Pakistan's Foriegn Policy

Pakistan's Foriegn Policy:Major(R)Khalid Nasr
The Great divide of the subcontinent was in consequence of shift in British colonial policy based on four (4) distinct factors emerging out of the World War-ll.
(a). Formation of Indian National Army (INA) under the leadership of Subhash Chandra Bose, who defected from India & joined the Japanese in Tokyo; organizing an army of Indian Prisoners of War for the liberation of India. His three (3) well known lieutenants included Sehgal, Dhillon, and Shah Nawaz, who were originally sentenced to death but subsequently acquitted when top political leadership of India fought for their cause.
(b). Revolt of Royal Indian Navy in Bombay.
(c). Promise extended to Indian National Congress (when Mohandas Karam Chand Gandhi joined Congress headed by Baal Ganga Dhar Tilak almost at the end of World War-l) if they extended helping hand to British in their war efforts. Evidently Indians were a part of the British Army and pressure was mounting eversince till the end of World War-ll for Independence to India.
(d). After Lord Wavell, Admiral (Lord) Louis Mountbatten was sent to India with the mission for the grant of Independence to India & a number of missions were sent to India for reaching a consensus; but the objective was still a far-fetched dream for lack of concensus by Indian National Congress & Muslim League. Political cleavage kept widening between these two political parties after the famous Lucknow Pact of 1916. June 3 Plan was also not acceptable to Congress, the British issued an ultimatum that they were quitting India by handing over the Government to the party accepting the Plan by a certain specific date. Grabbing the opportunity, Muslim League which had maintained silence after passing the Pakistan Resolution, accepted the Plan; and Pakistan came into being as a complete surprise when the Nation was least prepared for it. Division of Assets was withheld by the Indian Government & Pakistan was still waiting for its troops when loot & arsenal started; and Kashmir was occupied by Indian forces after the declaration of annexation by Maharaja Hari Singh; whereas such declarations were not given any weight inasmuch as Junagarh and Hyderabad (Deccan) were concerned. This was the background of hostilities between these two emerging States in August, 1947 and it was in this scenario that foreign policies of India and Pakistan were formulated by Jawahir Lal Nehru and late Mr Liaquat Ali Khan. So far so good about the scenario, but formulation of Foreign Policy was a direct reflection on the choice of options exercised by these two hostile neighbouring contries; which again reflected on the native intelligence of political leadership on either side of the border.
Late Mr Liaquat Ali Khan was extended an invitation for his proposed visit to Moscow & Washington DC both, but he preferred visiting Washington DC ignoring that Moscow was an immediate neighbour & could help his country in the event of emergency. To the contrary, Pundit Jawahir Lal Nehru preferred Moscow. Whereas Pakistan invited hostilities of the Communist Block & Eastern European countries by joining SEATO, CENTO, and NATO, India (known as Bharat after independence) was semmingly a member of non-alligned movement; though in reality it had been drawing benefits both from the Communists and the Capitalist block.
Despite agreeing that Kashmir was a controversial issue & its fate was to be decided through plebiscite in accordance with the wishes of the local population, Bharat went back from its commitment, and started calling Kashmir its atoot ang. Violations of the internationally acknowledged Line of Control (commonly known as LoC) were made permanent in utter defiance of the international opinion in Kargil & Siachen. These parts of Azad Jammu & Kashmir were forcibly occupied by Bharat without a single voice being raised by the international community (including the Muslim States).Egypt sided with Bharat almost on all occasions, considering Pakistan as its rival for the leadership of Muslim World; whereas Bharat had an extremely unenviable track record in honouring its internaional commitments. Its violations of Indus Basin Water Treaty (including the recent one of Buglihar dam) speaks volumes about its moral acumen on intrnational plane.
Despite Pakistan's pacts with the Western powers including US, the latter didnt gain anything in terms of its defence during Indo-Pak war in the Year-1965. War came as a sudden undeclared dawn attack on September 6, 1965 when Pakistan was least prepared for it, and the country was saved by offering sacrifices by heroes like Major Aziz Bhatti Shaheed, Sarfraz Rafiqui Shahed & others.
Bharat had continualy been focussing it attention on dismemment of Pakistan. Durga Parshad Dhar (commonly known as D. P. Dhar), an official of Indian Foreign Service was sent for studying the causes of Muslim downfall in Spain. and he formed RAW (the notorious Research & Analysis Wing) directly responsible for the secession of East Pakistan (now known as Bengla Desh) while working under close collaboration of Indian Institute of Strategic Studies headed by Subramunyum. Contrary to our expectations, the much awaited American 7th Fleet didn't come to Pakistan's rescue despite its presence close by. In other words, Pakistan paid a rather heavy price for its friendship with the US; whereas Bharat made considerable gains both from Eastern Europe & West despite being avowedly non-alligned.
In addition to above, who is not aware of our role against the expansionsm of USSR & its dismemberment due to its invasion on Afghanistan. Whereas we have invited hostilities of USSR on this score, we have also been subjected to enormous population pressure & a noticeable rise in crime rate due to influx of Afghan Refugees. To the horror of our law-enforcement agencies, or market is overflowing with the latest weaponry, posing law & order problems for us. Thanks to US policy, these armed conflicts occurring in Afghanistan & its adjoining regions have now been brought well within our territory. Not only this, there is lot of interference in our internal affairs.
There is hardly any international ethics.League of Nations failed due to its discriminatory treatment of the developed and the under-developed. United Nations also seems to be at the verge of collapse; unless timely remedial measures are taken without any further delay.
Accepted that nuclear armament is posing a threat to World peace, but adoption of two different yardsticks doesn't give any assurance whatsoever. Common sense (which is so uncommon) doesn't accept that nuclear weaponry with Pakistan or Iran is a threat t World peace; whereas nuclear arms of US are absolutely harmless. Common Sense does acknowledge that US has a limited exposure to co-existence due to its geographic segregation & limited experience of international relations. It didn't participate in War efforts of Allies till Pearl Harbour was attacked.It was caught by surprise when Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour. Besides, it was US which used the nuclear device on Hiroshima & Nagasaki almost towards the end of WW-ll and at the closure of Japanese theatre. In addition to above, US policies were a failure in LAOS, Korea, and Vietnam. As per the news items appearing in US papers, their policy is complete failure in Iraq as well. If US has a right to possess nuclear arms, there is hardly any justification for its issuing a warning to any other country including Iran against enrichment of Uranium. Besides, its policies in east Timur were at variance with the ones in Bosnia.
Under the circumstances, Pakistan would be well-advised to reappraise and reevaluate it policies keeping the ground realities in view, and to assign priorities to its national rather than international expectation.