JINNAH left this world soon after the creation of Pakistan. What if the then leadership of Pakistan had followed his advice to firmly place the country on the path of democratic governance by evolving a constitution much sooner than it did, establishing an appropriate civil-military equation at the outset, and forging foreign ties based on ‘goodwill and friendship with all’?

What if Ayub Khan had decided not to enter into war with India in 1965? We could have maintained the trajectory of our economic growth, which had become the envy of the world at that time. What if Yahya Khan had opted for a transition to an elected government rather than military action in East Pakistan in March 1971? We could have averted the ultimate humiliation that our nation suffered on Dec 16 that year.

What if Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto had not nationalised all major industries in 1972? Business confidence would not have been shattered — it took a long time to heal. What if Ziaul Haq had not imposed martial law in 1977? Pakistan would have been saved from his dictatorial rule in the garb of Islamisation. His launch of the so-called Afghan jihad had adverse implications for Pakistan for decades.

What if Nawaz Sharif’s economic liberalisation plan of 1990, which preceded India’s by a year, had not been disrupted by rapid changes of government during the 1990s? Pakistan would have benefited from the era of globalisation and enhanced its strategic relevance in the region and beyond.

Our leaders rarely took the people into confidence.

What if the military adventure in Kargil had not been timed to coincide with Vajpayee’s peace visit to Lahore in February 1999? The Lahore Declaration would have laid a solid foundation for durable regional peace. What if Musharraf had not so readily agreed to join the US-led war on terror following 9/11? We could have negotiated better terms for fighting a war that has come to haunt Pakistan ever since. Our Afghan policy might have also taken a different course.

What if domestic issues in 2007 had not distracted Musharraf from taking the four-point formula to its logical conclusion? This solution of the Kashmir dispute, though not perfect, had been evolved painstakingly through the backchannel. With the dispute resolved, Pakistan and India would have focused their energies on economic development rather than fighting each other, and the Kashmiris would have been saved from further atrocities perpetrated by Indian forces.

What if the India-Pakistan peace process (2004-8) had not stopped after the Mumbai terrorist attacks in 2008? Four years of a reasonably successful peace process would have provided a durable basis for peaceful coexistence. What if our own authorities had managed to detect Osama bin Laden’s presence in Pakistan in 2011, and apprehended him rather than the Americans? Our nation would not have suffered such monumental embarrassment.

What if India had not cut off all interaction with Pakistan following the Pathankot attacks? Prime Minister Modi had visited Lahore in December 2015 and the peace process would have resumed on Jan 15, 2016.

What if political instability had not gripped Pakistan in 2017 onwards? Our economy would have continued to benefit from investments brought in by CPEC. The rapid change of governments prevented a seamless transition of CPEC from its first phase (infrastructure development and energy generation) to its second phase of industrial development.

What if our Afghan policy had not followed the unintended path it did? The US was upset with Pakistan for its perceived support to the Tali­ban that started su­­pporting TTP, which has been committ­i­­ng terrorism in Pak­istan for years.

This quick overview illustrates how, at critical junctures of our history, either geopolitics worked against us or we made decisions with no regard to transparency or collective wisdom. That we failed to make the right choices warrants a study on its own.

Suffice it to say that our leaders rarely took the people into confidence or allowed public scrutiny of major policy choices. Four military interventions were essentially one-man rule. Even during periods of elected governments, a whole-of-the-nation approach was not adopted for decision-making.

In order to chart a secure and prosperous future for our people, a grand national dialogue amongst all stakeholders is imperative. The country needs nation-wide consensus on how to ensure a stable and predictable direction for its politics, economy, and security. Every key issue of national concern must be discussed in parliamentary committees, which should also benefit from public debate. Taking transparent and consensus-based decisions is difficult, but it is the surest way to address critical issues affecting the long-term interests of the people of Pakistan.

The write is a former foreign secretary and chairman of Sanober Institute Islamabad.

Published in Dawn, June 30th, 2024