Perilous Pakistan and Puerile Indian policy.

All the the p's are in capital does not represent the grammatical error here, rather I wish to be relentless in pressing the significance of all the three P's. No doubt there has been a peril in Pakistan, ever since Musharraf have given up the power; there has been a series of catastrophes , Tahreek-e-Taliban has created all sorts of ruckus and then not so clean president Zardari installed the sacked chief Justice Ifthikhar Chaudhary when all the option ran out for him; this not only showed how much Mr President is concerned about re opening of the graft cases against him, it also made a quite fearless Justice Chaudhary against civilian regime. With military now flocking behind the supreme court and "constitutional coup" is very much on the cards after SC contempt notice to PM Gillani our troublesome neighbor looks all but rattled!

So what is India doing about it? "we are observing" and "we do not intervene in internal affairs of Pakistan" are the common words coming from the north block; very much in line with that "Panchsheel" philosophy which is as much futile today as it was when India signed it with China and as a result of which tasted the dust in 1965 war with it! We by every means can not line ourselves up with the power players of Pakistan as it would only ensure validating the charges of Pakistan that India is promoting terror inside Pakistan, but this by no means is a justification to sit idle and be reactive and follow status quo of "take as it comes" because if at all Pakistan as a country fails; India, not US or European countries would be the first which would be in the line of fire transforming south Asia to much like Korea peninsula.

So what options are left for us? perhaps the best viable stand could be to stand by the weak civilian government. This has multiple benefits; India would look promoting the democracy in the region and north block potentially make friendly relations with the Pakistani politicians in person during their "tough days" the likes of Musharraf era. India for long has followed "will talk whoever comes in power" for Pakistan, talking to same Musharraf and Yahya khan; we all know how awry the plans went, history tells us all the three wars between the two countries were fought during military regimes in Pakistan, Ayub Khan, Yahya Khan and in Kargil where de facto head was Parvez Musharraf; still we invited Musharraf for the peace talks in Agra only to get the dialogues from the general that "Pakistan can attack India" "no country can breach our sovereignty" (until it was showed by Americans how to do it!) and "Kashmiri separatists are freedom fighters". What he gained was a popular sentiment back home. Politicians are more susceptible to bow down than Pakistani army men. We can safely insulate ourselves from generals by rebuking them on the basis of their military credentials. Army there want Kashmir to remain hot and alive to strength their rule, by refusing to talk; India can do a huge favor to political players of Pakistan by making them more relevant in picture

We must understand it is very difficult for civilian regimes to go in to a war; as there are so many people and agencies that needs to be taken on the board before pressing the final button, which dictators don't generally have to do. So a stable and democratic Pakistan is in best Indian interest which we can endorse by effectively snubbing the generals.