Peace and Development in South Asia: Problems and Prospects

Abstract

South Asia has been recognised by the World Bank as an important region in the Global South. It has achieved robust economic growth over the past 20 years which has helped in reducing poverty and improving standards of human development. On the other hand, 36% of the world’s poor live in South Asia, so a lot more needs to be done. This article argues that South Asian countries need peace and stability in order to be able to concentrate on their economic development and achieve the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals. Centuries of colonial rule had led to the impoverishment of the South Asian region and its people. It also created two states, India and Pakistan, that have never had good relations with each other. This has had an impact on regional cooperation and prevented the countries in the region from working together to achieve their developmental goals. The article concludes that while the region needs to sustain high economic growth rates, it does not automatically lead to the reduction of poverty. Other measures have to be adopted to promote the welfare of the people of South Asia.

Introduction

South Asia has been recognised by the World Bank as a region that has an important role to play in global development. It has enjoyed good economic growth¹ over the past twenty years, which has brought down poverty levels and led to improvements in human development. It also has the world’s largest working-age population as well as a quarter of the world’s middle-class consumers, concentrated mainly in the urban areas. On the other hand, it has many poor and malnourished people and several ‘fragile’ states (Waldorf, 2012). South Asian countries need peace and stability to be able to concentrate on their economic development and achieve the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals. Most of these countries emerged from colonial rule after the Second World War in the mid-twentieth century. But these were poor countries that were at a disadvantage in the capitalist world into which they were thrust. As Marxist theories of international relations argue, ‘free trade’ has always been in the interests of the developed countries as the most efficient producer of goods in the global economy, rather than for promoting the development of the peripheral countries and regions (Hobden & Jones, 2017, p. 136). Moreover, these countries were affected by the Cold War that started around that time and often had to depend on one of the superpowers to give them political support, for example, in the UN Security Council, if their national interests were threatened. At the same time, they depended heavily on foreign aid for their economic development. This led to the concept of the Third World, a term used to define the less developed world as well as their political project to become more ‘developed’. It has now been replaced by a term that has fewer radical connotations, that is, Global South, although the meaning essentially remains the same (Haug et al., 2021).

The end of the Cold War has brought about some changes like the emergence of a unipolar world dominated by the US and other western countries, but the triumph of neoliberalism has not helped the South Asian countries overall. The UN’s Sustainable Development Goals are a guide to how the countries in South Asia are faring in different key areas like the reduction of poverty, food security, and climate change. Challenges facing the South Asian countries include improving living standards for the poorest people, dealing with environmental issues, and maintaining peace and stability. This article will begin with an introduction to the effects of colonial rule on South Asia and present some theoretical insights into the relationship between capitalism and colonialism. It will also discuss the challenges the South Asian states like India and Pakistan faced to their national security after the end of British colonial rule. The argument here is that conflict can affect economic and human development and even devastate countries, as in the case of Afghanistan. Secondly, the article will examine the idea that economic development that is both socially and environmentally sustainable can contribute to peace. The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development says that ‘There can be no sustainable development without peace and no peace without sustainable development’ (United Nations, 2015). According to the World Bank, with inclusive growth that benefits the whole population, South Asia has the potential to change the face of global poverty. That is the basis of the World Bank’s assistance to South Asian countries (Waldorf, 2012). This article will draw on the argument of Critical Theory that genuine peace and security will only be achieved when the exploitative and alienating capitalist system ends (Steans & Pettiford, 2005, p. 124).

The Effects of Colonial Rule on South Asia

The countries in South Asia are developing countries and poverty is a structural feature of their economies. However, before beginning a discussion of economic and human development in these countries it is important to examine how the region was impacted by colonial rule. Colonialism may be defined as the process of conquest and domination of one country by another. European colonialism was inspired by the pursuit of economic and strategic gain (Pettiford, 2015, p. 58). Northern India was under Mughal rule for many centuries, before the Europeans arrived, and had a traditional economy in the sense that small-scale production was the norm. There was no dearth of land and labour as factors of production. The peasants and artisans produced all the labour that was needed to meet the needs of the economy and capital was not required (Rothermund, 1993, p. 1). There was some capital formation in economic activities like trade, but it was not sufficient to create the foundations of a capitalist economy. On the other hand, trade with South Asia was lucrative and attracted many European traders to the region. This led to several centuries of ‘free trade’ with India.

