Pakistan was created by the British 60 years ago, as an unstable regional spoiler, which would harass India. Thus it has initiated 4 wars against India: 1948, 1965, 1971, 1999, and two near misses because of Pakistani action: 1990 and 2001, and 2002. Its military elite look to the British still, and its ISI was established by the British in 1948. Many senior officers still adopt pseudo Raj affected British accents and looks, if you have a good look at the army: 'I say old boy, what..............jolly good show what....' etc. I kid you not.
Psychologically speaking, the Pakistan army and ISI is a RAJ era Punjab army, which fights its 'best' wars when it is fighting its own people: East Pakistan 1971; Baluchistan 1973--1977, and now Baluchistan again and the North West Frontier--FATA and Swat. IT HAS KILLED MORE OF ITS OWN CITIZENS THAN ANY OTHER ARMY IN THE WORLD.
Since late 1979, the Punjab RAJ army and ISI developed a secondary role. At the behest of the British and Americans, Pakistan became progressively more Islamic under Zia Ul Haq, and became the PRIMARY CENTER FOR TRAINING ISLAMIC RADICALS IN THE WORLD---With the encouragement of the above two. The Punjabi top military brass who don't think long term strategically took this advice on board from the saab, and Islamised their country, and helped train in Afghanistan/Pakistan up to 12,000 Islamic radicals from around the world without thinking of the consequences, and 83,000 Mujaheddin, AND armed and trained and controlled the Taliban and 'al-Qaeda'(which doesn't exists). At the behest of the above mentioned countries.
Obviously a state founded for the sole purpose of harassing neighbors, and getting up to other mischief (Pakistani troops and military leadership put down the Palestinian rebellion of 1970 in Jordan--Brigadier as he was than Zia Ul- Huq, and Pakistan has a sizable military presence in Gulf countries) doesn't have good long term prospects for its survival, because the state exists for the purpose of British and American geo-strategic objectives, not for the purpose of its own survival.
Of course the Pakistani elite is extremely corrupt and is occupied by people who don't think twice about compromising Pakistan's LONG TERM interests with short term 'good' and ideas coming from the West. Benazir was a perfect example of this. She belongs to the 500 Zamdari/Tamindar feudal land owning families which were established during the British RAJ to manage India for the British empire. India got rid of this class in 1948, Pakistan did not.
For this reason Pakistan for 60 years has been a failed state. This is not my biased analysis, but the reality on the ground. Pakistan has poor leadership from the military and the civilian leaders are even worse, to the point even secular 'progressive' writers like my self would prefer the certainty of the military than the wild chaos of civilian rule.Which is why one is a little sceptical why American and Britain are pushing for democracy at this particular juncture in the country. They are not even encouraging it, but are menacingly quite insistent----phone calls from their leaders to Musharaf, and visits from prominent individuals...................Which means they have 'other' agenda's, wouldn't you say? After all why not go to the Gulf and specifically Saudi and tell them to Democratise? Or to China or Singapore. Or ................
Now the final factor compounding Pakistan's problem. The little Jewish state and its policies of getting involved in everything---in the wrong way invariably. Obviously with the advent of the nuclear program in Pakistan the Israelis were interested deeply, and this with the role of the Americans, the British for more than 150 years, and the poor leadership of the country will compound not solve Pakistan's sorry state.
So what options do the leaders of Pakistan have?
The first step is honestly accepting that mistakes were made in the past, and trying bravely and earnestly make adjustments in the appropriate way.
To achieve consensual leadership between the military/security bureaucracy.
To free Pakistan from the orbit of the USA/UK, and allow greater flexiblity in the domestic political arena especially.
To realistically limit the objectives and expectations of the state and accept:
- Pakistan cannot acquire Kashmir by military force, and thus some form of immediate compromise with India is the best option----legalisation of the LOC, coupled with a FTA with India. This should be attempted meaningfully before the BJP come to power, and Hilary becomes President.
- Acquiring Afghanistan through the services of the Taliban is not going to work, and is a bad idea.
Such simple modest realistic actions takes the enormous energy of the state away from pursuing futile non productive state policies, and allows the state to realign and re-orientate itself towards more basic and necessary objects which ultimately secures the state and prevents outsiders disguised as well wishers destroying the state from within.
