# *Detailed SUMMARY of the article "Muted mandate SAARC and the cycle of Indo Pak escalation" by Shakeel Ahmed Shah, Published in Tribune on June 12th, 2025:* The article critically examines the *South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC)*'s inability to address the recent escalation between *Pakistan* and *India* following the *Pahalgam incident* of *April 22nd*. Founded in *1985* as a platform for *regional harmony* and *collective progress*, *SAARC* has proven ineffective in mitigating *Indo-Pak tensions* due to its *structural weaknesses* and the *deep-seated animosity* between its two major players. The organization's *charter explicitly excludes bilateral and contentious political issues*, rendering it *toothless* when the most pressing regional challenges are political in nature. This limitation forces *SAARC summits* to focus on *trade and culture* while ignoring the *persistent tensions* between *Pakistan* and *India*. The recent crisis, involving *diplomatic deterioration*, *cross-border accusations*, and *military posturing*, demanded immediate regional response, but *SAARC* remained largely silent, highlighting its inability to transcend *nationalistic agendas*. Historical precedents include the *2016 summit cancellation* after the *Uri attack* and the *2019 Pulwama-Balakot standoff* that further marginalized the organization. *SAARC*'s *consensus-based decision-making process* becomes an impediment when the two most influential members are in direct confrontation, making meaningful action virtually impossible. The organization lacks *strong institutional mechanisms* for *conflict resolution* and concrete procedures for mediation during crises, leaving the region reliant on *external actors* or *ad-hoc bilateral engagements*. While *SAARC* could play a subtle role through *people-to-people contact*, *cultural exchanges*, and *economic cooperation*, these *slow-burn initiatives* are overshadowed by immediate *security concerns* and *nationalist sentiments* during acute crises. The article concludes that *SAARC* requires fundamental *charter re-evaluation* and genuine commitment from member states to prioritize *regional harmony* over *narrow nationalistic interests* to evolve from a *symbolic entity* into a meaningful force for *peace and cooperation* in *South Asia*. # *Easy/Short SUMMARY*: *SAARC*, founded in *1985* for *regional cooperation*, has failed to address recent *Indo-Pak escalation* after the *Pahalgam incident*. Its *charter excludes political discussions*, making it ineffective during crises. Historical failures include *2016 Uri* and *2019 Pulwama-Balakot* incidents. *Consensus-based decisions* and lack of *conflict resolution mechanisms* render it powerless when *Pakistan* and *India* clash. The organization needs *charter reform* and commitment to *regional harmony* over *nationalism* to become effective. # *SOLUTIONS of The Problem*: ## *1. Charter Amendment* Revise *SAARC charter* to allow discussions on *bilateral political issues* and *security matters* affecting regional stability. ## *2. Establish Conflict Resolution Body* Create a dedicated *mediation and arbitration body* within *SAARC* for crisis management and dispute resolution. ## *3. Reform Decision-Making Process* Replace *consensus-based decisions* with *qualified majority voting* to prevent deadlocks during member state conflicts. ## *4. Strengthen Institutional Mechanisms* Develop concrete procedures and protocols for *conflict prevention*, *early warning systems*, and *crisis response*. ## *5. Enhance Track-II Diplomacy* Expand *people-to-people contact*, *academic exchanges*, and *civil society engagement* to build long-term trust. ## *6. Create Emergency Response Protocol* Establish rapid response mechanisms for immediate intervention during *Indo-Pak escalations* and regional crises. ## *7. Involve External Mediators* Engage neutral third parties or international organizations to facilitate dialogue during deadlocked situations. ## *8. Focus on Economic Integration* Prioritize *trade liberalization* and *economic cooperation* to create interdependence that discourages conflict. ## *9. Regular Leadership Summits* Mandate annual *head-of-state meetings* regardless of bilateral tensions to maintain dialogue channels. ## *10. Regional Security Framework* Develop a comprehensive *South Asian security