It is a regional cooperation organisation. It was conceived by Bangladesh but the two bigger states of South Asia, India and Pakistan, were not enthusiastic. The Indians thought that it is a ruse of the smaller neighbours gang up on India and may present it with unpleasant choices. Pakistanis, on the other hand, thought that a regional organisation would provide yet another platform for India to project itself as a pre-eminent South Asian power. Pakistan never displayed fascination for regionalism.

Saarc was unfortunate in not having a vision such as Europeans could seize on -- that of statesman Jean Monnet's initial vision. The real asset of the EU throughout has been that original vision of a friction-free region, devoted mainly to economic progress and pursuing a purely pacific policy. Unfortunately Saarc has had no such prophet with a vision.

For South Asians to emulate the Europeans is facile. The Europeans had gone through three major wars between 1870 and 1945 -- destruction and carnage unimaginable to South Asians. Experiences of the peoples differ widely. Here the people's notion of war is romantic; it is all about gallantry and bravery. Europeans became determined never to have war after 1945. In contrast, both Indians and Pakistanis distributed sweets to celebrate their nuclear test explosions in 1998. Nevertheless, Europe's success makes it a role model for regional cooperation.

Which is why Saarc has produced only so many words and committed itself to achieving goals that require a truly close cooperation without mental reservations by all the member states. Actual achievements have thus been few. That is why this summit has achieved so little.

However, two positive achievements are: (a) Afghanistan has been admitted as a full member; and (b) the commitments about South Asia Free Trade Agreement have been reaffirmed. Indeed it has been stipulated that the roadblocks to Safta should be removed during this November itself so that it can come into force on time. But few expect this to happen. There was ugly manoeuvring by India and Pakistan over China's entry. The Indians opposed China being associated with Saarc in any form; it later put forward the candidacy of Japan if China is to be admitted in some fashion. But ultimately good sense prevailed between the two and China was given an observer's status. What else has it achieved? Except the re-affirmation of all the old commitments little else.

Repeating old resolves was hot air.

The truest thing that Pakistan PM Shaukat Aziz said was that India and Pakistan suffer from a trust deficit. Why is that so? It is assumed that all this mistrust is due to the dispute over Kashmir. It has lasted for more than the 58 years. The trouble had started even earlier than Independence day. That has produced a whole mindset in Pakistan which says that unless India actually moves toward ceding Kashmir or its parts, we shall have no close relations with it; there would be no cultural contacts at masses' level and no free trade or economic cooperation. Political hostility is of course the red thread running through all this mindset. There is no doubt that the Indians reciprocate the Pakistani sentiments in full. They too have absolutely no trust in Pakistani intentions. Which is why no agreement has been made for nearly two years in two separate rounds of intense negotiations between the two countries. Pak-India quarrels have produced attitudes, assumptions and beliefs that preclude cooperation between India and Pakistan. Only, the Indians display a certain amount of verbal virtuosity: they want closest of relations with Pakistan. But what Pakistan perceives is that that will militate against Pakistan's raison d' etre. Neither truly wants cooperation. For India, free trade and transit of goods through Pakistan matters most.

But all the same Pakistanis are far more obstreperous and more obsessive. So much so that future of Saarc is now hostage to Pakistani decision makers: the day Islamabad agrees to withdraw its objections to free trade, transit trade, free cultural exchanges and free movement of citizens and economic cooperation, Saarc will take off. Its take off can be swifter than that of the EU. We have the methodology of the EU available from its earlier stages to its present union status to benefit from. We can adapt their methodology to our conditions. The South Asians may not need half a century to achieve the kind of results that Europe has achieved. That is within realistic possibilities.

The Pakistan Prime Minister has reiterated the whole philosophy behind Pakistan's thinking in a simple sentence. He said that "unless Kashmir issue can be perceived as being processed and without that movement towards a settlement, satisfactory to Pakistan and Kashmiris, Pakistan will not let free cultural exchanges, free travel, free trade, transit trade to third countries, and economic cooperation flourish." That statement may have written the epitaph of the Saarc. Unless Pakistan changes its stance of Kashmir or nothing, there is no hope. So far the outlook remains bleak. For over five and a half decades Pakistan has pursued this anti-India course. Let's see if it has gained anything.

To hold that unless Kashmir issue is solved first, peace in the Subcontinent cannot be ensured is an implied military threat. This is a statement of intent: we will not settle down and semi-war conditions will continue to prevail. The net result after 58 years of this policy is that the people are poorer than they might have been, if this mindset had not been there, while Kashmir solution is as distant now as it ever was. Pakistanis have gained neither Kashmir nor economic progress -- and have lost democracy in the process.

Why does Pakistan stick to this particularly barren course? It cannot force a war on India now. It will get nothing out of another war, except to self destruct. Why can't it do what the others have done: subordinate their political disputes to the need for economic growth? For Pakistan and India, these growth processes can be intensified through direct and regional cooperation. It may not be a magic wand but regionalism does facilitate faster growth, if regional integration is substantial.

But why would India and Pakistan cooperate unless there is an acceptable common goal? All that is required for reversal of this course is a change in thinking. Let Pakistan change its ultimate goal: put Kashmir on the backburner and let the economic and political interests of the common people of Pakistan be the criteria. Pakistanis want economic prosperity with civic freedoms, more personal incomes, greater consumption and more leisure for cultural enrichment. To facilitate cultural enrichment intense cultural exchanges in the region are needed. Free trade and transit and economic cooperation necessarily yield a faster growth, leaving only the task of: how to distribute the additional wealth thus created.

If they do not depend on trickle down theory -- which has not worked for five decades -- growth can be attained though a paradigm shift. This is no place to discuss an alternative paradigm. All that needs to be said is that it is possible to have another paradigm. The whole question about the future will be decided in Islamabad. The question is: what are we interested in: deepening the animus against India or letting Kashmir issue be settled through its own dynamics. Meantime we should devote our resources to achieving faster economic growth with a human face.

MB Naqvi is a leading columist in Pakistan.