The Portuguese explorer Vasco da Gama’s historic arrival in India in 1498 marked the beginning of European interest in South Asia that lasted four and a half centuries. Dutch, English, and French traders began to trade with India, and this eventually led to British rule in the country. The English East India Company was one of these trading companies and was granted the right to trade with India by a royal charter in 1600. It was successful in establishing bases in different parts of the country which helped it to grow and prosper as a trading company. The investments it made also gave it a political foothold in India. In 1691, Job Charnock, a merchant of the Bengal Council, founded Calcutta on the banks of the river Hughli, which later became the British Empire’s first capital in India. The company won the battles it fought with the local rulers, as well as the French forces, such as the Battle of Plassey (1757) and the Battle of Buxar (1764). In 1765, the Mughal emperor, Shah Alam, gave the company the permanent right to collect revenue in Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa and Robert Clive became the first English governor of Bengal. However, according to some historians, the company’s misrule drained Bengal’s wealth and turned it into an impoverished province (Wolpert, 1993).

Rothermund describes the English East India Company as ‘a modern capitalist corporation of an advanced bourgeois nation’ that ‘entrenched itself like a parasite in the agrarian state dominated by a decaying military feudal regime’ (Rothermund, 1993, p. 16). The revenues of Bengal were used not only to finance the company’s trade but also to finance the further conquest of India. The Indian peasants, on the other hand, were subjected to increased revenue demands and became more and more indebted. They also had to produce whatever they were asked to produce, even at a loss, as the company wanted to maintain an export surplus. Famines were common and decimated the Indian population. India simply served the interests of the colonial rulers, and the company was only interested in promoting exports to facilitate the remittance of tribute from India to Great Britain, and not the export-led growth of the Indian economy. Even the construction of the Indian railways and the gradual industrialisation of India primarily served British interests.

Some Theoretical Insights on the Relationship Between Capitalism and Colonialism

An examination of the relationship between capitalism and colonialism is necessary to understand how it affected India. Capitalism is a term used to describe an economic system that is based on private property and ‘a relatively free and competitive market’ (Robertson, 1993, p. 50). State interference in the economy is kept at a minimum. On this basis, a distinction is made between capitalism and socialism which are based on two different ideologies. Capitalism creates two classes, a capitalist class, and a working class. The working class provides one of the factors of production, that is, labour. They work for a wage and historically have been exploited by their employers according to the theory of Marxism. This has inevitably led to class antagonism which Marxists consider to be the dominant form of conflict in history and the engine of social transformation (Linklater, 1996, p. 122).

The growth of a capitalist economy required colonies and the relationship between the colonial power and its colonies was exploitative (Bhambra, 2021). The purpose the colonies served was to increase the wealth of the colonial power by allowing it to extract resources and use the colony as a market for its goods (Robertson, 1993, p. 84). In India, one of the main forms of colonial exploitation was the pattern of colonial trade pursued by the British which led to India becoming an exporter of agricultural goods and raw materials and an importer of manufactured products. The industrial revolution was a major factor in turning India into a market for British manufacturers at a great cost to the Indians. Parthasarathi argues that the effects of laissez-faire economics were disastrous for Indian weavers. They could not compete with Lancashire textile industries, and this led to a decline in India’s cotton exports and high unemployment (Parthasarathi, 2001).

Critical theorist, Robert Cox, approaches this issue from a slightly different perspective. He contrasts problem-solving theory, like Realism/Neorealism, which accepts the existing order that reflects the interests of the dominant powers, with Critical Theory which attempts to challenge the prevailing order. According to Cox, Britain has historically been one of these powers. He argues that ‘free trade’ is mainly in the interests of the hegemonic powers, although they claim that it benefits everybody (Cox, 1986, 1996; Hobden & Jones, 2017). As this article has argued so far, the benefits of free trade for peripheral states and regions are questionable. Free trade could be a hindrance to their economic and social development. Influenced by Marxist thought other theorists like Immanuel Wallerstein came up with the World Systems theory which attempts a core-periphery analysis. In other words, he looks at the economic relations between developed and developing countries to provide a critical analysis of how the developing countries are being exploited and a dependency culture is being created (Hobden & Jones, 2017).

Marxist theories of international relations, therefore, make a clear distinction between developed and developing countries and have expressed concern regarding the factors impeding the economic and social development of the latter. In more recent times, these countries have been forced to adopt neoliberal policies which are mainly in the interests of the developed countries and in some parts of the world, like Africa, have been regarded as a form of neocolonialism (Nkrumah, 1965) as they have led to the exploitation of developing countries and more inequality between the rich and the poor. The class conflict generated by capitalism continues to affect all countries and their people and Critical Theorists argue that in the interests of genuine peace and security, a new world order is needed that is based on structural transformation. As hegemonic states are sustaining the capitalist global economy, emancipatory counter-hegemonic forces are needed to ‘transform the normative bases of global political life’ (Devetak, 2009, p. 175).

Challenges to the Security of South Asian Countries after the End of British Rule

One of the challenges that countries like India and Pakistan faced after they became independent states was taking responsibility for their national security. Burchill (1996b) argues that according to the theory of Neorealism in the study of international relations the international system is anarchic and there isn’t any overarching authority to regulate the behaviour of nation-states towards each other. As a result, nation-states must use military power to defend themselves against external threats to their security, and their survival depends on it. This theory can be applied to the geopolitics of the South Asian region (Rajagopalan, 1999).

