Shias and Sunnis have armed groups. There is no political will to end this dispute. There are demands to declare Shias as non-Muslims. The same is the case of Zikris in Baluchistan who claim to be Sunnis but are not accepted by the Sunni fundamentalists.

The Army has been demanding for a long time a role for itself in the governance of Pakistan. The institutional arrangement crafted is to create a National Security Council with sizeable representation from the Army. Gen. Karamat had to be sacked for floating such a concept. Now General Pervez Musharraf is mooting this very concept. The idea is that the Prime Minister should be prevented from proceeding in a certain political direction if it is not to the liking of the Army. In Pakistan, a stable democracy is one which remains fully under tutelage of the Army. To achieve this objective of direct or indirect Army rule, one route is the restoration of the Eighth Amendment by virtue of which the President could dismiss an elected Prime Minister... This tussle between the Army and the politicians has undermined democracy and has made Pakistan highly unstable.

What is it that the Army wants from the elected civilian governments? Gen Hamid Gul answers: "Not to jeopardise the security of Pakistan. The army’s understanding of security would remain paramount, not to be decided by the civilian political setup."

Robert M. Kaplan thinks Pakistan will disintegrate in 15 to 20 years because it had inherited the most problematic part of the subcontinent. The other reasons are disparities between provinces, the fallout of the Afghan war, Karachi situation and the institutional meltdown. Ashley Tellis of the Rand Corporation of US visualises an eventual US-India partnership which would be unfavourable to Pakistan. India will soon become a partner of choice of the USA for South Asia. A USA Commission on National Security, chaired by former Senator Warren Rudman and Gary Hart, analysed different scenarios including a conflict over Afghanistan with possible breakup of Pakistan due to ethnic conflicts, and India emerging as a global power by 2025. The Jamaat-e-Islami and radical Talibans will push Pakistan towards destabilisation and break up.

Gen Ayub Khan, who ruled Pakistan for over a decade, ultimately realised in 1969 that Pakistan would be amputated into two separate independent states. That happened in 1971. For the rest of Pakistan, he did not see any future. He said it would just "drag on and on." G.M. Syed, who got the Pakistan resolution passed in 1943 in the Sindh Assembly, subsequently regretted the move and said that creation of Pakistan was "a collective madness." The fact is that in the face of diverse plurality, Pakistan has just failed to achieve ‘one nation’ identity.

Pakistan is an example of extreme instability. This is proved from its inability to formulate its views on democracy, provincial autonomy, the role of minorities and sectarian issues. It had earlier embarked on an unending constitution-making process. The 1973 Constitution, which was mutiliated by Gen Zia ul Haq, was restored to its original form by Nawaz Sharif, a move that had the support of Benazir Bhutto. In fact, monarchy, dictatorship and dynastic rule have dominated Muslim history and authoritarian rule is part of the political culture.

Past experience shows that the defence forces are neither trained nor qualified to run the affairs of the country. No war has ever been won by a General who was also running the country. Barring Ayub Khan, no Chief of the Army Staff ever gave up that position. Musharraf is no exception. Gen Zia positioned his trusted generals in key positions. Now Gen Musharraf is doing the same. This, he hopes, will provide longevity to the regime.

Robert D Blackwill, the US Ambassador to India, said in his article ‘An Action Agenda to Strengthen America’s Alliances in Asia’:

"Developments in Pakistan in the next five years are likely to have a greater impact on Washington’s interest in Asia. Pakistan is on the edge of fulfilling the classic definition of a failed state and its survival is in question. If the state structure gives away, the nuclear weapon proliferation and export of Islamic terrorism would remain a distinct possibility. There could be leak of nuclear weapon technology and fissile materials to other Muslim nations or even to non-state actors."

Pakistani Air Marshal Ayaz Ahmad Khan (retd) thinks that there is no reason to paint a doomsday scenario. He feels that Jamaat-e-Islami is actually preventing a breakup of Pakistan. Pakhtoons no longer demand Pakhtoonistan. Pathans are fully integrated in Pakistan’s polity and he argues that fifty per cent of the officers and men in defence and paramilitary services are now drawn from amongst the Pakhtoons. They never had it so good. He, however, admits that the dangers of religious fanaticism, sectarianism, Talibanisation and tribal and ethnic passions can be fomented beyond control. He also admits that jehadi organisations are flouting law and creating disturbances. He blames the politicians for their outbursts against the Army by propagating a theory that ‘the Army needs Pakistan’. He feels that after the restoration of genuine democracy, the Army will return to the barracks and the country will prosper.

The ground realities, however, cannot be brushed aside. From 1954 to 1988 ,Pakistan was sustained by its Western allies and the USA. This is a fact of history. There was a brief interregnum during the end periods of Gen Ayub and Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. As of now, Pakistan is being sustained in a feeble manner by aid from international financial institutions. The economic growth rate was higher during Ayub and Zia era largely because of foreign assistance provided by its Western allies and the US.

Talibanisation of Pakistan, by way of creeping aggression, cannot be ignored any longer. Afghanistan failed to provide ‘strategic depth’ to Pakistan. The reverse process would start now. Historically, Afghanistan has always remained independent The Afghans may, in a not - too- distant future, capture economic power of Pakistan. The ultimate battle is likely to be between Punjabisation and Talibanisation of Pakistan. At the moment the Punjab-based Right parties and the Taliban have convergence of interest because of alleged threat perception from India and the US. Kashmir is, in fact, incidental to the interplay of politics in Pakistan. POK will soon be the battleground for the Punjabis and the Pathans for domination. Indian Kashmir faces no such problem as Indians from the rest of India cannot settle down permanently in J&K...

Pakistan’s international isolation is widening and deepening because of interplay of internal and external hardline Islamic forces. To gain international legitimacy, Pakistan is desperately in need of a window of opportunity. Kashmir provides that opportunity. Its insistence on talks with India ‘anywhere, anytime’ without a brake on cross-border terrorism is a well-thought-out trap for India.

India should allow Pakistan’s internal dynamics to have full play. In another five years the shape of history of Pakistan will be different. The Indian policy should be to neutralise the Pakistan Army. This is attainable if the cost of maintaining the war machinery is made prohibitive for Pakistan. Indian defence expenditure needs to be raised by one per cent more. The threat of nuclear war has forced younger generations of Pakistanis to go abroad. This nuclear blackmailing is proving counterproductive to Pakistan itself and has vitiated the investment climate.

India should closely watch Pakistan and should not formulate its policy on the basis of inputs provided by the so-called peace initiative groups who are ‘brainwashed’ by Pakistan after a visit to that country. All their programmes are well managed by the Pakistan Army. These groups never meet the fundamentalist leaders, jehadis and never interact with PoK and Northern Area Kashmiris.