IN the national security perspective on Pakistan, the country is besieged by hostile forces seeking to undermine the security apparatus and/or alter its geographic integrity altogether. On this list, the identity of external hostile forces remains largely unchanged since 1947, though the Americans tend to drop in and out depending on regional considerations.
The list of internal collaborators/ fifth columnists sees a bit more churn. At various times, it has featured communists, socialists, mainstream political parties questioning military rule, mainstream political parties demanding federalism, mainstream political parties seeking constitutional rule, a few shades of Sharia-demanding Islamists, and, of course, ethnonationalists striving for political and cultural autonomy.
While most others go in and out depending on political circumstances, and the communists/ socialists remain a figment of the distant past, ethnonationalists occupy a great deal of head and policy space for national security policymakers and thinkers (the latter term used here very broadly).
A common narration from their perspective is that ethnonationalist movements — principally the Pakhtun nationalists in KP and the Baloch nationalists in Balochistan (Bengalis in the past, and occasionally, Sindhis and Mohajirs too) — never accepted Pakistani statehood. In line with aspirations of self-determination, these groups sought independence or merger with neighbouring states from day one. This was their default position at the time of statehood, which the Pakistani state — like any other territory-protecting entity — had no option but to deal with as a security threat. In other words,........