The partition of British India created two states, India and Pakistan, that have never had good relations with each other. The first conflict between them occurred in October 1947 over Kashmir. The Maharaja of Kashmir was given the choice of joining either India or Pakistan, although he wanted to remain independent. The Maharaja’s indecision led to pressure from both Karachi and New Delhi, the capitals of Pakistan and India, respectively. The valley was reportedly invaded from the Pakistani side by tribals from the Northwest Frontier Province and Kashmiri Muslims from the district of Poonch. This led to the Maharaja signing up to join India and as a result, he was able to receive military help from the Indian government. However, the Indians failed in completely expelling the Pakistani army, leaving Pakistan in control of an area of approximately 30,503 square kilometres that is known as ‘Azad’ Kashmir, and a separate area, including Gilgit and Hunza, known as the Northern Territories (Hewitt, 1997, p. 43). To this day, both states continue to claim the whole of Kashmir and regard it as a non-negotiable issue. Indian Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, referred the matter to the UN Security Council in 1947, apparently at the suggestion of the Governor-General, Lord Mountbatten. The UN has never been able to resolve the issue but deployed the UN Military Observer Group for India and Pakistan along the border between the two countries and the line of control (LOC). Nehru was initially supportive of their presence and a UN-regulated ceasefire line, but later objected to ‘external’ mediation in regional affairs (Hewitt, 1997, pp. 43–44).

It is also worth noting that the partition of India was a tragedy. Communal violence (between Hindus and Muslims) had been on the rise for many years, partly because of the politics of the Muslim League, and the British Indian government decided that a separate state of Pakistan had to be created based on the Two Nation Theory. But historians of Indian nationalism blame imperialism and the British policy of divide and rule. The fact remains that Partition did not lead to peace. As Behuria (2012) notes, it resulted in the worst communal carnage and human displacement in the recorded history of South Asia.

India has had several wars with Pakistan over the years because of which it decided to acquire nuclear weapons (as did Pakistan). But its national security has also been threatened by China. After India achieved its independence from British rule in 1947, India’s first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, was in favour of maintaining good relations with China, although he was fully aware of the border issue. In 1954, India and China signed the ‘Agreement on Trade and Intercourse between India and China relating to Tibet’ incorporating the Panchsheel principles that commit both countries to mutual non-aggression and peaceful co-existence. This led to a cordial phase in Sino-Indian relations during which relations between the two countries were described as like those between brothers or Hindi-Chini Bhai-Bhai. However, in 1962, there was a border war between the two countries that India claims was started by China and for which India was ill-prepared. Since then, India has viewed China with suspicion, and relations between the two countries have not been good, notwithstanding the growing trade between them. In June 2020, Indian and Chinese troops clashed in the Galwan Valley along the line of actual control in eastern Ladakh, which claimed the lives of 20 Indian army personnel. Discussions were held between the representatives of the two governments, as well as the military commanders of the two armies, to resolve the crisis. They led to an agreement that both sides would complete the on-going disengagement process along the LOC expeditiously and will not take any unilateral action to alter the status quo. Meanwhile, India started strengthening its defence capabilities and stepping up defence cooperation with the US (Dutt, 2020).

An additional problem that all these conflicts create for India as well as other countries in the South Asian region is that they have to increase defence spending as a result of which development is not given the priority that it deserves. The Human Development in South Asia 1997 report asserts that ‘widespread human deprivation in South Asia contrasts sharply with large armies’ and military budgets (Haq, 1997, pp. 2–3). Former Indian Prime Minister, I. K. Gujral, also asserts that increased defence expenditure will harm social security and socio-economic development programmes and ‘set back the prospects of building regional understanding and cooperation’ (Gujral, 2004, p. 22). The irony is that by neglecting the people of the country, especially the poorest people, they are encouraging insurgencies, as we have seen in the northeast of India (Goswami, 2012) and in parts of Pakistan and Sri Lanka (Bansal, 2012; Mulligan, 2012). This is discussed by Ejaz Ghani and Lakshmi Iyer in their article on ‘Conflict and development—lessons from South Asia’. They argue that their research reveals that countries that have a low per capita income tend to have a higher rate of conflict. However, that does not mean that there is a strong relationship between conflict and per capita income or that a high national income will automatically lead to peace and stability in the country. Many South Asian countries like India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and Nepal all have much higher conflict rates than expected for their stage of development. However, the data does show that conflict is concentrated in the lagging regions of these countries. This has policy implications as if it is low-income and high poverty levels that cause conflict, then the focus should be on direct policy interventions to reduce poverty and human misery, rather than on increasing military and police interventions to reduce conflict (Ghani & Iyer, 2010).

