If you say so, Pakistan is very bad. Fine, no problem, accepted—they indeed are very bad! For all you know, you are ‘Little Red Riding Hood’ and Pakistan is the ‘Big Bad Vile Wolf’ bent upon trying to eat the little girl. Question is what you can do about it? By God, my dears, you are not out shopping in a mall. You do not get your neighbours or enemies ‘made to order’. This is real life. You have to deal with Pakistan as it is—stop crying over what Pakistan has become or worse, wishing what Pakistan ought to be because short of an all-out destructive war, there is darn nothing you can do about it. Stop making a fool of yourself.
New Habit of Moralistic Foreign Policy Fantasies
Public discourse today is trapped in a strange hallucination. The foreign policy commentariat has become a moral pulpit. The claim-to-know-all journalists/YouTubers, retired diplomats-turned-columnists, self-styled strategic analysts, retired military and police officers, and television warriors (yes, the very anchors who had destroyed Karachi and captured Islamabad) have taken to moralising about Pakistan as if they were schoolteachers scolding a problem child, constantly lamenting that the neighbour has refused to behave like a “good boy”.
Two recent examples—a former high commissioner to Pakistan Ajay Bisaria’s Dictator Next Door in The Times of India and Avinash Mohnaney’s piece Pakistan’s Balochistan deal marks new strategic tilt toward US, away from China in The Economic Times about Pakistan’s alleged “tilt” from China to the US—perfectly embody this intellectual malaise. Both articles ooze a misplaced sense of entitlement, a curious belief that India has a ‘moral right’ to shape Pakistan’s internal structure, and an arrogant insistence that Pakistan’s behaviour, governance, alliances and political arrangements must conform to an imagined moral standard. They remind me of the self-appointed guardians of morality often found in our colonies, the ‘uncles’ who police what they consider to be western, revealing or provocative dresses worn by girls in their ‘jurisdiction’.
This is not foreign policy analysis. It is sermonising masquerading as strategy. It is time to call that out. These self-styled experts have gotten into the bad habit of thinking that Pakistan’s internal choices—civil-military relations, military dominance, diplomatic manoeuvring, strategic alignments, economic deals—are somehow India’s business. This mind-set is not simply wrong; it is strategically suicidal. It infantilises India’s own agency, reduces foreign policymaking to wish-listing, and blinds us to the only principle that has ever mattered in international relations: realpolitik. And, realpolitik is brutally simple: You deal with the world as it is, not as you wish it to be.
What Pakistan should be is none of your business or right. By God, in international politics you do not have the luxury of choosing your neighbours or enemies, much less to desire certain specific traits in them. You have no goddamn business even wishing or desiring that Pakistan should be an ideal democracy without any interference from the army; that it should behave like a teachers’ darling good boy in school; that it must stop exporting terror to India, and so on. You may have a mile long wish list but it is pointless. You cannot dictate how Pakistan should be.
Delusion of a neat, tame, democratic & docile Pakistan
Ajay Bisaria is entitled to his opinions. But in Dictator Next Door, he offers a ridiculously naive lament about Pakistan’s “descent” into dictatorship under Field Marshal Asim Munir. His core thesis: Pakistan is becoming an authoritarian military state and this is somehow a strategic threat and democratic affront to India. This argument collapses under scrutiny.
Since when did India get to decide Pakistan’s political configuration?
The idea that Pakistan “should” be a democracy is absurd on its face. Pakistan could be democratic, autocratic, theocratic, militarised, feudal, tribal, monarchic, or a rotating junta—that is its sovereign choice. It might be suicidal. Let them rot in the fire of hell; who cares? Pakistan might slip into irredeemable poverty or anarchy; we have neither any right nor any moral responsibility to ‘correct’ their ‘deviant’ behaviour.
Bisaria just assumes India has that ‘moral right’. That assumption reveals the core problem: You wish a ‘good Pakistan’ because you are unable to deal with ‘bad Pakistan’ as a hard geopolitical reality.
You have to deal with Pakistan as you get it
A military-dominated Pakistan is not a new thing anyway. Why such a hue and cry being made over Asim Munir? He is not the first military man to run the show in Pakistan—they have been seeing it since 1958. If Pakistan has a de facto military dictator in the form of Field Marshal Asim Munir, so be it. Under which law, you can say that he should not become so powerful. It is none of your business. Pakistan’s power structure is its own business. You cannot whine about it—it is bloody childish. Where is it written that a country must follow the political architecture preferred by its neighbour?
Pakistan may be a sponsor of terror or even graver crimes, but stop crying as to how bad Pakistan is. One of the gravest intellectual failures in these commentators is the belief that Pakistan’s actions are “misbehaviours” that India could cure by lecture, lament, or outrage. Bisaria’s article reeks of the helplessness of a diplomatic corps that prefers lamentation over leverage.
- If you have problems with Pakistan, try to resolve them through regular open or backdoor diplomatic channels.