architecture* with confidence-building measures and military transparency. # *IMPORTANT Facts and Figures Given in the article*: - *SAARC* founded in *1985* as a platform for *regional harmony* and *collective progress*. - *Pahalgam incident* occurred on *April 22nd*, triggering recent *Indo-Pak escalation*. - *2016 SAARC summit* was cancelled after the *Uri attack*. - *2019 Pulwama-Balakot standoff* further marginalized *SAARC*. - *SAARC charter* explicitly excludes discussions on *bilateral and contentious political issues*. - Organization uses *consensus-based decision-making process* requiring agreement of all member states. # *IMPORTANT Facts and Figures out of the article*: - *SAARC* has *8 member countries*: *Pakistan*, *India*, *Bangladesh*, *Sri Lanka*, *Nepal*, *Bhutan*, *Maldives*, and *Afghanistan* (*SAARC Secretariat*, 2024). - *South Asia* accounts for *24%* of global population but only *4%* of world GDP (*World Bank*, 2024). - *Intra-SAARC trade* represents less than *5%* of total regional trade (*Asian Development Bank*, 2024). - *Indo-Pak trade* potential estimated at *$37 billion* annually (*Confederation of Indian Industry*, 2023). - *SAARC* has held only *19 summits* in *39 years* of existence (*SAARC data*, 2024). - *South Asian region* spends *4.2%* of GDP on defense, highest globally (*SIPRI*, 2024). # *MCQs from the Article*: ### 1. *When was SAARC founded?* A. 1983 *B. 1985* C. 1987 D. 1990 ### 2. *What incident triggered the recent Indo-Pak escalation?* A. Uri attack *B. Pahalgam incident* C. Pulwama attack D. Balakot strike ### 3. *What does SAARC charter explicitly exclude?* A. Economic cooperation *B. Bilateral and contentious political issues* C. Cultural exchanges D. Trade discussions ### 4. *Which year's SAARC summit was cancelled after Uri attack?* A. 2015 *B. 2016* C. 2017 D. 2018 ### 5. *What decision-making process does SAARC use?* A. Majority voting *B. Consensus-based* C. Executive decisions D. Rotating leadership # *VOCABULARY*: 1. *Escalation* (اضافہ) – Rapid increase in intensity or seriousness 2. *Mitigating* (کم کرنا) – Making less severe or serious 3. *Conspicuously* (واضح طور پر) – In a clearly visible manner 4. *Inherent* (فطری) – Existing as a natural characteristic 5. *Deep-seated* (گہری جڑیں) – Firmly established and difficult to change 6. *Animosity* (دشمنی) – Strong hostility or hatred 7. *Toothless* (بے طاقت) – Lacking power or effectiveness 8. *Contentious* (متنازعہ) – Causing or likely to cause argument 9. *Grievances* (شکایات) – Complaints or resentments 10. *Spiraled* (بگڑنا) – Deteriorated rapidly 11. *Transcend* (برتر ہونا) – Go beyond the limits of 12. *Marginalized* (کنارے پر ڈالا) – Treated as insignificant 13. *Inertia* (سستی) – Lack of activity or movement 14. *Impediment* (رکاوٹ) – Hindrance or obstruction 15. *Arbitrate* (فیصلہ کرنا) – Act as judge in a dispute 16. *Ad-hoc* (عارضی) – Created for a specific purpose 17. *Palpable* (محسوس) – Able to be touched or felt 18. *Curtailed* (محدود کرنا) – Reduced or restricted 19. *Iteration* (شکل) – Version or form of something 20. *Symbolic* (علامتی) – Serving as a symbol rather than having practical purpose 📢 *Attention Please!* We appreciate your commitment to acquiring knowledge through our summaries. Please be reminded not to remove the attribution label affixed to this article. It is crucial to acknowledge the source and the effort invested in creating this summary. We discourage any unauthorized distribution without proper credit. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation. 🔍 ⚡ *Explore More Summaries, Solutions, and Vocabulary Meanings* 💡 Join our WhatsApp Channel for timely and comprehensive summaries of the latest articles, along with well-crafted solutions and helpful vocabulary meanings. Click the link below to join now 🔗 [Dawn Article Summaries](https://cssmcqs.com/dawn-editorials-articles-summary-for-students-pdf-download/) *WhatsApp Channel Link*: [https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029Va7tT3o35fLnJeFbpS2y](https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029Va7tT3o35fLnJeFbpS2y) --- *tribune.com.pk* *Muted mandate SAARC and the cycle of Indo Pak escalation* *Shakeel Ahmed Shah* *6 - 8 minutes* . the writer is a graduate in philosophy of humanities from iis london and a development practitioner in pakistan email shakeelahmedshah yahoo com The writer is a