Regional Cooperation in South Asia

Regionalism has become an important feature of international relations as states have become more interdependent and developed common interests and regional identities (Best & Christiansen, 2017). The statesmen of Europe and South-East Asia were the first to see regional cooperation as necessary for reducing and eliminating tensions among themselves (Gonsalves & Jetly, 1999, p. 10). Regional cooperation has been driven by regional organisations in all regions, for example, the European Union (EU) in Europe and the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) in South-East Asia. It has led to economic integration, especially in Europe, that has benefitted the member states of the EU and their citizens (Best & Christiansen, 2017).

In South Asia, the process of regional cooperation started in the 1980s. The late President of Bangladesh, Ziaur Rahman, is credited with taking the initiative to start the discussions on the possibilities of regional cooperation. This was an important step for a region that was resistant to the idea (Maass, 1999, p. 44). It took a while to reach an agreement on what the focus areas of regional cooperation would be. Contentious security issues would not be included, and the focus would be on non-political and non-controversial areas. It led to the establishment of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) which was formally launched on 8 December 1985 in Dhaka to ‘promote peace, stability, amity, and progress in the region’ (SAARC Charter). The successful launch of SAARC showed that the South Asian states and their leaders were beginning to realise that this was the most promising path towards peace and development (Maass, 1999, p. 46).

SAARC adopted a functional approach to regional cooperation that had the potential to contribute to peace in the region by promoting development in critical areas. These areas included agriculture, rural development, the environment, women in development, education, culture, health and population, and science and technology (Hussain, 1999, p. 27). It was hoped that working together in these areas would enhance internal stability in the different states of the region, and also help in reducing regional tensions (Hussain, 1999, p. 27).

However, it has been argued that to realise its full potential regional cooperation needs to cover important sectors like trade, industry, manufacturing, and finance. The problem is that Pakistan and some other South Asian countries have concerns about this as they fear that it could lead to their dependence on India and that such economic dependence would inevitably lead to political subservience (Hussain, 1999, p. 29). The power asymmetries in the region have certainly not helped matters but need to be overcome. The current liberal economic environment created by the economic reforms of deregulation, decontrol, and delicensing, which have been introduced by some of the states in South Asia, makes it possible to encourage trade and economic relations between the member states of SAARC. It could help the economies of the countries in the region to grow and have an impact on alleviating poverty, and enhancing the spirit of cooperation (Hussain, 1999, p. 36). Some progress has been made by SAARC as the governments of the member states signed an agreement in 1993 that led to the South Asian Preferential Trading Arrangement. It was replaced in 2004 by a more ambitious agreement that created the South Asian Free Trade Area (SAFTA). However, these agreements were never fully implemented by the member states of SAARC. There are several reasons for this. Protectionist policies were a barrier to the implementation of the SAFTA agreement. Each state maintained a sensitive list that showed its reluctance to conduct free trade. As Chakma (2020) argues, these lists hampered trade liberalisation in the region and the creation of a free trade area. They also maintained high tariffs on many items. The political will to liberalise trade in the region was simply not there to take the project forward. As a result, South Asia remains one of the least integrated regions in the world. The intra-regional trade accounts for merely 5% of its total trade, compared to 25% for ASEAN and 60% for the EU (Venkat & Bhat, 2022).

The Impact of Inter-state Conflict on Regional Cooperation

In an interview with the United States Institute of Peace, Ambassador Jilani notes that the history of Pakistan–India relations can be characterised as one of lost opportunities. Mistrust, hostility, and conflict between these countries have undermined efforts towards peace and stability in the region (United States Institute of Peace, 2022). SAARC has been adversely affected by the conflict between India and Pakistan which is unfortunate for the people of South Asia. But on a more theoretical level, it may be argued that structural power asymmetry inhibits cooperation (Chakma, 2020, p. 148). India is the largest country in the region and the dominant power, and its economic strength and military capabilities have helped it to consolidate its position. This makes South Asia an Indo-centric region and the smaller states, to a large extent, depend on India’s patronage. Where this is not forthcoming, and especially if India’s behaviour towards its neighbours is ‘arrogant and uncompromising’, they will perceive India as a threat to their political survival. Thornton (cited in Chakma, 2020, p. 148) argues that when one of the member states of a regional organisation is far more powerful than the other member states it can make it difficult to maintain balanced relations among them.

