« Previous Post | Next Post »

Guest Voice

There Are Two Pakistans

Uniting Pakistan the military state and Pakistan the nascent democracy is our generation’s calling.

By Haider Ali Hussein Mullick

There are two Pakistans. The first is stuck in an illusion of undisturbed national stability and unity through military management; the second stands on the weak shoulders of a nascent democracy, perpetually insecure and sporadically functional.

For more than sixty years, Pakistan has struggled with its split personality, brought about by its military or political parties. Historically the United States has preferred the first Pakistan – managed by the military and governed by the free market. The challenge for today's generals and politicians is to find a way to merge, secure, and present the country in a way that attracts the better of the two Pakistans, and preserves U.S. support in the war on terror.

Today, more than any other time in the nation's history, Pakistan needs ideological and political harmony. But socialist demagoguery or Islamist idealism will no longer suffice. Pakistan’s Pandora's Box has exploded, letting loose new and old forces questioning the very heart of the country's raison d'être. The elusive quest for constitutional justice lead by idealistic lawyers and savvy politicians has locked horns with the military. Equally important is the surge in energy and food prices, and domestic and regional terrorism. Still, there is more. Millions of ordinary Pakistanis, empowered by a recalcitrant media and rapid globalization, refuse to buy the stories of the generals and the politicians. From picket lines to flour lines, Pakistanis are asking for a new Pakistan – one country under law, dignity, and prosperity.

But before a new and united Pakistan can emerge, the dichotomy of the two existing Pakistans must be resolved.

Regional and international economic and security concerns have greatly influenced Pakistani domestic politics. Defining and redefining the idea of Pakistan, and its future course, however, has always been the prerogative of domestic forces, notably the generals and the politicians. They have managed and governed the two Pakistans.

The generals come to power during times of economic doom and national (real or perceived) insecurity – for example, in 1999 former general and present President Musharraf ousted former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, in the wake of national bankruptcy and U.S. sanctions against Pakistan's nuclear tests. They take over and promise to 'clean house,'
psychologically teleporting Pakistanis to the Day of Independence to watch the generals rewrite the idea of Pakistan.

All four military rulers have sold the idea of Pakistan as a country backed by the United States, militarily strong, economically viable, ideologically coherent, and diplomatically dependable. That's usually Plan A. Plan B – in times of U.S.-Pakistan friction – is Chinese and Saudi support. These plans are usually sold to ordinary Pakistanis as a clear alternative to incompetent, weak, corrupt, and bickering politicians. Regional national security imperatives, such as favorably shaping Afghan politics and keeping India bogged down in Kashmir, require sugar coating. That's where all-purpose political Islam comes into play. Generals believe that supporting an Islamist ideology defined by a puritanical, anti-Western xenophobia yields benefits that outweigh the costs. A multi-ethnic, multi-lingual, and multi-sectarian country needs a simple unifier, and while religion doesn't mix well with politics, the generals have always believed that they can control it.

In the short run, most ordinary Pakistanis fall for the promise of total transformation: a land of hope with no sign of past corruption, all the glory and promise of a strong nation state, and the will to fight poverty at home and promote its national interest abroad. But that presents one major problem: Big promises yield short term economic growth but not long term political or judicial stability. Within a decade, wealth disparity, political agitation, and military fatigue pushes the generals out.

Civilians usually come to power in times of national crisis, when millions are crying foul over broken promises. There is tremendous hope but little patience. Depending on the severity of socioeconomic strife, the politicians may have a few months to deliver relief to the masses. If they fail – and most of them do – the voters get angry and the democratic opposition begins to discredit the government. At first the opposition exerts political pressure through national and provincial parliaments. Then there is talk of the 'no confidence vote' – two-thirds of the national parliamentarians can vote out the prime minister. If all else fails, the opposition lobbies for the presidential and military support to oust the government. Depending on their agenda, the intelligence services usually play the role of a catalyst; they abet the rise or fall of a political party.

