What are the reasons for lack of ‘regionness’ in South-Asia? (2023, 10 Marks)
Regionness, developed by Björn Hettne and Fredrik Söderbaum (New Political Economy, 2000), measures how far a geographical area has moved from a passive object to an active subject with identity, capacity to act and legitimacy. They trace five levels: regional space, regional complex, regional society, regional community and region-state. South Asia is a clear regional space but is stuck as a regional complex whose interdependence takes the form of mutual threat.
Structural reasons
- Asymmetry and Indo-centricity. India holds about three-quarters of the region’s people, borders every member, and no other member borders more than two. Smaller states read Indian initiatives as dominance and hedge with China, so no shared identity forms.
- A conflict formation. For Barry Buzan and Ole Wæver, Partition turned a communal problem into an interstate rivalry. The India–Pakistan dyad, inflamed again by Pahalgam and Operation Sindoor in 2025, blocks every regional project.
- Contested borders and identities. Colonial lines left disputes over Kashmir, Sir Creek and Kalapani, and divided communities. Several states defined nationhood against India, so young sovereignty is guarded.
Political reasons
- Divergent, unstable regimes. India’s continuous democracy sits beside Pakistan’s military-dominated hybrid order, Taliban rule in Afghanistan and recurrent upheaval: Sri Lanka 2022, Bangladesh 2024, Nepal’s Gen Z uprising in September 2025. Each change of government resets regional positions.
- Institutional design. SAARC’s Charter demands unanimity and excludes bilateral and contentious issues, so the central dispute can be neither discussed nor bypassed. No summit has met since 2014.
- Hesitant leadership. S. D. Muni describes India as long a reluctant participant and hesitant leader in SAARC; a region needs a core willing to underwrite it.
- No common external threat. ASEAN cohered against communist insurgency; South Asians find their main threats in one another.
Economic and social reasons
- Intra-regional trade is under 6% of the region’s total by India’s official count, against about a fifth within ASEAN.
- No transit regime and restrictive visas, so a regional society of firms and citizens cannot form.
- Integration is radial: Nepal, Bhutan and Bangladesh depend on India but little on each other.
Conclusion
The deficit reflects negative security interdependence never converted into positive transaction. Yet regionness is a process, not a fixed state, and the European path is no template. The smaller states’ renewed push for revival in 2026 shows demand exists; supply depends on quarantining the India–Pakistan quarrel while sub-regional routes such as BBIN and BIMSTEC let trade and travel accumulate.