However, the main obstacle to regional cooperation in South Asia, and indeed regional integration, is the conflict between India and Pakistan. Based on a comparative study of several different regions in the world, Best and Christiansen come to the conclusion that rivalry between India and Pakistan will continue to limit the prospects of SAARC (Best & Christiansen, 2017, p. 371). Chakma also argues that the two most powerful members of SAARC, India and Pakistan, lack a genuine political commitment to the organisation. India has always preferred to deal with its neighbours on a bilateral basis, so bilateralism has always trumped multilateralism in India’s regional diplomacy. Similarly, Pakistan is more concerned about its national security and apprehensive about the consolidation of Indian dominance in the region through SAARC. In recent years, the rise of Hindu nationalism in India has led to a further deterioration in relations between India and Pakistan as has ‘cross-border terrorism’ (Venkat & Bhat, 2022). Several SAARC summits have been cancelled on account of the political differences between India and Pakistan and the withdrawal of several other member states, citing inadequate regional cooperation. The 19th SAARC summit scheduled to be held in Islamabad in November 2016 was indefinitely cancelled and it is not known when the next one will be held. In the past, India and Pakistan have used the SAARC platform to address issues like Kashmir which suggests that it can be used as a diplomatic platform by its member states, even though the organisation does not officially deal with security issues. It is for member states to exploit the potential that SAARC has as a regional organisation to improve inter-state relations. Ambassador Lodhi comments that both countries realise that there is much to gain from economic engagement with each other: ‘If India and Pakistan were to settle their outstanding disputes, practical issues relating to trade and connectivity should not be difficult to resolve. The peace dividend from economic engagement would be substantial’ (United States Institute of Peace, 2022).

It is heartening to note that SAARC has continued to do some of the good work that it has been doing. The SAARC South Asia satellite project was launched in May 2017, although Pakistan refused to participate in it. The other member states are reaping the benefits. For example, weather forecasts are useful for farmers in rural areas to plan for crop production. It also gives countries time to prepare for extreme weather events like cyclones and natural disasters (Chakma, 2020, p. 141). This shows that there is hope yet that ‘low politics’ will trump ‘high politics’ in South Asia, especially in the functioning of SAARC.

Development in South Asia

The end of colonial rule in different parts of the world led to a growing interest in the issue of development. The gap between the rich and poor countries was wide and morally indefensible (Evans & Thomas, 2017). This led to the launch of the UN development decades starting in the 1960s. The developed countries also began to give foreign aid to their former colonies to support their development projects as did international institutions like the World Bank. This practice has continued to this day. For example, in 2022, the World Bank approved $9.0 billion in lending to the South Asian region for 44 operations (World Bank, 2022a). The World Bank Annual Report 2022 says that the focus is on accelerating investments in human capital to drive inclusive development, promote green growth, and strengthen resilience across the economy, markets, and society (World Bank, 2022a). It notes that although some progress has been made, South Asia still faces ‘large and persistent human capital deficits’ and that these have been exacerbated by the COVID-19 crisis.

The focus of the Indian government back in 1947 was mainly on economic development through industrialisation, as British colonial rule had not allowed the country to make any progress. As a result, the process of development only started in India after it got its independence from British rule. The Indian leaders wanted to modernise India as well as increase the wealth of the country and raise the standard of living of the Indian people. India’s first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, believed in progress and the spread of science and industry. But he also cautioned that science is not interested in how we use the knowledge we acquire from it, and that ‘the competitive and acquisitive characteristics of modern capitalist society, the enthronement of wealth above everything else’ can produce neurotic states (Dutt, 2006, p. 98; Nehru, 1969, pp. 556–557).

India’s answer to the issue of development was a centrally planned economy. A Planning Commission was set up in 1950 to formulate plans for the balanced and effective utilisation of the country’s resources. The long-term objectives that the government wanted to achieve were to increase production and achieve a higher level of national and per capita income. They also wanted to create jobs for the people and reduce inequalities of income and wealth. On a more ideological level, their goal was to set up a socialist society based on equality and justice, and the absence of exploitation (Dutt, 2006, p. 108). The issue of social justice was thus considered, and its importance was understood by the Indian leaders. This is in keeping with Critical Theory in the study of international relations, mentioned earlier, which may be seen as ‘an emancipatory project committed to the formation of a more equal and just world’ (Yalvac, 2017). Furthermore, the Indian planners realised that agriculture supported most of the population and that the drive for industrialisation should not leave them behind. The first five-year plan gave a lot of importance to agriculture to create conditions of sufficiency in respect of food and raw materials before embarking on further development (Dutt, 2006, p. 108).

The first five-year plan was successful in achieving the agricultural targets that it had set, and the second five-year plan then moved on to focus on industrial development. This plan achieved an economic growth rate of 4.32% (Dutt, 2006, p. 108). However, the Indian planners did realise that for a poor country like India with most people living in poverty, it was not sufficient to focus on national income as an indicator of economic development. Thus, from the fourth five-year plan (1969–1974) onwards the objective was not just to achieve economic growth but also to raise the standard of living of the people and remove poverty. However, it is easier to achieve a higher national income than bring about a more equitable distribution of that income. The removal of poverty is, therefore, not an easy task (Dutt, 2006, p. 109).