The military sits back or watches – and sometimes facilitates – the politicians’ failure. When the economy completely tanks, the military scolds the prime minister. That usually doesn't work. Then the military advises the president to dissolve the parliament, and if the president refuses or is incapable, the military unilaterally removes the prime minister. A few years later, the generals fail to keep the lid on political dissent, and millions of Pakistanis are back to square one.

The new civilian government and the military leadership can choose a similar path – or, for the first time, they can genuinely support constitutional democracy. Only then can the country overcome its plethora of socioeconomic and security problems. Acting alone, the two Pakistans are self-destructive. Bringing them together, pragmatically and constitutionally, is the calling of our generation.

Haider Ali Hussein Mullick is an independent policy analyst, and an Adjunct Fellow at Spearhead Research, Lahore, Pakistan. He can be reached at haider.mullick@gmail.com.

Email This Post | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook

Please e-mail PostGlobal if you'd like to receive an email notification when PostGlobal sends out a new question.

Comments (36)


All three states in Indian subcontinent are eqitably failed states.Its people are equally illetrate ,poor and disillusioned because of its politicians.In Pakistan the politicians have left no stone unturned to ruin it.Every time they wreck it ,they themselves walk into GHQ and invite Generals to wreck revenge upon the wreckers them selves and rescue Pakistan under the law of necessity.The misfortune of the people of subcontinent is and was to have untrained and illequiped selfish ,corrupt,narrow minded politicians to lead them and invite all sorts of interference from external sources and to harm each other by encouraging terrorism and fish in troubled waters.Pakistan has well institutionalised terror set ups right from day one.It has agencies to finance terror not only in India but has financed bloodshed in Nepal.It also finances left wing movements in India,fully supported Taliban but now should realise that "those who dig well for others themselves fall into it for ever".This applies to India as well.It is high time to come out of mutual destruction and sit down and ponder over the common problems of the unfortunate people of the subcontinent which have to be lifted up jointly.No single country can afford to be left behind.The mindless religious bigotry and fractured social dogmas and customs have to be abandoned with modern education and just leadership.Subcontinent requires a great,noble,kind,just ,fatherly common leadership which can treat the masses like children.Under the past and present lot of Politicians the fate of people will be decidedly unplesant and dissatisfactory.Politicians are totally responsible for the present state of affairs in the subcontinent.In any future dispensation it would be worthwhile to subject them to one years training in Ethics ,morality,honest conduct,public admn,simple living and technical training.Also they must live with masses and not in Palaces and AC suburban homes.Let them go to Sweden and see how their polticians live.Our politicians should kmow that Prime Minister of Emperor Chandergupt Maurya lived in a hut.People must,must force politicians to live in huts so that they can understand the misery of poor.

P Kumar:

To suresh Nambiar

Dear Suresh
you are right about the plight of hindus in pakistan who eat cows and have had to adopt to the local culture and salutations(inshaallah).However,you add that muslims in India will have to adopt to local culture.In that case,what will be the difference between the two situations.Furtheron,Indian muslims have not only accepted the local culture,they found it together with Hindus eight hundred years ago such that there's little left to accept other than stopping eating cows.As regards riots,do some research and you will find that there were plenty of riots during mughal rule as well and riots are difficult to prevent or control though they can sometimes be engineered.Finally,move with the times;in the last few years the hatred of Pakistanis for India has diminished whereas some Indians continue to exhibit amazing virulism.

suresh nambiar:

Many things in the past were conveneintely forgotten or hide for the conveneient of the writers, The genoside of Hindus is still happening in Pakistan, after partition the minority hindus reducded from 12 percent to 2% and in india it has increased from 8 % 20%. Check the records. Now they become a part of the indian politics and they need more power and rights than the majority? have you ever seen such absurdity in the world history? Indian's secularism tolerance to this community helped them to reach placed but now they( NOT ALL) are growing as an internal threat. After the indipendance how many riots from Muslims in India? basically they have to adjust and adopt Indian culture then only they can survive. America always helped them to attack India whenever Pak attacked India, and India never started a war against pakistan(Check history?) but only prevented their attacks. If India is US, there won't be a country in the name of Pakistan in the world map.

