There is general agreement that the long-suffering Pakistani nation has displayed a remarkable resilience in its 50- plus years of existence. It has weathered many crises and faced hostility from many quarters.

Each time doubts have been raised over its survival. It has not only survived but has progressed-perhaps not as fast and as well as it should have but fairly well. There have been events that cast a long shadow and had implications that lasted years. There were the wars with India, the loss of the eastern part, the revolution in Iran, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the rise of the Taliban and AI Qaeda in Afghanistan, the freedom struggle in Kashmir, 91I, the US-led Coalition invasion of Afghanistan, the fall of the Taliban and AI Qaeda, and, last but not the least, the proliferation problem.

Perhaps we could have avoided the wars with India and may be we could have saved East Pakistan politically but the other events were largely out of our control. The more recent proliferation issue, however, needs to be seen in the context of a world-wide underworld and black market that was not our creation but that we used to acquire a capability that could ensure our national security. If other options had been available it is doubtful that we would have taken this dangerous and risky direction.

At various times Pakistan did propose a Nuclear Weapons Free Zone in South Asia and a Strategic Restraint Regime but there were no takers.

As of now the situation is that Iran, Libya and North Korea have denied having taken nuclear technology from Pakistan. The implication being that no direct transfer has taken place and that the problem is one of intellectual property.

The Director CIA has stated that US intelligence had penetrated the nuclear proliferation network and was aware of what was going on. Pakistan top scientist has accepted the accusations against him and by confessing publicly have earned a pardon because of his past services. He is reported to have made allegations about the involvement of the Army and has given the widest possible publicity to these allegations thereby leading to their inclusion in the debriefing'.

These allegations by the principal accused have little legal significance but some psychological value in creating the impression of an underdog used and discarded by his masters. This has also started the talk of a 'cover up' that is being played up by the Western media because it ties in with their perceptions of a 'rogue army', an irresponsible government, a nuclear capability not under control and a flawed personnel reliability programme that has allowed extremist and unreliable people into the intelligence and nuclear facilities.

We should not expect India to pass up the opportunity to exploit this situation though with the ongoing peace overtures this may be done in devious ways. In a paper titled' Armed, Dangerous and Unaccountable,' Mr. K P S Gill, President Institute for Conflict Management, writes 'from the very moment of its creation, Pakistan has been little more than an organized criminal enterprise masquerading as a nation-state. For years now, I have been arguing that Pakistan nuclear capabilities will have to be shut down. Countries that cannot control their nuclear establishment and prevent illegal transfers of technology cannot escape the ambit of international controls. Countries that actively promote such illegal proliferation must draw upon themselves the harshest of international sanctions and inspection regimes. To fail in this course is to ignore the great danger that such rogue states constitute, not only to peace, but to human survival itself'.

This from the citizen of a country that pulled the stopper on the South Asian nuclear genie! So when President Musharraf talks of national interest and cautions the media what he is really saying is that do not market Pakistan irresponsibly and do not provide fodder to those who would run us down.

Faced with a situation of the magnitude of the proliferation scandal nations either come together or start falling apart because of the pressures generated. In Pakistan' case these pressures get magnified because of many factors. There is the perception that there is extreme US pressure on Pakistan and that the proliferation issue will be used to keep on doing whatever the US wants us to do. We need to examine this perception objectively.

The US is trying to bring stability, governance and peace in Afghanistan. It is in our interest to fully support US efforts in Afghanistan. An unstable southern Afghanistan or Al Qaeda presence in sanctuaries in our western border areas is not in our interest at all. President Musharrafs' statement in his recent address at the National Defence College that 'we must stop whatever is happening in Afghanistan from Pakistan' should be supported. Instead of the obsession with US pressure there should be an analysis of the situation to determine how best we can do what needs to be done in our western border areas.

Another perception that needs analysis is that there is a sell-out' on Kashmir and that the US is forcing us to back off and push for conflict resolution.

