Pakistanis continue to delight in the relevance they think they have to the Indian, unfortunately for them, their adversary is not India but a "coalition", India, for a while, will merely be the vehicle of that coalition's will.
Mr. Abul Qaqi (Analyst) offers ""that India’s navy, which besieged Karachi port in a war some decades ago, will now get its naval tail extended. Now Gwadar port will be connected to far north of the country through two additional routes including Indus Highway giving more strategic space to Pakistan’s armed forces - however, Mr. Abdul Baqi needs to be reminded of an entire fleet headquartered in Bahrain, a fleet of a Navy of which Indian Navy is a "Strategic ally".
Interested readers owe it to themselves to read Robert B. Zoellick, former World Bank president, U.S. deputy secretary of state and U.S. trade representative's speech on the "Sun on Shoulders, Wind in Hair"thread -- I don't believe I have read a more clear and through representation of US policy and options before China - if you are in any kind of doubt, the US have made clear to China that unless her policies are altered, China can expect much difficulty -- and the US have a powerful asset in Pakistan Army, the mercenary ethic of which is something China may not be entirely clear about.
A few things I'd like to point out, if you will...
PA has moved increasingly further away from the US, so the US' so called "assets" in the PA are dwindling day by day. PA still hasn't forgotten about how the US abandoned Pakistan before, and the current relationship (as far as the PA is concerned) is only temporary until the US moves out of Afghanistan and once again abandons Pakistan to clean up the mess in Afghanistan.
There is also this misguided notion that the US navy would assist the Indian navy against Pakistan in any future conflict, as you seemed to hint at with the Bahrain comment. It's nothing more than paranoia, in my completely and utterly unprofessional opinion, so take that with a grain of salt. Regardless, I think India has seen the way the US has treated Pakistan and is wary of any relationship with the US, even in future conflicts with Pakistan. When the Indians say "strategic ally" they probably only mean against China, as China is the only country that the US has any real interest in and considers a threat.
I have always been wary of China's intentions in Pakistan, and while I am happy that they consider Pakistan to be of extreme importance, logic and history dictates that no two nations are ever really "friends" (or in this case "brothers"), they're temporary allies at best. Still, that doesn't mean that the PA will leave or downgrade China for the US, it's not stupid to repeat the same mistake over and over again, especially since Pakistan at least has some leverage against China (Gwadar port and natural resources) unlike the US. The US will naturally try and portray the Chinese to be a threat to the PA, but I doubt they'll succeed, even with heavy bribes to military officials, this is not guaranteed to work.
In the middle of all of this is Balochistan, or more specifically Gwadar port, the very reason why China even has any real interest in Pakistan in this day and age. If it wasn't for Gwadar port, the Chinese would treat Pakistan the same way the US has done for decades.
This whole idea of Pakistan army turned "mercenary" army is naive at worst and ignorant at best. It does not take into account geopolitical situations and the international situations. What was Pakistan to do? Decline and be labeled an "against us" nation? What do you think would happen, especially considering that the PA had supported the Taliban before 9/11? The US may not have gone to war with Pakistan, but they would do everything in their power to see Pakistan fragmented and broken. In the end, Pakistan had no other choice but to go to war, as it was a "damned if you do, and damned if you don't" situation. I have no doubt that the senior leadership thought out the entire consequences before deciding to join the US.
An argument could be made that the US received "payments" to fight the US' war, and while I agree that this is the US' war, the so called "payments" are don't even scratch the surface of what the war has cost Pakistan, thus this argument is entirely invalid.