To be frank I disagree with almost everything you wrote and have outlined my position.
Your positions largely make no sense from both a historical and/or economic perspective and it's clear you have little to no understanding of Pakistan's problems and where Pakistan needs to go from here.
A peaceful man will respect those around him and doesn't look for trouble but if assaulted will fight back while a pacifist will keep taking beatings or watch as their loved ones are assaulted without retaliating even in self defence until he dies (which could very well result in his murder). This is probably why Pacifists altered their philosophy to allow violence in self defence or the defence of loved ones because how it was originally practiced was nonsensical. Pakistan has never looked for fights we're simply defending our people and allies from aggression and our lands from occupation.
You ever hear the story about the King with four sons and upon his deathbed he calls them in and pulls out a stick and snaps it in half then hands them a bundle of sticks and asks them to break it but none of them are able to at which point he teaches them that if united they're strong like the bundle but on their own they're weak? Unity is strength and alliances are important (ex. you're advocating us joining the SCO which itself is an economic/military alliance). However, a nation needs to be careful who it aligns itself with which is the true issue at hand. In 2001 Ashley Tellis wrote a report ("South Asia: US Policy Choices" in Taking Charge A Bipartisan Report to the President-Elect on Foreign Policy and National Security — Discussion Papers) that Bush was in agreement with which essentially stated that the US should abandon Pakistan for India. The problem isn't that we're aligning ourselves with other nations the problem stems from us partnering with countries that do not have our interests at heart nor any desire to help us meet our tactical/strategic goals. Our alliances with our Muslim brothers/sisters has benefited us greatly which include both defence (ex. the Saudi's helped fund our nuclear program while the Libyans helped supply us with uranium during the initial stages of our program) and economic (ex. Tuwairqi Steel Mills, Pak-Arab Refinery, Pak-Arab Fertilizers, etc...) so abandoning those ties is ridiculous.
I agree with bolstering ties with China and Brazil as well as the possibility of increasing ties with Russia but definitely not India as long as they are killing our people in Kashmir and occupying Pakistani territory which is why it's probably the only country under threat of aggression from Pakistan with the possible exception of forces in Afghanistan if they continue to act in the current manner.
I don't understand how being pro-business and pro-trade has anything to do with our stance towards India and Afghanistan (ex. the US is the most industrialized nation on the planet with an economy larger than any other nations and it doesn't trade with Iran or N. Korea has gone to war with one and is signalling it's willingness to go to war with the other). Furthermore, we're not interested in being pro-business we're interested in being pro-Pakistani. What's good for a particular business is not necessarily good for Pakistani's in general (ex. it would be better on paper for a business not to have to pay taxes or severance, not to have to cover medical/dental or retirement benefits not to mention companies may be able to benefit by discriminating against employees of a particular ethnic, religious, socio-economic background but that does not mean it's better for the country as a whole or it's citizens in general).
'Quit Afghanistan | Strategic depth is dead'
One of the most fundamental strategies of war, also described in Sun Tzu's "Art of War", is the idea of flanking an enemy force which also emphasizes the importance of you avoiding being flanked at all costs. This is one of the major reasons we fought the USSR but do you honestly think that the USSR was our only threat? India was their close ally and just like them they're trying to position themselves in Afghanistan to attack us through alliances with political/militant forces that hate the very idea of Pakistan (ex. these same forces refused to recognize Pakistan back in 1945 and still refuse to recognize our border with them).
Strategic depth in the traditional sense hasn't existed since our acquisition of nuclear capabilities in the late 90s and our latest acquisition of tactical nuclear warheads. However, it is clear that we cannot allow Afghanistan to be used to attack Pakistan whether it be a domestic or foreign outfit operating out of their country.
2: 'Referendum in Azad Kashmir'
That is what the UN proposed to both Azad Kashmir and those parts of Kashmir occupied by India. While we've always been in agreement with this resolution (Security Council Resolution 47) the Indians have continually refused to allow any such referendum to take place.