Mohan Kapur:

"Uniting Pakistan the military state and Pakistan the nascent democracy is our generation’s calling".

I think the author has some very good point and arguments, but he has failed to debate the serious flaws of Jinnah's ideology on which the whole concept and foundation of Pakistan rests.
The current generation of pakistanis need to deal and face the whole idea of Jinnah's "Two Nation Theory" and disect it to its core. A sustainable democracy can never exist without the main ingredients of secularism and pluralism in a multicultural and ethnic societies. The rest of the world knows that the demand for Pakistan by jinnah was totally based on religion alone because he strongly believed that Hindus and Muslims can not live together under one nation. once he got Pakistan then he changed his tune in his famous sppech in Aug. 1947 about democracy and about Hindus and Muslims in state of Pakistan. It was a totally contradictory message and nobody bought it. Hindus and Sikhs left Pakistan in huge numbers and Pakistani Muslims got a clear signal for a Islamic Pakistan.
India, on the other hand, chose a completely different path with democracy, secularism and pluralism as its fundamental institutions and became a world's largest democracy and a sccessful one.
The main question and challenge for Pakistanis is if they can bury Jinnah's Ideology for good, like Chinese burried Mao's ideology Russian burried Stalin & Lenin????

A Khokar:

Let’s Celebrate the New Dawn of Democracy in Pakistan

Please refer to following link;

Nadeem Masood:

Analysis has few good points! However, why all this discussion now!

This is a job of the new elected government,in power! A democratic government!

Political parties in government promised prior to the elections as soon as they get into power will take care of Pakistan.

One of the promises among many is to eliminating extremism with effectiveness since claim was based on having roots in people! What happened?

This is the calling of the new government!!To make one Pakistan out of two or four!

Time to fulfill promises they made to Pakistani people and to the rest of the world!


Pakistan is getting what it deserves.

It created a jihadi monster to be used against the Russsians and when they left in 1989, the Pakistani Govt and Military redirected them into Indian Sovereign Territories of Kashmir. Prior to 1989, Pakistani were using the Sikhs in India by providing logistical, Finanacial and Military support to Sikh militants. Thankfully the people of Punjab state realized what was brewing and India was successful in bring it down at a cost of Mrs Gandhi then Prime Minister being killed.

Today Pakistan continues to be a basket case and will be until its annexxed either by Iran or China.

In hindsight, I think the pakistani would have been better off if they would have not wanted their own country in 1947

Oh well at least we have live Basket Country Case to examine as we progress in the 21st century


There are four Pakistanis- Baluchis, Sindhis, Pashtuns, and Punjabis.Only their hatred towards Hindus and the need to get Kashmir is keeping them together.There is no God, no Allah, but America and Army.America is feeding and protecting them for the last sixty years.
God bless America.


There is just one Pakistan, that which considers itself the standard-bearer of Islam ... seeking to outdo Saudi Arabia ... it first has to learn that it is connected root and branch with the subcontinent's civilisations and all its multivariate cultures ... only then can it be what it wants to be.


Mr.W.Burki Wrote: The indians are meddled in Pakistani affairs and the American sided with Islamabad in 1980 just for their own interests.Let me clarify,in 1980 the Pakistanis voluntarily participated against the then Soviet Union just to get the billions from the American administration.The Pakistani Army Generals dispatched their ISI agents in Afghanistan to persuade the young Afghans to attractive salaries to join military training camps in Pakistan, and for this noble services to Americans, the Zia ul Haqs, the Faiz Ali Cheshti, The Durranis and other generals who were getting the 5000 rs 75$ as the monthly salaries are now the owners of the billions in Swiss Bank accounts.In the aftermath of 9/11 when the Americans sought the Indian assistance against the Taliban,but before of any response from Delhi, the Pakistani president Musharraf as usual issued a false statement of a threat by Richard Armitage of subjecting Pakistan into stone age if it will participate in American counter terrorism activities, and later in a press release he Mr. Richard Armitag denied Pakistai General's statement.America is not against the Muslim community and the evidence of Bosnia and Kosovo are the examples,but the United States of America has the right to defend its sovereignty and the lives of its citizens and in the course of defence it is commen and natural to get the assistance of fortune seekers and bounty hunters like the colored inferiors of ISLAMABAD. And about the Indian meddling into Pakistani affairs, it is an old custom of a parrot's recorded bad song.

