National policy: The mother source of national policy is the national purpose, a nation’s dream, a cherished aspiration or its ideals. The most talked about is the American dream. At home it has been Jinnah’s dream of Pakistan. An utter contortion and mutilation of Mohammad Ali Jinnah’s dream remains to be the major cause of confusion that had pervaded our past and clouds our present national narrative. It is essential that this dream is redefined and reiterated as the basis of our existence. Jinnah’s dream had, at least, no place for radicalisation in our society. The national policy in brief is a formal expression of this dream or the concept, a clear and concise statement of its short and long term objectives, domestic and external. The input can come from various sources, the think tanks, individual experts, thinkers, technocrats, important communities, institutions, political consensus and, if need be, even referendum. A part or whole of this policy is made public to take the nation on board and create strategic effects wherever intended. Most nations have their policies clearly enunciated for consumption at home and abroad. The mechanics of formulation of national policy vary from nation to nation and time to time. The prime signifier, however, is the concept that the leadership initiates in its individual or collective wisdom. Sometimes, an apparently innocuous idea races to occupy the centre stage and begins to charter the course of events, like Bhutto’s catchy slogan of “Roti, Kapra aur Makan” (Bread, clothing and shelter) and, to an extent, Imran Khan’s ‘Change’. Other policies: All other policies are formulated in the context of the national policy theme. Pakistan can boast of policies and plans that endeavour to grapple with almost all of its current problems but without a national narrative to inspire and bind these to a common purpose. That is why Pakistan looks like a rudderless ship with no clear direction or computable destination. Plans: The translation of the policies into plans is primarily a bureaucratic function. It is a hectic process requiring detailed inter-department and inter-institution coordination. Shortcuts in planning process can paralyse the most brilliant idea. The plans are a flexible instrument where priorities can be altered or switched according to prevailing circumstances. Security policy: The role of security becomes pivotal and all-pervasive in policy discourse. According to the Indian philosophy of Jayantanuja Bandyopadhyaya, “Generally talking, national interest is first on security and second on national development. Categories of security are understood as safeguarding of territorial integrity, sovereignty, life and property. Foreign policy is influenced by national development. Diplomacy includes political diplomacy, military diplomacy and economic and cultural diplomacies. Although closely related to the political aspect of diplomacy, the military aspect has tended to become increasingly specialised in contemporary international relations”. India contemplates an “innovative, proactive and forward looking strategies for responding to complex security environments to create more space for socio-economic development in the region.” American “national objectives focus on the horizon beyond the present — a world in which America is stronger, more secure and is able to overcome our challenges while appealing to the aspirations of the people around the world — to get there we must pursue a strategy of national renewal and global leadership — a strategy that rebuilds the foundation of American strength and influence.” National security policy: In the US, the Joint Chief of Staff and Commanders of the Unified Commands prepare the US military strategy. Military strategy encompasses internal and external security including the fourth and fifth generation warfare, sabotage and subversion. Providing inputs on security policy is essentially a prerogative of the security and law enforcing agencies of a country. An appropriate expression of these concerns at national level is bound to limit the space for the misguided, extremist and subversive elements in the society. Sovereignty vis-à-vis prosperity: Most independent nations consider sovereignty essential to all other national aspirations of freedom, prosperity, justice, equality and progress. With these nations sovereignty becomes the core national consideration to which all other considerations become subservient. India considers “national interest is first on security and second on national development.” Pakistan needs to clearly state its stance to negate dubious counter-narratives that spread doubt and confusion, railing against the very basic security determinants of threat perception and system of response. General pattern: Generally, countries insist on the continuation of their existing forms of government, the United States on democracy, and China on its own connotation of socialism. Pakistan has no option but to insist on democracy as its primary domestic objective. More and more nations of the world are focusing on internal and external threats to their populations from terrorism, sabotage and subversion. That entails increasing role of law enforcing and security agencies in national planning. In Pakistan this trend is going to persist well into the future. The war against terrorism and extremism will take its own time to conclude. Sri Lanka took almost 30 years to get rid of the menace. The security imperatives dominate policy paradigm of nearly all the important nations of the world including Pakistan. This trend is manifested in increased security inputs in all the national policies including foreign, trade and even sports. For example, Indian military did not allow an agreement to be reached on Siachen and Sir Creek. It was not and, therefore, not censured as ‘military interference’ in Indian foreign policy. Pakistan has to, by compulsion, cater for the needs of its military and other LEAs in formulation of all its policies at national level. To construe this compulsion as the military’s wanton interference in national affairs amounts to spreading misinformation. It can result in the loss of faith in the military or, worse still, aggravate the existing misgivings that will be detrimental to the national cause. We must clearly spell out our national policy in pursuit of Jinnah’s dream of Pakistan. It must become the direction, the course and the destiny of Pakistan. The writer is a former major general of Pakistan Army. He can be reached at askarirazamalik@gmail.com