The experiences of other South Asian countries have been very similar and have prompted Mahbub ul Haq, the founder of the Human Development Centre in Pakistan, to comment that ‘(t)he achievement of economic growth must be judged in terms of its impact on the lives and well-being of people’ (Mahbub ul Haq Human Development Centre [MHDC], 2015, p. 1). The increase in the GNP is only a means to an end, and that is human development. Some countries and regions have been more successful than others in maintaining a relationship between economic growth and human development. The Human Development in South Asia 2015 report points out that countries like Japan, South Korea, Thailand, and China have achieved economic success by expanding their people’s capabilities and enlarging their opportunities. In South Asia, this has not happened even though the region’s GDP growth has been one of the highest in the world. The report notes that there is some evidence that economic growth has resulted in increasing employment opportunities, reducing poverty and hunger, and bringing about improvements in education and health. But sufficient use has not been made of the resources generated by economic growth to raise the standard of living and improve access to education and health. As a result, levels of poverty and hunger are still quite high in South Asia (MHDC, 2015, p. 1).

It is worth noting that most of the countries in South Asia are liberal democracies and their citizens have a voice in how their country is governed. That should lead to governments adopting policies that have a positive impact on the lives and well-being of their people. As the Human Development in South Asia 2015 report notes there is no automatic link between economic growth and people’s empowerment. These links must be forged with suitable policies and strategies (MHDC, 2015, p. 13). As members of the United Nations, the South Asian countries attended and made commitments at the UN conferences in Jomtien 1990 (education), Cairo 1994 (population), Copenhagen 1995 (social development), and Beijing 1995 (women) to develop and implement policies and programmes for social development. Therefore, these countries should achieve the UN’s global development goals, in addition to responding to national aspirations.

But public expenditure as a percentage of GDP has remained low, in all the South Asian countries, and in all social sectors. For example, public expenditure on education in 1980 was 1.6% of South Asia’s GDP. In 2000 it rose to 3.1% of the region’s GDP but has not risen any further since then (MHDC, 2015, p. 19). But it is worth noting that the actual amounts spent on education have increased over the years. Public expenditure on health too has lagged behind other regions. In 2012, it was a mere 1.3% of South Asia’s GDP compared to 4.9% in East Asia and the Pacific and 7.2% in Europe and Central Asia (MHDC, 2015, p. 156). As a result, life expectancy in South Asia is much lower than in other regions and is only ahead of sub-Saharan Africa. But it is interesting to note that there are regional variations within countries. For example, in India, life expectancy ranges from 61.9 years in Assam to 74.2 years in Kerala. While in Pakistan the province of Punjab has consistently had a higher life expectancy rate than provinces like Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (MHDC, 2015, p. 139). The report concludes that the gains from economic growth in South Asia over the past three decades have not been distributed evenly in terms of improving access to health. While people are living longer and are in better health now than they were thirty years ago, there is still a significant proportion of people without access to even the most basic health services. This includes the most vulnerable populations in all the South Asian countries (MHDC, 2015, p. 165).

The report stresses that there is a need to adopt pro-poor and inclusive growth policies to address issues of poverty, malnutrition, and hunger, and this requires political commitment at the highest levels (MHDC, 2015, pp. 4–6). It accepts that one of the critical links between economic growth and human development is the expansion of employment opportunities (MHDC, 2015, p. 21). But it also recognises that South Asia has experienced periods of ‘jobless growth’, and even when jobs have been created, they are often not suitable for certain groups of people, for example, people working in agriculture. Another neglected group of people is women who have traditionally been some of the most deprived people in South Asia. The empowerment of women has been given a lot of importance at the global level as demonstrated by the adoption of SDG5 on gender equality but remains a challenge in regions like South Asia (Rahman & Tiwari, 2021).

Achieving the Millennium and Sustainable Development Goals

South Asia has made some progress in achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) that were adopted in 2000 and were meant to be achieved by 2015. The region has reduced extreme poverty by 54.7% from the 1990 level, exceeding the MDG target of 50% (UNESCAP, 2018, p. 3). But there is no room for complacency. The World Bank notes that growth in South Asia will be slower than previously projected due to the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine, as well as other economic challenges. The region is projected to grow by 6.6% in 2022 and by 6.3% in 2023. However, some countries are coping better than others, for example, India. Sri Lanka, on the other hand, was plunged into its worst-ever economic crisis in 2022, and its real GDP was expected to fall by 9.2% in 2022 and a further 4.2% in 2023. Pakistan has been affected by high commodity prices in recent years, that have worsened its external balances, bringing down its reserves. One-third of the country was submerged by catastrophic floods in 2022 which has made the situation worse. As a result, the World Bank comments that ‘its outlook remains subject to significant uncertainty’ (World Bank, 2022b, p. 2).

