BIMSTEC Summit and India’s Unilateral Role in Bay of Bengal

BIMSTEC Summit and India’s Unequal Leadership: Regional Cooperation or Dominance?

India's dominance within the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC) exemplifies a structural imbalance in regional diplomacy. While India’s ‘Act East’ ambitions drive connectivity and economic initiatives, its unilateral actions risk undermining the multilateral ethos of the organization, leaving smaller member states voiceless in collective decisions.

The Institutional Landscape: BIMSTEC as a Work in Progress

Established through the Bangkok Declaration (1997), BIMSTEC's evolution has been marked by unrealized ambitions and institutional fragility. The BIMSTEC Charter, adopted at the 5th Summit in Colombo (2022), envisioned seven designated sectors, including trade, connectivity, security, energy, and public health. Yet, despite being operational for over 25 years, BIMSTEC lacks a permanent secretariat with sufficient budget allocation or staffing—a stark contrast to robust regional mechanisms like ASEAN.

India’s leadership role is embedded within its contributions: spearheading the BIMSTEC Transport Connectivity Master Plan, proposing energy cooperation frameworks, and advancing security collaboration. Projects such as the Kaladan Multi-Modal Transit Project and the Trilateral Highway exhibit India's infrastructural commitment. Yet, slow progress and bureaucratic hurdles, including unresolved Free Trade Area (FTA) negotiations, impede tangible outcomes.

The Evidence: India as a Benevolent Leader or Strategic Hegemon?

India claims its regional leadership bolsters collaborative development, but evidence suggests a dominance-driven model. Consider the following:

• BIMSTEC Budget Allocation: India shoulders the financial burden disproportionately. While this underscores its leadership, smaller nations like Nepal and Bhutan remain underfunded for their initiatives, perpetuating dependence.
• Energy Initiatives: The proposed BIMSTEC Energy Grid—a collaborative effort between India and Myanmar—prioritizes Indian industries, with cross-border power sharing agreements often skewed in India’s favor, as observed by the Energy-Watch report of 2023.
• Security Cooperation: As the primary architect of counterterrorism conventions, India often drives agendas that align with its geopolitical rivalries, sidelining broader concerns like climate-induced migration identified in the UNESCAP report (2022).
• Connectivity Projects: The slow implementation of the BBIN Motor Vehicle Agreement highlights structural delays; India's domestic roadblocks, including land acquisition issues, hinder regional benefits.

The Ministry of External Affairs lauds BIMSTEC as an ‘alternative to SAARC,’ bypassing Pakistan’s obstructionist role. However, this narrative obfuscates BIMSTEC's declining intra-regional trade—remaining stagnant at under 7% of total trade post-pandemic recovery (World Bank, 2023).

Critiques of Institutional Weakness: Representation and Funding Deficits

BIMSTEC's structural deficits are not solely India's doing but reflective of member disinterest. While India drives key initiatives, others prioritize ASEAN-centric engagement, diluting BIMSTEC’s collective action. For instance, Thailand’s reliance on ASEAN’s stronger trade mechanisms overshadows its BIMSTEC commitments.

Moreover, failure to establish a fully operational BIMSTEC Secretariat reflects limited political will. Without a robust financial framework akin to ASEAN’s annual contribution model, BIMSTEC's sustainability remains precarious. India’s outsized influence raises questions of equity within its leadership role—does it foster collaboration or reconfigure the organization in its image?

The Counter-Narrative: Why India’s Leading Role May Still Be Necessary

An argument can be made that BIMSTEC needs India's leadership to survive fragmentation. Without an anchor economy, BIMSTEC risks descending into irrelevance, much like SAARC. Smaller nations may lack the diplomatic, technical, or financial bandwidth to spearhead initiatives of regional scope.

India's projects, such as port connectivity programs and energy security frameworks, amplify regional goals. The 'Act East' policy links India's Northeast to Southeast Asia, creating development spillovers beneficial to neighbors like Bangladesh. Proponents argue that India's leadership is not hegemony but pragmatic stewardship.

International Comparison: Lessons from ASEAN’s Institutional Framework

What BIMSTEC lacks in institutional depth, ASEAN has mastered. ASEAN's secretariat in Jakarta operates with formalized governance, substantial funding, and balanced representation. Countries rotate leadership roles, ensuring a shared responsibility model. In comparison, BIMSTEC appears ad-hoc and India-centric.

The ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA) agreement, cultivated over decades, facilitates seamless trade with defined tariff reduction mechanisms. Meanwhile, BIMSTEC’s FTA negotiations have stalled since their proposal at the 2008 New Delhi summit. India’s dominance contrasts sharply with ASEAN’s consensus-driven approach, highlighting BIMSTEC’s structural limitations.

Assessment: Rethinking the Bay of Bengal’s Regional Model

The upcoming 6th BIMSTEC Summit must confront these inequalities head-on. For BIMSTEC to fulfill its promise, member nations must push for institutional reforms: a functional secretariat, equitable budget sharing, and faster treaty negotiations. India’s leadership remains indispensable, but it must evolve from unbalanced dominance to facilitating genuine collaboration.

Incremental steps—like finalizing the FTA, operationalizing the energy grid, and enhancing climate resilience mechanisms—could redefine BIMSTEC’s role in regional diplomacy. If India can pivot toward inclusive policies, BIMSTEC could overcome its slow trajectory and emerge as a counterweight to broader Indo-Pacific tensions.

Practice Questions for UPSC

Prelims Practice Questions

Frequently Asked Questions