graduate in Philosophy of Humanities from IIS London and a development practitioner in Pakistan. Email: [email protected] print-news Listen to article When founded, in 1985, the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) was envisioned as a platform for regional harmony and collective progress. However, its role in mitigating the most recent escalation between Pakistan and India, triggered by the Pahalgam incident of April 22, and the subsequent military and diplomatic fallout, has been conspicuously absent and critically limited. An objective evaluation reveals that SAARC, hampered by its inherent structural weaknesses and the deep-seated animosity between its two major players, has once again failed to act as an effective mechanism for de-escalation or mediation. One of the fundamental limitations of SAARC is its charter, which explicitly excludes discussions on bilateral and contentious political issues. This very clause, intended to foster cooperation in socio-economic areas without being held hostage by political disputes, renders the organisation toothless when the most pressing regional challenges are political in nature, as is the case with Indo-Pak relations. Consequently, SAARC summits and ministerial meetings become stages for polite exchanges on trade and culture, while the elephant in the room — the persistent and often escalating tensions between Pakistan and India — remains unaddressed within the formal structure. The recent crisis, which saw a rapid deterioration of diplomatic ties, cross-border accusations and even military posturing and engagement, demanded an immediate and robust regional response. Ideally, SAARC should have provided a forum for dialogue, a neutral space for both nations to air their grievances, and a mechanism to facilitate de-escalation through diplomatic channels. However, the bloc remained largely silent as bilateral tensions spiraled, underscoring its inability to transcend the nationalistic agendas of its member states, particularly when these agendas are in direct conflict. The history of SAARC is replete with instances where Indo-Pak tensions have undermined its potential. The 2016 summit was cancelled after the Uri attack. The 2019 Pulwama-Balakot standoff further marginalised the organisation. In each instance, SAARC's structural design and political inertia have rendered it a bystander. The current escalation is no different. With both nations locked in a familiar cycle of accusation and retaliation, SAARC's consensus-based decision-making process becomes a significant impediment. Any meaningful action or statement requiring the agreement of all member states is virtually impossible when the two most influential members are in direct confrontation. Furthermore, the lack of strong institutional mechanisms for conflict resolution within SAARC contributes to its ineffectiveness during crises. While the charter emphasises peaceful settlement of disputes, it lacks concrete procedures or a dedicated body to mediate or arbitrate in situations of heightened tension. This void leaves the region reliant on external actors or ad-hoc bilateral engagements, bypassing the very regional framework that was intended to foster collective security and stability. Despite these shortcomings, SAARC could still play a subtle, indirect role. By continuing to promote people-to-people contact, cultural exchanges and economic cooperation in areas where consensus exists, the organisation might foster a long-term environment of trust and understanding that could eventually spill over into the political domain. However, during times of acute crisis, these slow-burn initiatives are often overshadowed by immediate security concerns and nationalist sentiments. The palpable tension following the Pahalgam incident and India's subsequent actions has likely curtailed any such positive momentum. While the ideal of regional cooperation in South Asia remains vital, the current iteration of SAARC has proven to be an inadequate instrument for managing and resolving the most pressing security challenges facing the region. A fundamental re-evaluation of its charter and a genuine commitment from its member states to prioritise regional harmony over narrow nationalistic interests are essential if SAARC is to evolve from a largely symbolic entity into a meaningful force for peace and cooperation in South Asia.