Yuri Lipitzmeov:

There is only one Pakistan. It is the Pakistan that gives/sells nuclear technology to crazy despots. It is the pakistan that harbors terrorists within its borders, and even within it's own security service. It is the Pakistan that can't get it's head out of the 13th century. It is the Pakistan that needs to be vaporized. I won't be shedding any tears for the "innocents". F them all, and the lousy camels that they rode in on.

Ray Fogle:

I still don't know what the author of this piece is trying to assert. Is his point that if Pakistan gives constituent democracy the good old college try withouth military coups taking place when times are tough, all while being immune to diplomatic pressure from other countries, then everything is going to be alright? That is a presumptuous argument, and a limp one to boot.

W Burki:

CHAMA: Yes the poor Palestitians took a "hike", because their country got invaded by the Jews expelled from Europe by Hitler.

It was either take a hike or get killed, which option would you have preferred??

W Burki:

CHAMA: Yes the poor Palestitians took a "hike", because their country got invaded by the Jews expelled from Europe by Hitler.

It was either take a hike to get killed, which option would you have preferred??

W Burki:

Mr Secular: Pakistan had a constitution under Ayub Khan, and was run under this constitution till 1971, when India invaded Eastern Pakistan and the U.S. as usual, stabbed Pakistan in the back and refused any help, while India recieved military aid from the USSR.

It was the same mullahs that fought the West's war and defeated the USSR, while the seculars like you were sitting on their asses since the Berlin wall!

Pakistan has been fighting West's wars, first the cold war, than the Afghan jihad and now the so called war on terror.

Its time Pakistan stop fighting West's War


W Burki: Keep on topic. Israel did not expell thousands of Arabs in 1947. They(Arabs) took a hike waiting for 7 Arab armies to overrun the Jews. Back to Pakistan bro.


Long and short Pakistan is a failed state, it took it nearly 30 years to write a constitution. Since then the its leaders, even the writers, have been defecating on that. It was created not to give voice to the aspirations of one people, but to appease secular egotists and bigots. So for last 60 years these pond scums have been feasting on the carcass called Pakistan, albeit a smaller carcass for the past 37 years. I am not talking about the leaders of the recent past, the feasting started with Mr. Jinnah. This elitist secularist born of muslim parents, who enjoyed his pork chops & Scotch - which i don't fault him for - was an utter egotist. He could not bring himself to being a small fish in a big pond but rather wanted to be a big fish in a small pond. He was so obsessed with becoming a PM, that he went to bed with the muslim bigots who wanted a "Pure-i-stan". This is country which was touted to be a country for the down trodden muslims is where the most muslims get killed today because they are Shia. Not that Sunni would fare any better if the vast majority were Shia. Until the population at large is willing burn that tome of utter gibberish, from some 1300+ years they have no salvation (pun indeed intended).

Jati Hoon:

Like any other developing country with huge masses of illiterate and economically backward country, fed by religion diet,to stay togather,is finding a way out of the problems created by misrule.Pakistan will succeed, it is a question of time, country has a huge pool of intellectuals born after partition who are not tainted by old religious phobias.It is the country which will lead muslim's of the world to modernity and moderation not other way around where jihadies will dominate. Its religion may be muslim, {Which is new in the sub-continent}its civilization goes back thousands of years, before their was any such thing as, "ORGANISED RELIGION."You can take people to mosque, but you cannot take out their civilization, commonsense and humanity out of there bodies and kindred,"SOUL", which is nurtured by thousands if not million of years of practices in human and humane development.No outside pressure can change its people, they dont neeed any change, what they need is peace, education and economic development as per its people, geographical, historical and cultural needs. They may follow islamic faith, but they are muslims of, "PAKISTAN," not of ARABIA.

ijaz gul:

There is nothing new he is saying except that he has attempted to change the style.
Any student doing masters in International Relations or Security studies writes this. Its a well known CHAPPA/Booty (old scripts) that these eager so called FELLOWS produce.