Afghanistan is another country in South Asia that is facing a lot of problems and needs the support of the international community and other countries in the South Asian region (Khan et al., 2023). A UNDP report comments that ‘[t]he political change after 15 August 2021 pushed the country into a simultaneous humanitarian and economic crisis’. The political change it refers to is the US withdrawal from the country. In 2021, UNDP estimated that Afghanistan’s GDP could fall by 20% within a year and the knock-on effects on the economic sector could result in almost universal poverty by mid-2022 (UNDP, 2022, p. 4). Afghanistan is heavily dependent on international aid and some of this aid is being delivered by the UNDP as well as non-governmental organisations. The UNDP Administrator, Achim Steiner, has expressed his concerns about the banning of women from working for national and international non-governmental organisations that are delivering essential services to the Afghan people. Women and girls have also been banned from higher education. Steiner argues that women have a lot to contribute to the Afghan economy and society and denying them their human rights will not be good for the country and its development (Steiner, 2022).

The region has met its MDG targets on universal primary education enrolment and completion. However, girls, especially in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and children from lower socio-economic strata and lagging regions continue to have lower access to primary education. The region’s net secondary education enrolment rate of 59% in 2014 lagged behind the global average of 65%. The quality of education is also an issue, particularly in rural and remote areas, as are low student achievement levels. One of the main factors affecting the achievement of the MDG on education is low public expenditure on education as a percentage of GDP, ranging from 1.7% in Sri Lanka and 2.0% in Bangladesh to 2.5% in Pakistan and 3.9% in India, all well below the recommended threshold of 6% (UNESCAP, 2018, p. 3).

The report of the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP) on achieving the sustainable development goals in South Asia notes that South Asia has made some progress in achieving the health related MDGs. The maternal mortality ratio has been reduced by 67% between 1990 and 2015. But the MDG target of a 75% reduction has not been met. South Asia has also been unable to meet other targets, for example, relating to child mortality and the reduction of the proportion of underweight children. Public health expenditure levels in South Asia remained very low at 1.3% of GDP in 2013 compared with the world average of 6% and about 8% in high-income OECD countries. As regards the environmental goals set by the UN, South Asia has made some progress in increasing forest cover and protected areas. But its share of the global CO2 emissions has doubled between 1990 and 2013 to 6.5%. This leads to the conclusion that ‘South Asia’s achievements vary across the goals and targets but also across and within countries’ (UNESCAP, 2018, p. 4). The lack of investment is one of the main reasons for this and is reflected in the rural–urban divide which is still wide. There is also a gender divide, in terms of MDG outcomes and deprivations, that is characteristic of traditional societies (Rahman & Tiwari, 2021). Indigenous and alternative solutions may be the answer to this problem. For example, research conducted on the social networks of Garo and Mandai women in Bangladesh suggests that they may improve their reproductive healthcare-seeking behaviour. This leads to the policy recommendation that social network agents should be equipped with reproductive health-related knowledge and information (Ame et al., 2022).

The leaders of South Asia are conscious of the developmental challenges facing their countries as well as the region. This led to SAARC adopting the SAARC Development Goals in 2005 and creating a statistical database on indicators. At the 18th SAARC summit held in Kathmandu in 2014, they identified the key development issues for South Asia based on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) adopted by the United Nations. These include poverty alleviation; youth and employment opportunities; agriculture and food security; health and education; women and children; social protection; energy, environment, and blue economy. To address these issues suitable policies have to be adopted and the UNESCAP report makes some recommendations. For example, economic growth and the creation of jobs (SDG 8) are mutually reinforcing and critical to the achievement of poverty eradication (SDG1). They are also linked with industrial development (SDG9). The region has high unemployment rates, especially among the youth. The quality of employment is also unsatisfactory with over 80% of the workers in the region engaged in the informal sector (UNESCAP, 2018, p. 6). They have low earnings and little to no social protection or rights and that doesn’t help in alleviating poverty. The problem is that people in South Asia have traditionally worked in agriculture and the sector supports over 46% of the workforce in the region. Yet 35.4% of the global undernourished population lived in South Asia in 2014–2016. This sector is, therefore, important for addressing SDG2 on Zero Hunger and food security. The UNESCAP report recommends that smallholder agricultural productivity needs to be increased through sustainable agricultural practices to enhance food security for the working population dependent on agriculture for their livelihoods (UNESCAP, 2018, p. 13).