As of today if a referendum was held in Azad Kashmir the majority will opt to stay with Pakistan (as per independent public opinion polls confirming the majority support Pakistan). I remember once reading that half of Punjab alone had Kashmiri ancestry which is because Kashmiri's like other Pakistanis are ethnically the same (i.e. our ancestry originates from within Pakistan - Mehgargh) and distinct from India. Marriages regularly occur between residents from Kashmir and the rest of Pakistan (ex. My grandmother from my dad's side and great grandmother from my mom's side are both Kashmiri). They are committed to Pakistan which is evidenced by their representation within the armed forces (i.e. they represent about 2.75% of Pakistans total population but make up more than 9% of the PAK army). I don't know if you've been to the UK but it has the largest collection of Kashmiri's (particularly from Mirpur) outside of Kashmir/Pakistan and they are as, if not more, nationalistic about Pakistan than I am. The outcome of an independent Kashmir will always be it's eventual merger with Pakistan since we're the same people which is why India is so vehemently against the idea.
There is no solution to the Kashmir issue other than war. These are our people by blood and culture (including religion) and Kashmir is our ancestral land (like the rest of Pakistan) it is imperative that we throw away these misconceived ideas of peace with an enemy who occupies our territory and kills our people.
3: Isolation from Arab-Iran rivalry.
We've never been involved in their rivalry to begin with and I have no idea where you got this idea. Furthermore, there is no such rivalry (Iran has reached out to a variety of Arab groups to foster partnerships and vice versa including most recently the Muslim Brotherhood before they were deposed in a coup). What you have are "political" forces vying for regional hegemony. Iran exemplifies a lot of things that the GCC does not (ex. piety, independence, pride and strength) and various parties within the GCC are threatened by Iran's appeal both at home and regionally but at the same time Iran makes some crucial foreign policy errors (ex. not concentrating on developing partnerships - both economic and military - with those nations that have the highest approval ratings of it).
Your suggestion for not deploying Pakistani soldiers outside of Pakistan are both impractical and illogical. There are times when we're going to need to deploy our military in order to protect our interests (whether it's to eliminate a threat, protect an ally or defend the holy cities of Mecca and Medina). The US has deployed soldiers for this reason as have virtually all of NATO, China (ex. Vietnam and Korea), Pakistan (in Afghanistan during the Afghan-USSR war), etc... because at the end of the day sitting around and hoping for things to go in your favor isn't going to work.
"...Verily never will Allah change the condition of a people until they change it themselves..." (Surah 13:11)
I agree with your idea of our armed forces not being auctioned off as a mercenary force. However, they've never been used in such a manner since the military operates based on the strategic directives of the COAS, other Generals and the government (particularly the PM/President). However, whether the objectives warranted troop deployments can be up for discussion.
Not possible especially considering Israel had planned to bomb our Kahuta research lab back in the 80s to curtail our ability to acquire a nuclear deterrent.
I really hate the "well Arabs aren't helping us free Kashmir from occupation so we should recognize Israel" argument. What does it matter to us whether they help or not? If Jinnah didn't bother to recognize their occupation and treatment of Palestinians why should we now? The simple question is whether we agree with Israel's slaughter of Muslims, occupation of Palestinian territory and continued apartheid like policies. Recognition of the Israeli claims to occupied lands is tantamount to recognizing India's claims to occupied Kashmir (which ethnically/historically they have none since Kashmir is Pakistan).
You think Pakistan is going to be afforded any favors for recognizing Israel? China not only armed Viet Cong and N. Korean troops but also stationed troops inside their respective countries during their wars with the US yet today China is one of the US' largest trading partners. Israel doesn't control US or European economic policies and the sheer fact that if military confrontation doesn't affect trade they're lobbying (which we can counter with our own lobbyists) isn't going to either. If you offer a product at a price cheaper than your competition of equal or better quality you'll get the business. What Pakistan needs is a resolution to it's energy crisis (true cause of Pakistan's current economic problems as it robs the country of 3 to 4% GDP growth a year meaning once it's resolved we'll go back to growing at 7+% a year) as well as both various economic/social reforms to not only make the country more competitive but quell social disorder, improve health/sanitation (poor sanitation is calculated to rob the country of another 4% of GDP growth a year), eliminate corruption, etc...
