Twice postponed early this year, ostensibly for security reasons, the Bangladeshi regime would have taken it very badly if India had decided not to come to its capital city of Dhaka for the meeting. The city has undergone a "beautification" project and it really would be thrilling to see motorcades of dignitaries from the seven SAARC nations (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan and the Maldives) whizzing around the metropolis in search of something to do.

They will make the usual speeches. They will refer to the tragic earthquake in Kashmir and how this is an opportunity to show the world that India and Pakistan can bury the hatchet and assist each other in their time of need.

They will neglect to mention the incompetence of the Pakistani authorities or their ludicrous suggestion that India supply helicopters without pilots. India, previously so keen to show up Dhaka's lack of security, now has to come to terms with its own inability to defend its parliament (2002) or the citizens of its capital late last month when at least 62 people were killed by three bomb blasts in New Delhi. The leaders of Pakistan and India have their hands full and will want to get this "summit" over as painlessly and quickly as possible.

Twenty years after the first meeting in Dhaka, SAARC - which professes "to accelerate the process of economic and social development in member states" - is as relevant to its populations as the equally toothless British Commonwealth jamborees.

British India
The concept of "South Asia" is a direct descendant of British India. Imperial history has left a lasting legacy, which no leader or ruling political force seems to be able to shake off. Not only do they pander to "national" prejudices, they cannot take steps to mobilize their peoples to move beyond 1947 (the year of Indian independence) into the 21st century. Short-term political expediency is not the real culprit. The need to "right past wrongs" is the driver for action. This seems so pointless to other parts of Asia or Europe.

If only they could limit their competition to cricket, other nations must wonder. For some, though, the status quo makes eminent sense. While 1 million soldiers stood face to face on the Line of Control in Kashmir in 2002, British Prime Minister Tony Blair could see no contradiction in calling for peace, while trying to flog 1 billion euro (US$1.17 billion) worth of military aircraft to both sides.

The Americans are doing the same with F-16s now, and each side is vying to get their hands on the latest version in their pointless struggle for preeminence.

Bombings, insurgencies and revolutions
This year, political bombings have convulsed the region. The Sri Lankan foreign minister was assassinated a few months ago. Nearly 500 bombs exploded in all 64 districts of Bangladesh, intended as a demonstration of political Islam's reach and power. Delhi was rocked by coordinated bombings in late October.

In Nepal, the Maoist revolution seems to get closer to victory with every passing year despite the best efforts of India, the US and Britain. Nepal will send its king to the SAARC meeting with pomp and ceremony. But the pomp cannot hide the fact that he rules a truncated state, limited to the main cities and highways.

On the booming Bombay Stock Exchange, the "India story" is all about the rise of the next Asian economic superpower. Foreign funds, especially Japanese, have flooded the bourse, inflating share prices by 80% since the fall of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government. The India narrative is full of holes, which will become apparent with the collapse in the BSE Index next year as foreign funds withdraw at the peak, as they always do. However, the real issue is that large swathes of the Indian polity are out of central government control. This is swept under the carpet as all eyes are turned on Kashmiri terrorism and Indo-Pak rivalries.

The spread of the Maoist revolutionary network through its self-styled "strategic corridor" is ignored. To some, it looks as if India is being split down the middle, with the poorer half lying on the eastern flank. However, deep-seated grievances and inequalities are glossed over and ignored, in case it casts doubt on the "India story". India's political class may have discarded the slogan "India shining" but it describes exactly how it sees itself.

One thing that does unite South Asia's leaders is their tendency to exude false confidence. There seems to be an inverse relationship between loss of power and gain in bombast.

South Asia, the geographical entity, is in a state of perpetual crisis. To move from 60 years of shortsighted rivalry and conflict over Kashmir will take a generation. The present crop of leaders cannot overcome this impasse. Any move to come to an accommodation will be stymied by outrages and terrorism. Too many institutions benefit from this standoff. The Pakistani Army thrives on the on-off conflict and cannot imagine peaceful co-existence. It is almost certain many functionaries and leaders of Indian civil society are keen to maintain the status quo too.

Petty actions almost invariably contradict public pronouncements of cooperation. Change is surely coming, but it is proceeding at a glacial pace. By the time the next generation of leaders decide to bury their differences finally, the world will have moved on.

China or Afghanistan?
Both these countries are keen to have a seat at the board, even if it is observer status, just like a non-executive director in a private company. The dithering over how far it should go to include China, without "interference", reveals the absurdity of SAARC. Afghanistan is a failed state, under US and NATO tutelage. By itself, it can offer hardly anything economically to the region. What can unite Afghanistan and, say, Bangladesh? There is nothing for the populations of the two states. Unfortunately, a potential gas bonanza drives policy and distorts priorities.

Pentagon and Unocal
Afghanistan makes sense when two institutions - the Pentagon and Unocal - come into the equation. Supplying India with Central Asian oil has been a key feature of American policy ever since the fall of the Soviet Union. Supporting Unocal in South Asia has been one of the main preoccupations of many an embassy official. Afghanistan therefore makes sense for energy companies because the pipeline has to flow through that entity, through Pakistan and into India. The "forced" rapprochement between Pakistan and India is explained by this need for peace either side of the pipeline.

Meanwhile the Pentagon is prodding India to become a rival to China, offering nuclear and military cooperation. In its desire to be "accepted" by the West, New Delhi is prepared to ditch Iran and energy security. This has a knock-on effect because it forces India to look elsewhere to bully smaller neighbors for gas. The craving for "inclusiveness" and a seat at the UN Security Council blinds many an otherwise intelligent leader.

The concept of South Asia made sense to the British and is increasingly relevant to Washington's policy of containment of China. Sixty years of unnecessary and destructive conflict between Pakistan and India will eventually be replaced by Sino-South Asian rivalry. That seems to be the strategic vision. One wonders if the leaderships have studied just how Iraq and Iran got dragged into another example of externally induced mutually destructive confrontation.

C minus
If it ever stood for examination, SAARC would score no higher than C-. It should be replaced by sub-regional groupings that take their cue from geography and history, and, crucially, the future realignment in Asia. Thus, the eastern Indian region should link up with China and Myanmar. If they so wish, Pakistan and India can make their perennial attempt to coax some sanity into their relationship, using trade as the battering ram. However, there should be no need to drag the half a billion people of "Eastern South Asia" into that endeavor. Let Delhi look to Islamabad then. Kolkata should get closer to Kunming, Shanghai, Yangon and Dhaka.

In 1905, British India moved its capital out of Calcutta (Kolkata) to Delhi. The focus shifted westwards with all its consequences. SAARC is following that pointless path. Perhaps Kolkata needs to regain some of the initiative. To do so, it must offer something to its neighbors in the east. Meanwhile, the neglected eastern regions will continue to be short-changed by the "center". These states are far away from the minds of aspirational "south bloc" functionaries in Delhi. It is almost as if foreign policy is about looking westward from Lahore Gate, at the Mughal Red Fort.

Cooperation in the region is vital but it should be handled at levels where practical action can take place. It is time to devolve foreign policy to state/provincial level and encourage interactions at that tier. Rather than pandering to superpower agendas, the impetus should be to expand trade, investment and contact, in an alternative vision for regional progress.