smile or without a smile….. this goes on and on, like a picky mother-in-law obsessed about picking faults with her daughter-in-law. Our media thinks that foreign policy starts and ends with Pakistan. We need to move beyond this. Why can’t the media highlight the warmth between India and Nepal or Sri Lanka and Bangladesh. Why this fixation with only and only Pakistan? Yes, we have issues but if we have come to a forum, which is for the betterment of the entire region, should we continue to concentrate only on our bitterness with each other? SAARC is neither the forum nor the place to discuss Kashmir and other terrorism issues. In fact Pakistan should be more worried as economically it is really in the doldrums with unemployment, poverty and above all terrorism ruling the country.

So many years later, linkages between SAARC nations remains so poor. One cannot fly from Islamabad to Dhaka, nor can one fly directly from Sri Lank to Kathmandu. When something as basic as this connectivity is not achieved, what really has then been the point of SAARC? No doubt the shadow of India-Pakistan tensions prevents anything from happening, making SAARC itself pretty irrelevant.

To make SAARC more effective, this omnipresent ‘India v/s Pakistan’ stance needs to first change. Despite the tensions, when we two meet, we have to keep in mind the spirit of the forum and work collectively for the region. Maybe the EU story can inspire SAARC. Or Cambodia and Thailand, members of ASEAN - despite clashes and confrontations, they agreed on trade pacts. Can’t we both agree to disagree when it comes to politics and agree to boost trade between the SAARC nations?

SAARC is today not able to go beyond the rhetoric of regional cooperation and unless the two nations come to this forum, leaving their animosities behind, SAARC will remain a toothless tiger.