I would refer you to 'Pakistan: The unstable State" ed by Gardezi and Bilal Hashmi. Though old, it still remains consistent with Pakistan's military and Political Psyche.

I would call this the Failure of Pakistan to evolve towards a welfare oriented democratic state based of socio-economic growth model and rather plummet to a model of a security state based on threat perceptions that suit the political-military elites. With Musharraf fading away, Pakistan is gripped with yet another coterie of this model.


Pakistan in reality is one Pakistan unit but as suggested in the article, it has been devided into not two but in many. The most ugly face of it is having begging bowl in its hand. Ironically the begging bowel is not for people of Pakistan but those so called military generals turned politicans and general politicans included ( I am not blaming Pakistan Army in General becuase their discipline is such no army can matach). The day Pakistan gets rid of this begging bowel and thirst, the few of its billioners the main beneficiery who took full benefits by using their status and position from thir will start thinking, they have, have had enough now, let the Pakistan to thrive, that will be day Pakistan will emerge to claim its rightful place in the nations of the world.


Mr. Burki, The following is an excerpt from a document on the BBC web site http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/50664.stm

"Nearly one million people died in the riots that ensued between Hindus and Muslims.

Mahatma Gandhi had always been against the partition. The year before he had said, "Before partitioning India, my body will have to be cut into two pieces."

But the alternative to partition was thought to be civil war between Hindus and Muslims, and so at the last minute Gandhi urged the Congress Party to accept partition.

When he saw the extent of the bloodshed, Mahatma Gandhi again turned to non-violent protest. He went on a hunger strike, saying he would not eat until the violence stopped and India gave back the 550 m rupees (about £40m) that it was holding from Pakistan.

But his efforts to achieve reconciliation between Hindus and Muslims eventually brought him death. He was assassinated by a fellow Hindu, Nathuram Godse, who felt that Gandhi had betrayed the Hindu cause."

W Burki:

Sam: I don't recall any protest "marches" by Ghandi against the slaughter of the Muslims, do you??

The Congress party has always encouraged violence against the minorities the lastest was the state scantioned terrorism against the sikh community during the reign of Nehru's daughter, Indira Ghandi


W. Burki - "During the partition thousands of Muslims were slaughtered by the Sikh and Hindu hordes, as they made their way to an Independent Pakistan. This slaughter was encourged and approved by both Nehru and Ghandi."

It is true that thousands of Muslims were slaughtered by Sikhs and Hindus. It is also true that thousands of Sikhs and Hinus were slaughtered by Muslims.

Mr. Burki, your statement that the slaughter was approved by Nehru and Gandhi is pure nonsense. You need to study your history. Gandhi lost his life because of his efforts to stop the killings.

dv sikka:

The basic issue about Pakistan politics has been corrupt politicians. Every time the military took over controls the reason was same. The funny part is that those very corrupt politicians come back to power after spending years behind bars, all the cases are withdrwn on some pretext or the other. There is no credibility in whatever is happening there. Can anything happening there be trusted. Even now the court has banned Nawaz Sharif from gighting the election. He happens to be the head of a major party. For any sensible thing to happen in Pakistan, it is necessary that it is governed by a credible rule of law. It is difficult to trust any thing the so called leaders are promising. A country run by whims and fancies has no future.


Mullick describes the solution but not how it is to be achieved.

W Burki:

I guess Simple Simon has simpally confused Pakistan with Isreal, since it was Isreal that expelled thousands of Arabs in 1947. I would suggest reading a bit of history before writing comment on any topic.

During the partition thousands of Muslims were slaughtered by the Sikh and Hindu hordes, as they made their way to an Independent Pakistan. This slaughter was encourged and approved by both Nehru and Ghandi.

Part of British India that became Pakistan had a very large majority of Muslims in the first place, a small number of Hindu and Sikh communities living in the Punjab left voluntarily, while a large hindu minority still lives in the southern Pakistan and Pakistan's chief justice during 2002-2006, Justice Rana Bhawandas, was a member of this Hindu community.


