Reflections on Pakistan.

The army and the establishment, in Pakistan, are not able to stem discontent in Pakistan. Why is this so? Are those who profess to belong to Islam, and who do so in strong terms, bad for Pakistan? Pakistan was established as a state, when those who were Muslim, left India, and went to create another state for themselves. The significance is that, many Muslims in India, were opposed to the creation of Pakistan, and the Dar Ul Ulum, the most significant Islamic Seminary in South Asia, led this opposition. Those who follow Islam in Pakistan, know about this. So, Pakistan was a creation, when the dar Ul Ulum, and a great number of Muslims, were left in India, and when Pakistan was created as it was created. If I were Pakistani, I would reflect that Pakistan was born of opportunism. The Muslims of Pakistan are not better off than the Muslims of India. The most respected Islamic Seminary did not want partition from India. And the 'establishment', and the army may be branding The 'Islamists' as 'Islamists', because if the Islamists come to power, they may work for reunification with India. The Pakistani Army do not shield the militant Islamists. They do not want these elements to be viewed favorably. The Pakistan Army has legitimate concerns. How does a section of society partion themselves into a separate nation, and then ask for reunification? Will this be viewed as good? I do not view the Muslim of India, as not having a voice. The Muslim in Pakistan, is very much more in need. Many luminaries of the foreign office, like Mr Natwar Singh, must be aware, of this state of affairs. International Relations are not under any strident law. There is lawlessness, on the borders of India and Pakistan. If India and Pakistan agree to agree on peace, they do so on personal initiative, not because of any other accepted norm of international behavior, and law. Pakistan is an international entity as a nation. Both India and Pakistan are civil in diplomatic channels, but the prevalent lawlessness, is not good on the border. I do not believe, India can promote law in a democracy, if the border is not lawful, to consideration. The United States believes what the army wants it to believe, on the 'Islamists' of Pakistan. This may be due, to the experience of the United States, with Iran. The abdication of The Shah of Iran, was a mistake. Would the President of the United States leave The United States, if he were in the shoes of The Shah, and The United States was Iran? To reflect on the 'establishment', in Pakistan, the 'establishment', are the inheritors of those who were the makers of Pakistan. The people who created Pakistan, had left their precedence in India, and had created Pakistan, on what they hoped would be a lasting legacy, for the people of Pakistan. What face would the establishment have, if reunification was considered? Is the position of Pakistan and India, then hopeless? No commentator on International Relations, has been as bold as I have in my expression. Also, the various governments see what they would like to believe, even if the various esteemed scholars at their intellectual disposal, intimate otherwise to their belief.