Pakistan Proposes New South Asian Bloc With China and Bangladesh — Can It Curb India’s Influence?

Pakistan Proposes Alternative South Asian Grouping With China and Bangladesh

Pakistan’s Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister, Ishaq Dar, has proposed broadening a recent trilateral initiative with China and Bangladesh into a wider, issue-focused South Asian grouping. Speaking at the Islamabad Conclave, Dar framed the plan as a move away from "zero-sum" politics toward cooperation on economics, technology, connectivity and regional stability.

“There could be groups with variable geometry on issues from economy to technology to connectivity,” Dar said, adding that Pakistan’s development and regional priorities "cannot – and should not – be held hostage to anyone’s rigidity," an apparent reference to India.

The proposal effectively envisions an alternative to the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), which has long been hampered by India–Pakistan tensions. Diplomats from China, Pakistan and Bangladesh met in June for talks on stability, development and improving people's lives; officials described that cooperation as "not directed at any third party."

Context And Regional Tensions

Dar’s remarks come amid heightened regional friction. Pakistan and India, both nuclear-armed, reportedly exchanged a brief round of air engagements in May that further strained relations. Media reports cited in the dispatch also say ties between Dhaka and New Delhi have deteriorated following political developments in Bangladesh, including the removal and subsequent conviction of former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina; those reports indicate Hasina sought refuge in India and that New Delhi has so far refused extradition requests. These claims are reported by regional outlets and referenced in the original article.

Dar also noted that a structured India–Pakistan dialogue has been "in limbo for over 11 years," and said other regional states have experienced a "seesaw relationship" with India. He described Pakistan’s vision for South Asia as one where cooperation replaces division, economies grow in synergy, disputes are resolved peacefully and peace is preserved "with dignity and honour."

Analysts’ Take: Aspirational, Not Yet Operational

Analysts caution that Pakistan’s plan is currently more aspirational than operational. Rabia Akhtar, director at the Centre for Security, Strategy and Policy Research (CSSPR) at the University of Lahore, told Al Jazeera the proposal signals Islamabad’s intent to diversify and reimagine regional cooperation mechanisms while SAARC remains stalled.

Farwa Aamer, director of South Asia Initiatives at the Asia Society Policy Institute (ASPI), argued that Pakistan’s move is "strategically coherent," reflecting diplomatic agility as Islamabad sustains ties with China while engaging the United States and Gulf partners. Still, Aamer said bilateral and small-scale trilateral arrangements will likely dominate in the near to medium term because they offer greater flexibility and clearer incentives.

Why SAARC Has Struggled

Founded in 1985, SAARC’s stated objectives include improving welfare, generating economic growth and promoting cultural development across South Asia. Afghanistan joined as the eighth member in 2007. But decades of India–Pakistan hostility — including three full-scale wars since 1947 — have repeatedly undermined the organisation’s ability to act. The 19th SAARC summit, which Islamabad was to host in 2016, was postponed indefinitely after India withdrew, citing a terrorist attack and holding Pakistan responsible.

The organisation’s decision-making requires consensus; without political will from key members to separate bilateral disputes from regional cooperation, SAARC’s revival remains difficult, analysts say. The last SAARC summit was held in 2014 in Kathmandu, yet observers note the grouping still has untapped potential if geopolitical obstacles can be managed.

Trade, Connectivity And The Case For Smaller Groupings

South Asia is highly populous — SAARC members accounted for more than two billion people as of 2025 — but intra-regional trade is low. The World Bank estimates trade within South Asia represents about 5% of the region’s commerce (roughly $23 billion), far below blocs such as ASEAN, where intra-bloc trade is about 25%. The World Bank also estimated that reducing barriers could increase South Asian intra-regional trade to about $67 billion.

India–Pakistan bilateral trade has been particularly weak: official trade was about $2.41 billion in FY 2017–18 and reportedly fell to roughly $1.2 billion by 2024, though unofficial trade via third countries may be larger. Poor connectivity is a major constraint — for example, a proposed SAARC Motor Vehicles Agreement and a regional rail accord stalled amid political tensions in 2014.

After SAARC failed to approve a regional transport pact, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India and Nepal formed the BBIN sub‑regional initiative to pursue similar goals. India also participates in other platforms such as BIMSTEC, which groups countries around the Bay of Bengal and includes Thailand and Myanmar alongside South Asian members.

Prospects For Pakistan’s Proposal

Analysts identify two conditions that would determine whether Pakistan’s proposal gains traction: whether other states see clear, functional value in smaller, issue-focused groupings; and whether joining such a grouping imposes political costs with respect to India. Experts suggest countries like Sri Lanka, Nepal, the Maldives and possibly Bhutan might be open to exploratory engagement on connectivity, climate adaptation and economic resilience — but formal membership would likely be cautious due to New Delhi’s sensitivities and its rivalry with Pakistan and China.

In short, the idea may attract tentative interest for practical cooperation, but turning the initiative into a durable multilateral bloc capable of reshaping regional dynamics would require overcoming deep political barriers.

Key Takeaway

Pakistan’s proposal highlights both the limits of existing regional architecture and a pragmatic push toward smaller, flexible cooperation formats. Whether such an initiative can deliver meaningful regional benefits — or simply deepen divisions — will depend on incentives offered to prospective partners and how states manage their ties with India.