A floundering ship and no way of abandoning it. Even rats have a choice which they exercise when they smell danger. Between a creaking ship and an ocean of confusion what choice do the bewildered people of Pakistan have?

Strange destiny: a country which should have everything going for it reduced to desperation by a succession of rulers it has pleased the Almighty to place over it. The list of heroes bears repeating. Zia: what did we do to deserve him? Ishaq and General Beg, with the Queen of Destiny dancing to their tune: surely penance for undisclosed sins. As if all this was not enough, then Nawaz Sharif, his intellect more than his person an apt commentary on the Republic's affairs. Then another spot of Benazir, followed once more by the Wonder of Raiwind.

We call this the era of democracy. It would be far more accurate to call it the era of ISI democracy: democracy corrupted by its own masters (and mistresses) and also mangled and made a mockery of by the military and intelligence establishment-- an establishment too big, its presence too overweening and its influence on government too suffocating for democracy to have much of a chance of surviving.

True, a slightly better cast of characters could have helped liberate democracy and pull it out of the shadows. But with destiny decreeing that the flag-bearers of democracy should be Benazir and Nawaz Sharif (for which also read Asif Ali Zardari and Mian Muhammad Sharif) that hope was still-born.

Past bitterness is alleviated by present happiness. But what is our present? A collection of Great Pilots on the deck with no idea of where they are going. Anyone not blind or congenitally stupid can see that the ship they are trying to steer is leaking and the waves rising above the deck. But the Great Pilots at the helm are plowing on regardless - convinced no doubt that provided they stay long enough they will see themselves through the storm.

In 12 months, military rule has been analysed to death. The last conceivable parallel with previous bouts of military rule has been drawn and the conclusions painstakingly enumerated. By every known and unknown pundit in the land the last word has been uttered, for the most part portentously. But the Pilots on board ship remain unmoved, not a whit deterred in their judgment that the course they have charted - if the prevailing confusion can be so dignified - is for the best.In 1971 we at least had the consolation of sleep-walking - walking to the edge and inviting disaster without knowing what we were doing. No such comfort is afforded us this time. With euphoria vanishing and cynicism setting in once again, the scales have fallen from most eyes (although, admittedly, some die-hard pockets of optimism remain). But of what use is this self-awareness if it leads to no corrective action? If the nation cannot take its destiny into its hands, of what use the enlightenment of the Buddha?

This is our problem: an incubus on the nation's back which the nation cannot throw of. The incubus is too powerful, the democratic current too weak and flickering. On whose shoulders should the hope of resistance rest? Benazir, Kulsoom Nawaz, the Chaudries Shujaat and Pervez, Mian Azhar, Ajmal Khattak, Imran Khan, His Holiness Tahirul Qadri? This list, which can be expanded, is enough to induce depression. This is what we have brought ourselves to: a nation not without intelligence and talent reduced to the level of such unrelieved buffoons.

What to talk of fighting for democracy, all our heroes have been willing at one time or another during the last 12 months to cut a deal with the military government. It is another matter that the government has lacked the sense to appreciate the advantages of civilian support, convinced as it is that it has the answer to every question. The government has also not been impressed by the efforts to bring about its demise, or its transformation into something civilian, through punditry and analysis. Death by analysis, the forte of the national press, has had no impact, unless the guillotining of Javed Jabbar be counted as such.

The impasse we face is thus complete. The army is no answer to the nation's political problems - never has been, never will be. Yet the army is not budging from the political arena, and the nation's politicians are proving singularly incompetent at presenting alternatives or marshalling resistance. The most serious opposition the military government faces is accordingly from the irresistible sources of its own ineptitude. But it will be some time before this factor plays itself out. Until then say a prayer for the nation's vibrancy, or what remains of it, because it is being worn down by a combination of military shortsightedness and political bankruptcy.

It helps to keep things in perspective by remembering that what the British gave India through the Minto-Morley proposals of 1909 seems revolutionary compared to what the military government at this stage is prepared to give the people of Pakistan. The Minto-Morley reforms were a step, albeit a small one, towards eventual self-government. Which means that in 1909 and even much before that the British accepted the principle of self-government for the people of India. As time passed this principle was articulated more clearly and robustly. Yet consider our luck that in the year 2000 our military rulers are saying that local democracy, in its scope more limited than the Minto-Morley proposals, is the best form of democracy.

The British never confused the principle of democracy with the requirements of empire. Yet in our case every military ruler who comes (from Ayub till today) begins by inventing a new concept of democracy. After Ziaul Haq what did we get? The ISI and Hamid Gul brand of democracy. What will we get after Musharraf? Probably a form of democracy hobbled with so many conditions and safeguards - national security council, a permanent political role for the military and such-like shibboleths - that it will hardly be able to stand upright. And then the military will say that politicians are no good.

Tailpiece 1: If the above be abstract issues, consider the concrete issues with which the government is grappling. Meeting on October 18, the federal cabinet took serious notice of the "anti-Pakistan" utterances of such political figures as Altaf Hussain, Attaullah Mengal, Mahmood Achakzai, etc, and vowed to take stern action against them. The people of Pakistan have grown up. When will the Pakistani establishment grow up? 'Anti-state elements' and 'anti-Pakistan utterances' are the oldest chestnuts in the national security repertoire of Pakistan. Anyone speaking against the centralizing tendencies of the state has been dubbed an enemy agent or an anti-state element. We should have learned to discard this jargon after East Pakistan. But here we are at it again, revealing our immaturity and the grave sense of insecurity which still besets us.

Is Pakistan such a fragile vessel that it will break because of a few speeches? The UK is not the weaker for talk of Scottish or Welsh independence. There are people in Canada who preach independence for Quebec, enthusiasts in the US who still wave the Confederate flag. Why do we get so scared if someone raises the banner of Sindhi or Baloch rights? This is all part of the political process and should be dealt with in a rational manner, deploying argument against argument and not the 'anti-state' stock-in-trade of the national security establishment.

Tailpiece 2: A still more serious threat to national security: a farewell party held in New Delhi by one of our departing diplomats, a Ms Tasnim Aslam, who is reputed, according to a newspaper in the forefront of guarding our national ideology, to have sung on the occasion a classical song, which is bad enough. She made matters worse by singing a duet with her Indian ustad. But, worst of all, she served liquor to her guests (who, take it from a sinner, would not have been amused if they had been served with anything else). The reporter who filed this report has said that all this has seriously tarnished the country's image. A senior columnist, who has surprised me by taking up this issue, has termed this a serious matter calling for an investigation.

Pakistan is a vulnerable country indeed, its security imperilled by mere speeches and its image tarnished by the serving of liquor in a foreign land - assuming, of course, that the diplomat in question had the taste and good sense to serve something suitable to her non-Muslim guests.

Constitutions we can abrogate, prime ministers hang, defeats suffer, half the country lose and win no medals in any games but the smell of liquor, even if offered to pagan guests (who will roast in hell in any case), we cannot abide. No one can say we don't have our priorities right.