- If they fail, you have the option of going to war.
- Destroy Pakistan by all means—I would be happy.
- Seeking to punish Pakistan for the wrongs committed upon you is as much your right as the GWOT (Global War on Terror) was USA’s right to avenge the horror of 9/11.
- These are the tools of statecraft—not moralistic lectures about “how Pakistan should ideally be”.
- But crying like a bullied kid reflects badly on you as a nation.
The Absurdity of Bisaria’s Analysis of Geopolitics
He imagines Pakistan’s consolidation is a threat to India. Why? Because a “strong Pakistan” makes him uncomfortable? That is childish. A strong or difficult adversary is a fact of geopolitics; a weak adversary is a temporary bonus. In either case, complaining is not strategy. His fear of “miscalculation” is equally juvenile. Nuclear-armed neighbours have protocols. They have backchannel lines. They have crisis-management routines. India and Pakistan have been able to avoid major escalation since Pakistan having become a nuclear power in 1998 for a reason: both establishments know exactly where the red lines lie. Bisaria is not able to understand Pakistan’s external manoeuvring. He treats Pakistan’s ties with China, the US, GCC, and Taliban as a threat to India.
Pakistan’s diplomatic jugglery would make Bismarck proud
Pakistan is simply doing what Pakistan has always done—hedging, balancing, bargaining, triangulating, juggling multiple patrons to maximise its power projection. This is classic Bismarckian multi-vector diplomacy.
The Prussian emperor Kaiser Wilhelm I had famously said of his Chancellor Prince Otto von Bismarck that he juggled with five balls, keeping two in hand and three in air. He was alluding to how Bismarck deftly ‘managed’ five great European powers (England, France, Germany (before its unification by Bismarck), Russia and Austria-Hungary). I don’t know whether the Pakistani generals have studied and learnt from Bismarck but they seem to be doing better than the venerable Bismarck.
The way they are managing two great rivals USA and China since decades is simply amazing. Throughout the Cold War era, they ‘acted’ as the South-East Asian rampart of the West on which the waves of Soviet expansion into Asia would crash and dissipate, and thwart the age-old Russian dreams of the Great Game era.
During the Soviet-Mujhaideen War, they not only handled and channelled $625 million of CIA’s covert Operation Cyclone in arms etc. to the Mujahideen but also pilfered more than 60% of it—a fact admitted by the US Congressional Research Service itself. Why, even during the USA’s 20-years war against Taliban, they pretended to provide bases and logistics support to the USA, while ensuring infiltration not only into the ranks of Taliban and hobnobbing with them—so much so that Lt. Gen. Faiz Hamid (then DG, ISI) had gone to Kabul to settle violent inter-faction disputes after the Taliban victory.
Nobody has had ever made such a fool of the US earlier—the Americans knew it all along that the Pakis were only pretending to act against the Taliban and yet could not do a thing about it.
At the same time, as the Chinese themselves admit, they are an all-weather friend of Pakistan with deep defence and economic connections. So much so that the PAF operates both American F-16s as well as the Chinese J-10C Vigorous Dragon whose PL-15 BVR missiles are a force to reckon with.
They are no longer inimical with Russia either and are very friendly with North Korea. Russia and Pakistan have conducted joint military exercises under the “Druzhba” series, with the most recent being the Druzhba-VIII exercise in September 2025. Held in Russia, the counterterrorism drill focused on areas like drone warfare, fighting in urban environments, and countering improvised explosive devices (IEDs) to enhance professional skills and strengthen military cooperation.
They pretend to be Champions of Islam in the world but reacted demurely on the destruction of the Iranian nuclear plants by the USA. They are not bothered about the Uighurs in China.
Their army chief gets invited to the White House for lunch—the tariff deals are done and they are talking of even oil exploration together. They have conferred the Nishan-e-Imtiyaz on the American general Michael Kurilla, a first, I believe.
Mohnaney’s Fantasy of a “Strategic Tilt”
According to media reports, Pakistan has secured a high-profile role in America’s critical minerals agenda. Washington’s interest in diversifying mineral supply chains away from China is real. This development signals more than just a commercial agreement: it positions Pakistan as a strategic partner for the US in resource security and supply-chain diversification away from China. During the closed-door meeting in Washington between US President Donald Trump, Pakistan’s Army Chief Field Marshal Asim Munir and Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif earlier this year, the ground was laid for an expansive minerals deal. Two months later, the US-backed company CEO Christopher Gerteisen of Nova Minerals arrived in Pakistan to formalise a memorandum of understanding (MoU) on rare earths and other strategic minerals with Himalayan Earth Exploration (HEE). Gerteisen described the venture as “certainly the most comfortable, the most exciting, the most trustworthy kind of agreement. Today, we sign an agreement. Tomorrow, we get to work.” Pakistan’s HEE and Nova have agreed to explore antimony, rare earth elements and gold while building processing and training infrastructure.