Nehru’s dreams of industrialisation have been realised to some extent as agriculture’s share of GDP in South Asia declined from 30% in 1990 to 18.7% in 2013. Industry’s share in GDP during the same period was higher but has stagnated at around 24.7%. The services sector accounted for nearly 57% of South Asia’s GDP in 2013 but has not been able to create adequate job opportunities (UNESCAP, 2018, pp. 6–7). As a result, the agricultural sector continues to support over 46% of the workforce in the region. A new industrial policy is, therefore, required with a focus on the manufacturing sector that can help in poverty reduction through job creation. Of course, this has implications for the environment and India is already contributing a lot to global CO₂ emissions on account of the use of fossil fuels. The new industrial policy will have to be more environment friendly and make more investments in renewable energies. It also needs to be remembered that the countries in South Asia are highly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change and natural disasters. The World Bank’s Annual Report 2022 tells us that more than half of the region’s population—750 million people—were affected by at least one climate-related disaster over the past two decades. The people who bear the highest burden of these disasters are the poor, vulnerable, and marginalised people who have the fewest means to recover (World Bank, 2022a, p. 42).

Regional cooperation and trade could help all the countries to achieve higher economic growth rates and at the same time invest in projects that will benefit their people and the environment. It can also help them to meet their energy needs. The UNESCAP report notes that natural gas pipelines across South and South-West Asia, such as the Turkmenistan–Afghanistan–Pakistan–India, Iran–Pakistan–India, and Myanmar–Bangladesh–India pipelines, could help to reduce the reliance on fossil fuels like coal in the region and mitigate sizeable carbon dioxide emissions and air pollutants (UNESCAP, 2018, p. 15). SAARC can play a more active role in promoting regional economic cooperation when the achievement of global development goals is at stake. This will go a long way in helping the member countries to achieve their development goals and will lead to economic interdependence between them that, as the theory of Liberal Internationalism posits, could help promote peace in the region. The theory is that ‘[i]nterdependence would replace national competition and diffuse unilateral acts of aggression and reciprocal retaliation’ (Burchill, 1996a, p. 36).

Conclusion

South Asian countries, especially India, have enjoyed high economic growth rates for several years. The reasons for this achievement are explained by the Human Development in South Asia 2015 report. India has adopted the neoliberal model and the Indian economy has evolved from being a closed economy with high trade barriers to one that is more open to international trade and investment (Mahbub ul Haq Human Development Centre [MHDC], 2015, p. 29). It has also encouraged private sector growth. But as this article argues, neoliberalism has not worked for the South Asian region. Some progress has been made towards achieving the UN’s development goals, however, this progress has been uneven. So, more needs to be done to achieve the UN’s Millennium and Sustainable Development Goals and some suggestions have been made, for example, increasing public expenditure on education and health and creating more jobs to reduce poverty. South Asian countries need to sustain high economic growth rates, but economic growth alone is not enough to eliminate poverty as the UNESCAP report notes. Social protection strategies are also needed for all individuals and households throughout their lives (UNESCAP, 2018, p. 11). Apart from that, there needs to be more investment in human development as this article has argued. In the longer term, this will pay dividends as it will feed into maintaining high economic growth rates in the region. South Asia has a large population and as the UNESCAP report notes 36% of the world’s poor live in the region. This suggests that South Asia has a big contribution to make to the global achievement of the SDGs (UNESCAP, 2018, p. 27).

One way forward for the South Asian countries is to promote regional cooperation through premier regional institutions like SAARC, which could also help in reducing conflict in the region. SAARC’s main objective is to promote the welfare of the people of South Asia. It has a broad remit covering the economic, social, cultural, technical, and scientific fields (SAARC Charter). Active collaboration between its member states in these fields can lead to economic growth, social progress, and cultural development in the region. SAARC has been given a leaders’ mandate by the UN for coordination and cooperation to implement the UN’s 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development in South Asia. This agenda says that ‘Sustainable development cannot be realised without peace and security, and peace and security will be at risk without sustainable development’. The countries in South Asia need to accept this as well as all world leaders. The agenda argues that peace requires strong foundations and emphasises the importance of building peaceful, just, and inclusive societies. This requires good governance at all levels and respect for human rights, including the right to development (United Nations, 2015). This is supported by all the Sustainable Development Goals, especially SDG 16 on peace, justice, and strong institutions. In the South Asian context, it is also important to address issues like corruption, lack of political will and inadequate state capacity (Asadullah et al., 2020).

The World Bank also gives a lot of importance to regional cooperation, especially economic cooperation, as it believes that it ‘holds the potential for considerable gains in growth and increased security for the South Asian region’ (Waldorf, 2012). Other areas that will benefit from regional cooperation are wildlife protection, water resources management, food security, disaster management, and climate change mitigation and adaptation. UNESCAP’s report on achieving the sustainable development goals in South Asia emphasises the importance of regional cooperation and coordination (including SAARC-led cooperation) in supplementing national strategies for achieving these goals. There is no doubt that regional cooperation is the link between peace and development in a region like South Asia as this article has argued. But to achieve its full potential it is widely felt that it requires more political will from the political leaders of the region and a stronger regional identity than there is now.