I agree with this move but you do understand that the SCO is both an economic and military alliance? This goes against your policy of advocating "non-alliance" which I've already covered in my initial response on point 10 (Pacifist Pakistan).
6: Build and maintain a Military muscle
Couldn't agree with you more. When the energy crisis is resolved I would like the military budget increased at the very least by another 1% of GDP to meet Pakistan's current security challenges.
However, your idea of keeping it small so it can't attack other countries is completely idiotic. If another country decides to invade us we not only need to defend our territory but we must be able to take the fight to our enemy (otherwise you have a situation like in Iraq, Libya or Syria where they're invaded, attacked or opposition groups are being armed by foreign nations but they can't retaliate against the aggressor since they do not have the capacity to do so).
Our army needs to be able to take on all threats of all sizes from small groups to the largest nations anywhere on the planet.
7: Apologise to Bangladesh
Why should we apologize when we did nothing wrong?
Our troops were stationed in Bangladesh, attacked and they fought back. Bangladesh was a part of Pakistan yet members of that country attacked us and our allies within Bangladesh (which they continue to do so today under Sheikh Hasina's government). The turn of events were unfortunate but our troops had to defend themselves. A lot of these stories surrounding the events and casualties in the '71 war are fabricated based lies (read "Dead Reckoning: Memories of the 1971 Bangladesh War" by Sarmila Bose) by those parties that want to see inflamed tensions between Pakistani's and Bengalis.
What we need to be doing is supporting those groups in Bangladesh that want good relations with Pakistan and see us as brothers/sisters in faith instead of this idiocy of trying to be the nice guy to everyone.
If Bangladesh wants better economic relations great but if it comes at a cost of disgracing the men/women in uniform who died there then no thanks.
9: Become business minded
No offense but you sound like a prostitute who'll do anything for money. I have already outlined that what's good for a particular business/businesses isn't necessarily good for Pakistan and Pakistanis in terms of standard of living (Point 10 - Pacifist Pakistan).
Business wise Pakistan has done well our problem as of right now is the energy crisis (which robs the country of 3 to 4% GDP growth every year) but there are other issues that also need to be addressed (ex. lack of proper sanitation costs Pakistan almost 4% GDP growth every year). Militancy (which is partly the byproduct of Indian support for groups attacking Pakistan but also partly the result of successive governments that has never addressed any of the concerns of the people nor implemented their will) has little to do with Pakistan's economic problems other than scaring away some FDI but it can easily be resolved through increased military expenditures which will come with both tax reforms and increased tax revenues from a growing economy once the energy crisis is resolved and a government that is responsive to the demands of the people (ex. implementation of Sharia, ending our involvement in the "war on terror", etc...).
There are two reasons why the Western world is ahead of the rest of the world technologically and economically. First, the Western world does invest in R&D which takes them forward but more importantly they have kept everyone else back (through colonialism, slavery, war and sabotage - ex. Overthrow of Mosaddegh in Iran and now the overthrow of Morsi in Egypt and replacing them with puppets who follow their foreign masters and have no real qualification or incentive to lead and do more for their peoples instead it just results in civil unrest which takes away money from education or R&D and puts it into providing policing). To give you an example of how they screwed us lets look at Pakistan and India which under colonization had their GDP (PPP) per capita grow by a measily 60% in 115 years but after colonization our GDP (PPP) per capita grew 300% in 33 years. The same goes for Africa whose economies all grew much faster after the end of colonialism than during it (which was confirmed in the 1996 paper "Did Colonization Matter for Growth" by Prof. Graziella Bertocchi and Prof. Fabio Canova of the Universities of Modena and Pompeu Fabra respectively) and the effect of colonialism was termed as largely "negative" but that success was sabotaged after many of it's countries went on a borrowing spree thanks to the advice the World Bank and IMF (made and controlled by individuals from secularist nations) gave it in the 70s and 80s. The west grew on our backs and blood but out of sheer arrogance they completely ignore their history then not only lambast us (even when they're the ones starting the wars) but try to give us advice which is totally different from what made them wealthy.
You're going by rhetoric from various Western nations which have been largely lies and as of today are advising nations to do the exact opposite of what made them wealthy.