The MoU, signed in early September between Pakistan’s military-linked Frontier Works Organisation and Missouri-based US Strategic Metals (USSM), involves an initial investment of around $500 million and aims to fast-track export of minerals including antimony, copper, tungsten and rare-earth elements “immediately” while building processing plants in Pakistan.
You may recall the famous photo-op of Field Marshal Munir showing a briefcase full of minerals from Balochistan to Trump in the White House as his PM Shahbaz looked on. One Pakistani senator lambasted Munir’s role in the White House spectacle, calling it “a big, branded store – a manager watched on happily as a shopkeeper tells a customer to buy a big, glittery thing from him.” Fine, it might have made a Field Marshal look like a travelling salesman but in the end as Deng Xiaoping, the paramount leader of the People’s Republic of China from 1978 to 1989, had said, “It doesn’t matter if a cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice”.
Strategic aspects of the Balochistan deal
Moreover, there could well be a strategic reason also for inviting USA to Balochistan. Once they are there, the US would eventually send their Marines and drones too for security of their assets. They cannot afford to leave them unprotected or in the hands of the Pak army. In case of any attack, the Marines would fight the BLA for Pakistan, easing pressure on them and help stabilise the restive Balochistan.
It has been argued that if that be the case, Balochistan might turn into a zone of conflict between USA and China because China has very deep strategic interests in Balochistan due to Gawadar port and connecting CPEC, all located within and passing thru Balochistan. Fact is the Chinese are averse to deploying their forces abroad to protect CPEC. Americans are historically used to deploying forces outside. The trick is classically Bismarckian. Keep both USA and China engaged simultaneously.
Viewed in this backdrop, Mohnaney’s claim of a ‘tilt’ away from China is laughable. For their kind information, Pakistan has never been monogamous in foreign policy. Since 1947, Pakistan has:
- Taken US money
- Taken Chinese weapons
- Taken Gulf Cooperation Council remittances
- Taken IMF bailouts
- Taken Western arms
- Taken Chinese credit
- Taken American intelligence
- Taken Saudi oil
- Taken Chinese infrastructure
Pakistan does not tilt. Pakistan pirouettes. And, it does so with astonishing skill
Does Mohnaney seriously believe that:
- China will abandon CPEC?
- China will abandon Gwadar?
- China will abandon Pakistan’s military?
- China will abandon its only reliable security client in South Asia?
- China sees Pakistan as its Mediterranean outlet, its Indian Ocean foothold, its access point to West Asian energy, and its strategic wedge against India.
No way! One US commercial deal in Balochistan changes none of that.If Asim Munir offered mineral concessions to the Americans, that is leverage. That is bargaining. This is not a tilt. This is calibrated juggling. It is the classic Bismarckian art of keeping two great powers engaged simultaneously without committing to either exclusively.
Pakistan’s old multi-vector game
Pakistan managed the Cold War better than most countries. During the Cold War, Pakistan:
- Joined SEATO and CENTO
- Hosted American listening posts
- Fought the Soviet Union through Afghan proxies
- Stole massive amounts of CIA aid (documented by CRS)
- Blackmailed the US for F-16s
- Simultaneously built a nuclear program under China’s umbrella
- Maintained ties with Beijing even when Washington and Beijing were rivals
No country in Asia managed this level of double-dealing with such impunity. Pakistan has been playing a multi-vector game since before these self-styled experts even understood the term.
During the Global War on Terror, Pakistan fooled the Americans in broad daylight. For 20 years:
- Pakistan provided bases to the US
- Pakistan gave intelligence to the US
- Pakistan helped the Taliban behind the US’ back
- Pakistan sheltered Taliban leadership
- Pakistan’s ISI guided Taliban political transitions
- Pakistan extracted billions in military and economic aid
- Pakistan kept China happy throughout
- Pakistan protected its nuclear assets
- Pakistan lost nothing essential in the final settlement
No one has ever gamed the USA so successfully.
The final word
Bisaria and Mohnaney treat geopolitics like a classroom where unruly Pakistan must be scolded into good behaviour. This is strategic illiteracy. Fact is Pakistan has been extracting maximum material benefit per unit of geopolitical influence. Measured in dollars, arms, aid, debt write-offs and political concessions, Pakistan has extracted more out of its patrons than almost any country of similar size. It is not moral. It is not ethical. It is not pretty. BUT it is effective.
Pakistan’s generals have historically outmanoeuvred every major power they have dealt with.
- They fooled the Americans.
- They satisfied the Chinese.
- They placated the Saudis.
- They manipulated Afghan factions.
- They repeatedly extracted billions in aid.
- They maintained nuclear parity.
- They balanced global powers with a dexterity that few states can replicate.
As they used to say for Caesar in ancient Rome ‘Ave Caesar’ (All hail Caesar), the Pakistanis could very well say ‘All hail Munir’ for their current army chief’s brilliant diplomatic juggling.
