KARACHI, March 31 Member states' perspective towards a better structure and more effective role of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (Saarc) was the topic deliberated upon at a workshop on “Restructuring of Saarc” that concluded on Wednesday.

The two-day workshop was organised by the Karachi University's international relations department and the Hanns Seidel Foundation, Islamabad, on the campus. It discussed at length the forum's failure to realise its full potential and the factors that have rendered it redundant.

The aim of holding the workshop was to find ways to revitalise the 25-year-old regional forum through changes in its charter and structure.On Wednesday, the participants exchanged their views on what changes could transform Saarc into an active and effective forum.

Dr Shaheen Afroze, the research director at the Bangladesh Institute of Strategic and International Studies, said that although structural changes in the organisation were imperative for its survival, the institutional mechanism could not be exposed to the risk of any metamorphosis. She stressed the need for a change in “attitude” rather than its charter, and said that political will and commitment only could inject dynamism in the organisation's functioning.

Dr P. Sahadevan of the South Asian Studies Division School of International Studies at the Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, suggested that the main reason for Saarc's impeded progress was that South Asia was a bipolar region with India representing one pole and Pakistan the other. However, he said, this was not the issue. “The actual problem is that the region despite being bipolar flaunts uni-polar tendencies as seen in the case of a dominant India.” He observed that in most cases, the Saarc forum was used as a 'bargaining chip'. Intra-state conflicts that plagued almost every Saarc member state appeared to be another issue that impeded progress of the organisation. The conflicts consumed the time and resources which otherwise could have been used to promote regional cooperation, he added.

Dr Sahadevan was of the view that a lot could still be achieved by making Saarc more people-centric. He said although India realised the need for strengthening the forum and build greater momentum in regional cooperation, it did not seem inclined to support a 'radical' agenda for institutional reform.

He referred to Article X of the Charter underlining the principle of 'unanimity' in decision-making and exclusion of bilateral and contentious issues from the deliberations. He claimed that civil society in India too was supportive of their government's stance.

Dr Sahadevan suggested a backdoor entry of political issues in the forum as an important measure to avoid derailing of the whole process of regional cooperation, and said “Had South Asia been confronted with a common enemy, the chances of Saarc developing into a more viable organisation would have been much brighter.”

Zaib Zaheer, the Assistant Director-General of the South Asia Ministry of Foreign Affairs, said that despite major faults, Saarc had achievements to its credit and highlighting them was more important. In support of her view, she pointed out that Saarc had played an important role in bringing its member states closer to each other and succeeded in launching two major initiatives — the South Asian Free Trade Area (Safta) and the South Asia Visa Exemption Scheme.

However, she criticised the restrictions on Pakistanis travelling to India saying that India felt insecure as Pakistanis visiting India had to register themselves with the police and were allowed to visit only a few selected cities. On the contrary, India allowed people from the other Saarc states to visit any part of the country.

She lauded the establishment of a Saarc University in Delhi, and hoped that the people of the region would not face a visa problem to benefit from the institution.

However, Dr Nishchal Pandey, the Director of the Centre for South Asian Studies, Kathmandu, had a very different view. “The Saarc University might become an Indian university,” he feared, and suggested that the institution should have a non-Indian vice-chancellor from the region and people from the Saarc states should have unrestricted access to it.

Regarding the subject of the day's deliberations, he said that the role of Saarc secretariat needed to be reviewed and the forum's charter should also undergo a reevaluation, pointing out that no amendment to it had ever been proposed ever since its establishment.

He also suggested induction of political and security agenda.