The US, China and Saudi Arabia keep feeding Pakistani ruling classes's strategic ambitions and the general civilian populace can't keep pace or sustain those ambitions on its own strengths. Those are the two Pakistans.

Jihadi militias began as instruments of the first Pakistan's ambitions abroad and internally. The second Pakistan now thinks of these militias as leverage on first Pakistan. Today, whatever US, China and Saudi Arabia do will intensify this two-way dynamic of violent struggle for control between the two Pakistans.

Benazir Bhutto was one entity among all these who could have stood up to them all and made them all behave and reconcile appropriately if she had had some luck and good sense, but luck was in short supply and who can now tell about good sense.

Today only strengthening the military presence in Afghanistan, aggressively building up Afghan Army and infrastructure/economy and routing supplies from nonPakistani routes/ diminishing NATO's dependence on Pakistan will do any good.


The country most directly affected by affairs in Pakistan is India, because their effects percolate into this country in a variety of ways -as trade, commerce, culture, people - to - people contacts and also as Jehad. Looking from India, there in fact not two but three Pakistans - Military-ISI, Democratic, and Jehadi.The First,with the Army and the ISI, remins stuck in a time warp of Kashmir, "death by a thousand cuts", and "Badla for Bangladesh".The Third, with the Tehreek - e Taliban,Lashkar e Taiba,United Jehadi Council, and others, acts in conjunction with the First,earlier as a strategic subsidiary , but now increasingly as an equal, and sometimes dominant partner, in the play to retain Afghanistan as a region of "strategic depth" primarily against India,and also of course to keep the proxy war against India going.Al Qaeda is a strange passenger in this Third Pakistan, a primarily Arab organisation, useful, but not always welcome, except where international funding for the Jehad is concerned. The First - Third Pakistan are a powerful and toxic corporate body which dominates the country. The Second, the democratic, even secular Pakistan,(yes, Advani was right about Jinnah - essentially a secular sahib with nothing in common with the mullahs who made up the Muslim league)is the hope of the people, but carries the baggage of old -style power brokers (Nawaz Sharif and "Mr Ten Percent" Zardari) are certainly no democrats, whatever else they might be.India wishes Pakistan II well, and wishes it success. We can do business with it.


I agree with the other posters, the view expressed here sounds very provincial. It seems to describe the ebbs and flows of power among the ruling classes in the Eastern parts of the country, while completely ignoring the Western parts of Pakistan and the fact that these currents mean almost nothing there.

What the rest of the world wants is for the government of Pakistan to exert sovereignty over its territory and quit exporting its troubles to every surrounding country and even further afield. Summon the will to be a state or break up into entities that can. If a military dictator can pull this off then so be it. A real military ruled state is preferable in this instance to a sham democratic state. At this juncture it seems that even a competent military government is beyond Pakistan's capabilities.

simple simon:

This is the fourth reincarnation - Liaquat Ali, Bhutto Senior, Bhutto the daughter, Zardari/Sharif - of what Mr. Mullick calls ‘Pakistan’s nascent democracy’. There have been four births of Pakistan’s military rules - Ayub, Yahya, Zia, Musharraf - as well. Democracy has not brought ‘moderation’ that Western governments had hoped for in Pakistan. Islamic fundamentalism has pervaded Pakistan since its inception as evidenced by Pakistani government’s eviction of all minorities between 1947 and 1951. Pakistan had 22% minority population in 1947. Terror campaign unleashed by Muslim League of Pakistan against all minorities - Hindus, Sikhs, Parsis and Christians - reduced that to 2% by 1951. Both Pakistans are two sides of the same coin. Pakistan has been ‘terror center’ of the world under both rules, military as well as civilian. It is just that West did not see it until 9/11 attacks hit it.

