The narrative that BIMSTEC has revived regionalism from the death of SAARC is alluring but incomplete. BIMSTEC’s success lies not in its philosophical dedication to inclusivity, but in its capacity to exclude Pakistan. The exclusion is a feature, not a defect.

Death of SAARC

SAARC died in the shadow of India-Pakistan rivalry. Its consensus-based model made cooperation into a diplomatic quagmire. The statistics are stark: SAARC represents 24% of the world’s population but only 3% of the global GDP, while intra-regional commerce accounts for less than 2% of its GDP.

BIMSTEC bypasses that approach by connecting South Asia to Southeast Asia—India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Thailand, Nepal and Bhutan—creating a Bay of Bengal-centric architecture that functions without Islamabad. The result is greater efficiency. Projects get completed more quickly, financing becomes easier, and the diplomatic friction is lessened.

Deliberate Strategic Planning

BIMSTEC’s intra-regional trade stands at US$ 40 billion and could reach US$ 250 billion. That is the first wedge for a real economic bloc. Yet only 7% of BIMSTEC’s overall trade occurs within the group, compared to 25% in ASEAN. BIMSTEC is operational but still a toddler.

Yet this apparent ease is the product of deliberate strategic planning. BIMSTEC promotes trade and infrastructure through corridors that serve the interests of Indian-led initiatives and like-minded partners.

Under this rubric, connectivity initiatives, logistics hubs, and digital alliances will reset regional supply chains and diplomatic alignments. BIMSTEC countries are slowly gaining momentum, and non-bloc countries are slowly being marginalized.

Strategic Bypass of Pakistan

Pakistan’s absence is not without costs. Diplomatic exclusion is only one facet of the spectre that looms over the country: limited transit access, reduced prospects for integration into Bay-centric supply networks and weakened soft-power influences across the Indian Ocean littoral. Geography alone cannot offset this systemic redirection of economic opportunity.

“This is pragmatic statecraft,” say supporters. But by avoiding the tough characters, the institutional practice of controlling rivalry is weakened. Durable regional orders require tools for dealing with adversaries, not merely avoiding them. BIMSTEC’s selective regionalism can produce quick wins, but it can also generate brittle architectures that buckle under duress.

BIMSTEC members should agree to a ‘connectivity-plus’ protocol featuring binding transit rights, enforceable non-discrimination in access to projects and dispute-resolution processes linked to infrastructure finance. This would embed safeguards against economic exclusion within institutions and keep inter-bloc access alive as new regional alliances emerge.

Inter-Regional Collaboration

If BIMSTEC becomes a resilient, rule-based subsystem that also secures access for excluded neighbours, it could be an example of pragmatic regionalism. If it becomes simply a vehicle for strategic bypass, South Asia could fracture into overlapping blocs, efficient in peace but dangerous under duress.

The emergence of BIMSTEC is not so much a victory of regional collaboration as it is a geopolitical recasting. Recognizing this distinction is the first step in ensuring that the evolving architecture is a source of strength rather than a fracture for the region.

(The author is a student, Department of International Relations, Jahangirnagar University, Bangladesh. The views expressed are personal. He can be contacted at ariankabir316@gmail.com)