Countries are like individuals. It is no easier for a country to change its course than for an individual to change his behaviour. This is how a dictatorship is usually replaced by another and democracy does not flourish unless ground has been prepared for it.

It does happen sometimes that at a moment of crisis a person has an epiphany with the capacity to break with the past. The also happens to nations in unusual times. It doesn't happen always, because most revolutions only engender chaos.

Pakistan faces such a crisis. Of the five main sectors of economic activity -- agriculture, manufacturing, technology, services, and tourism -- only agriculture is doing reasonably well, and even here the productivity has fallen behind that of the farmers in the Indian Punjab. Manufacturing, what there is of it, is geared for the domestic market and its quality is not good enough for export. There is no advanced technology to speak of and higher education and research is non-existent. The nation produces no doctorates in science, technology and social sciences!

With the continuing violence against foreigners and the jihadi passions running high, there is no chance that foreign capital necessary to improve agricultural productivity or to establish a successful information technology sector will arrive. For the same reasons, tourism will remain dormant.

This did not matter too much so long as India, in comparison with which Pakistan wishes to define itself, remained stagnant. But the Indian economy has taken off in the last decade. India has become a world powerhouse in software and biotechnology, with success in agriculture and manufacturing also. It is now the world's fourth largest economy, after the US, China, and Japan. If it maintains its current growth, it will overtake Japan in a decade.

Expatriate Indians are one of the most successful groups in the world and they are increasingly investing in India. The disparity between the economic and political strength of India and Pakistan has geostrategic implications that question the basis of the Pakistani national self-image.

But even if the race with India did not exist, the issue of what is it that Pakistanis should look forward to remains. Its economy is lagging behind all other Asian countries. What is a young Pakistani to dream of in the current circumstances?

For too long the military has been guided by a simplistic vision of conquest, articulated in the phraseology of “strategic depth” in Afghanistan and “solution” to the Kashmir problem. But the idea of conquest is out of tune with the ways of modern times. Empires are expensive to maintain, which is why powerful nations exercise control in indirect ways, to receive benefits of hegemony without the responsibility of administration.

Pakistani generals are stuck in the 19th century chapters of British history for their lessons. Granted their vision of the imminent collapse of India has the virtue of force and clarity, but that does not make it right or realistic. Conquest made sense when the riches of a nation could be physically removed as was done by the European colonial powers during the heyday of the empire. Under the glare of the media in the postmodern global village, this is hardly possible. Suppose Pakistan had Afghanistan as well as Kashmir, would that change its economic outlook? With or without its dreamed of possessions, Pakistan is the Sick Man of Asia.

Having met a few Pakistani generals in various social and business situations, I can say that they are intelligent and rational. But the military leaders have time and again exhibited an astonishing incapacity to think through their decisions.

In its dealings with India, Pakistan has followed the 1947 model of using surrogates to attack and probe, to maintain deniability. Perhaps it has done so because the 1947 intervention was successful, giving it possession of one-third of the province. But to repeat this in Kashmir in 1965 and again from 1990 onwards, in Mumbai in 1993 (through the mafia surrogates), and in Kargil in 1999, without care for long-term costs to the fabric of its own society has been highly irresponsible and immoral.

The recruitment of jihadis and crime syndicates to serve its foreign policy agenda has come at great cost. These groups are now an uncontrollable force within the country with disastrous implications for its economic well-being. Pakistan has become the epicentre of terror throughout the world.

Some would argue that Pakistan's moment of truth has already passed and the situation cannot be saved. A few billion dollars from the West can hardly change the flow of events. At best it would help the military with some hardware, with most of it quickly finding its way into the generals' bank-accounts in the West; also each billion dollar of aid amounts to barely six dollars per person. The talk and wait for aid only confounds the crisis.

A leading Pakistani journalist I know theorizes that the Pakistani problem arises out of a desire to obtain respect from the Mother Country. But nationhood cannot be predicated on such emotion. A successful state is built neither on sympathy nor respect, but a will to succeed, to be the best at something. It is not even enough to try to catch up, because then one would forever be behind.

Pakistani military leadership has behaved like a tantruming child, repeating the refrain: Give me Kashmir! To wake a child up from a tantrum sometimes requires a slap on the head.

If Pakistan is not able to get on track, other powers may be compelled to step in. This is the moment Pakistan needs a sagacious and strong leader. I don't think Musharraf is the man, given the errors of his past ways and how he is still betting on both sides in the War on Terror. He has great flaws of character, he lies by habit (as in Kargil or the Daniel Pearl murder), and his policy of pushing the jihadis into Kashmir make his hands blood-stained.

Would a democratic Pakistan be able to cope with the crisis? Not if the military continues to call the shots, as it did in the 90s. Pakistan needs to make a break with the old ways. It must focus on education and excellence. It needs to shed its militaristic attitude. If nothing is done, violent internal upheaval seems most likely.