Argumentative Bengali:

Very well-written article on the complex political situation of Pakistan. I am a Bangladeshi now living in the United States. I closely follow the politics of Bangladesh and that of Pakistan to some extent. Readers probably know that Bangladesh was created in 1971 as an independent country breaking way from Pakistan. Bangladeshi people did not want to be the part of the “first” Pakistan that the author mentioned. Bangladeshi political elites thought that Bangladesh will never be able to materialize its political, economic and cultural goals under the “first Pakistan. Therefore, first they tried to create the “second” type of Pakistan by participating in the democratic process. Everybody knows it did not work. Rather than transferring power to the elected leaders Pakistani military resorted to genocide that prolonged for nine months. And guess what, the three countries the author mentioned—US, China and Saudi Arabia—stood with Pakistan and provided military and economic help. Bangladeshis thought that they have set themselves free and there will be economic development and political stability. But unfortunately it did not happen. Bangladeshis are still struggling for democracy. One of the obstacles is, the “ghost of Pakistani military junta mentality,” as many in Bangladesh call it.

W Burki:

The article unfortunately is right on, however the Indian meddling in Pakistan's internal affairs has played a big part, i.e. 1971 war and creation of Bangladesh.
The other is the selfish U.S. support in times when it suits the U.S., i.e. the Afghan jihad of the 1980s and the U.S. abondenment of Pakistan as soon as the U.S. interests were met by the breakup of the USSR.
Pakistan's geo-political makeup is also to blame with such disfunctional neighbors as Afghanistan and Iran, its always been in the interest of the so called super powers to use Pakistan as a base either against the Soviets, Shia fundamentals or now more recently against the "Islamic exremists", whose initial creation was funded and blessed by the CIA.
The above post by DR.KAHOOR KHAN HOOSHAAPI is not just vague, but to put it midly quite crazy


Your assessment is as vague as the state itself you mentioned.Since the creation of Pakistan, it is and has been only one Pakistan, THE BASE OF AN ARMY, to serve the global interests for the better paid parties.Can you tell me how many lives had been sacrificed for the creation of This Britt's base? certainely not any one,even the Barrister M.A. Jenah had never stood in front of a court bench to claim for the land and was gifted to him as the Base against the then Soviet Union.Not a fool can think of Pakistan as an independent state to be the house of civilian politicians or the democratic institutions but,but the base of bounty hunters and brokering principles which do not have any similiarity in this world.


Your assessment is as vague as the state itself you mentioned.Since the creation of Pakistan, it is and has been only one Pakistan, THE BASE OF AN ARMY, to serve the global interests for the better paid parties.Can you tell me how many lives had been sacrificed for the creation of This Britt's base? certainely not any one,even the Barrister M.A. Jenah had never stood in front of a court bench to claim for the land and was gifted to him as the Base against the then Soviet Union.Not a fool can think of Pakistan as an independent state to be the house of civilian politicians or the democratic institutions but,but the base of bounty hunters and brokering principles which do not have any similiarity in this world.

Paki Visitor:

Unfortunately, your article missed a major sticking point with many in the west: The FATA. FATA is at least a 3rd Pakistan, if not 3rd and 4th. It's a very complex that for practical purposes is a self governed disparate state. Until that area and it's politics are better defined, Pakistan will remain an enigma.


Pakistan is two states; one a former colony transforming into a nascent modern state, the other an Islamist haven. This cannot be disputed or overlooked.

The latter Pakistan is by dint of faith and tribal culture essentially living in a different age. It makes sense to carve out a majority Pashtun state in the Pak tribal areas and southeastern Afghanistan. Offer them aid "washed" through Islamic states and charities. Let anyone in, but surround them with armies to keep the terrorists and the opium from getting out.

Those who don't adhere to the old tribal ways and strict sharia law could be offered financial incentives to move to the modern Pakistan. This may seem like an extreme proposition, but no more so than trying to bring them to heel and into a modern western consciousness via the gun. It's been tried before.

PostGlobal is an interactive conversation on global issues moderated by Newsweek International Editor Fareed Zakaria and David Ignatius of The Washington Post. It is produced jointly by Newsweek and washingtonpost.com, as is On Faith, a conversation on religion. Please send us your comments, questions and suggestions.