There is no more accurate barometer of the political “weather” in the region than the attendance-levels and quality of interaction at high-level meetings of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation. The most recent downswing in Indo-Pak relations finds due reflection in the decision that the Indian finance minister will not join his ministerial counterparts later this month in a round of jaw-jaw at Islamabad. On the face of it there would appear to have been little “pressing” to discuss — the minister from Nepal has stated he has more urgent tasks at hand — but an element of pique has also come into play. According to those hyper-active “sources” in New Delhi, the suggestion that Mr Arun Jaitley stay home was the outcome of the shoddy treatment to which the home minister was subjected in Islamabad earlier this month (and it is worth recalling that the interior minister from Bangladesh had boycotted that meeting). And with India now joining issue with Pakistan over the affairs in Balochistan — though it denies it is reprisal action for Pakistani sponsorship of jihadi violence in the Kashmir Valley — the prospects for the Saarc summit in November dim by the hour. Not that very much that is positive was expected to emerge if (rather than when) the heads of government got around a Saarc negotiating table. For, while the charter does preclude contentious bilateral issues being taken up under a Saarc umbrella, enough is said between the lines to fuel discord. Experience testifies to that.

Has the time come for a comprehensive review of Saarc&’s functioning since 1985? The inclusion of Afghanistan in the grouping would lend itself to an impression of the forum having served a purpose, a more realistic assessment would foster a different conclusion. Neither politically, nor economically, have the eight nations forged themselves into a united “force”; even on the social and cultural front the achievements inspire little optimism.

A sad reality is that the petty political leaders of the member states have only limited stakes in each others’ welfare, and look beyond the region for true assistance. So is Saarc a farce best discarded? Many diplomatic experts would draw that conclusion, point out that energies and finances could be better expended in other pursuits. Yet junking Saarc would also mean a loss of “face”, that means so much in the regional paradigm. So maybe it is worth Saarc taking a “political holiday”, and for a while the interaction being limited to officials only. There would be fewer ego hassles, no race to occupy centre-stage or steal the limelight. Some non-dramatic but useful progress may then be made. It is worth the gamble, there is so little to lose.