Some statistics are interesting-these are from a report on 'Cost of Conflict between India and Pakistan' by the Strategic Foresight Group. The Siachen conflict alone will cost India Rs. 7200 crores and Pakistan Rs. 1800 crores in the next five years also in the same period a total of 1500 soldiers will lose their lives without fighting a war. Kashmirs Gross Terror-economy Product (GTP) is estimated to be Rs. 3.5 billion. India and Pakistan have the potential to enjoy a trade of about $ 1 billion if hostility continues and $13.25 billion if peace prevails on a cumulative basis for the next five years (2004-2008) resulting in an opportunity loss of $ 12 billion. If peace does not prevail and Indian State terrorism continues, Kashmir will see the death of 6000 civilians, 10000 militants, 2500 security personnel during 2004-2008.

Another perception is that Pakistan is being forced to act against religious elements within the country and that this is being done at the behest of the US. If this were so then would the major religious parties have been allowed empowerment in the recent elections? Is it in our interest to have extremists linked to terrorism? Does action to root out extremism and terrorism have anything to do with religion?

The nexus between extremism, sectarianism, terrorism, drugs and weapons trade is destroying the fabric of our society and is creating a serious internal security situation. In fact an impression is being deliberately created that the religious factions are the only real guardians of our sovereignty, our security, our nuclear programme, and the struggle for Kashmir.

This makes them heroes and gives them leverage to arm twist the government into a policy of appeasement.

The strong religious values among the people are, therefore, being exploited by a segment of our media, by sub-cultures within the establishment and by a section of the political institution for interests other than national interest. The proliferation issue is an example of how facts staring us in the face are not being accepted and are in fact being distorted to create a situation that instead of safeguarding our nuclear assets is actually undermining their long term security.

It is important to understand and, to make our people understand, that events beyond our control have changed the world as we knew it. Policies based on denial to resist pressures have run their course-we may have extracted advantages in the past but to go on clinging to them in the new global environment spells disaster. It is time for a paradigm shift. This means firming up our border with Afghanistan and purging the tribal areas of all aliens-ultimately moving towards settling the tribal areas.

It also means state power has to be used to root out extremism, sectarianism and terrorism as well as their linkages to illegal finances. Having faced up to the proliferation issue squarely it is time to bury it and to safeguard our assets by conforming to international regimes and norms without compromising the security and integrity of our facilities. Contrary to what is being propagated this will ensure the survival and improvement of our capabilities. We must now bring in policies based on an acceptance of realities and indicate a willingness to implement the new policies.

This is no time to straddle the fence with two-faced policies just to appease a segment that is deliberately out of tune with realities only because this gives them leverage. We have to forge and maintain a strong cooperative strategic relationship with the US and to do this all our elements of national power must be orchestrated into a long term strategy. This does not have to be at the cost of our sovereignty and interests but it does imply changing our image by changing perceptions based on past policies.

It also means that besides focusing on the points of convergence we have to work at addressing the areas of divergence. We need to enhance capabilities to face the threats of the future. What good are border security forces if they cannot surveil, detect and destroy or capture terrorists? A coast guard incapable of interception at sea is not much use against terrorists that may be using the seaward approach for drugs and weapons? What good are numerous agencies if they cannot be integrated to rapidly focus on an imminent threat? What good are intelligence capabilities if they cannot produce a comprehensive threat picture - strategic and tactical, internal and external? We need the US to assist us in improving our capabilities. We need to create harmony in our relationships with all other countries.

The structural robustness of our economy achieved over the last four years can be translated into the economic well being of the people only if we can integrate and interact globally. We must be seen as a nation that has the capability to safeguard its interests not just by power but also by pragmatic policies that are not hostage to any pressure groups.

Finally it must be noted that the political institution has a very important role. It must act to remove imbalances and distortions within itself and not wait for the military to give directions. In fact the present political dispensation has been brought about by the efforts of the military. The people elected to office must now understand the need for new directions and not only endorse the new policies and priorities but actively support and push them.

This will lay the basis for an enduring civil-military equation. This is not the time to fight turf wars or to stay in the shadows. Personal and party ambitions and interests are important political considerations but this is when these should take a back seat to the overall goal of strengthening government, governance and policies. This is the time to come together and not fall apart. We are at the starting point of a new direction in our destiny we must not fail.