The promotion of two interests: national and public are a driving force in the development of a nation which our rulers have failed to promote - a fact accountable for larger of our woes today. National and public interests occupy permanent positions in internal and external policy making. They serve as a paradigm catalyst in pursuit of the national and foreign policy for those in power not to compromise on the interests. They serve the highest good in any society. The pubic interests are rather more important and provide bases to former. The concept of public interests being slightly different from national interests largely deals with the internal environment; internally public and externally is national with hand and glove relationship with causal effect. To many scholars, like Donald Nuechterlein, pubic interests are more important than national interest. The concept grew out of Max Weber's observation that interests, not ideas, dominate directly the actions of men. Yet the "images of the world" created by these ideas have very often served as switches determining the tracks on which the dynamism of interests kept actions moving. In this context of our underdevelopment and instability, despite all resources we have, the larger blame to rulers not having served the two interests. The Mumbai carnage and its aftermath's where Pakistan is threatened by India under its aggressive foreign policy and instability at home is the ultimate result of the policies we adopted over the years. They have least served our national interests and made their pursuit diplomatically weak with insecurity and chaos. Pakistan emerged as a nation state in the midst of communal riots and economic difficulties but its direction was on track and could proceed towards economic and political stability. Many countries having achieved independence out of colonial struggle or emergence of war devastation were thwarted by internal and external challenges but the direction they adopted led them to stability. Pakistan, unfortunately, in large has not. And the larger credit goes to the rulers not democratically elected. In the past, we became a frontline state in the proxy war against Communism and now Terrorism. There was no public opinion either sought or considered. Had there been the continuation of the representative system established out of the 1970 elections Pakistan would not have been involved in the Afghan War during Zia's rule. The Great Game was over in favour of the allies with us pushed into instability and chaos that the later civilian governments were unable to handle. A further die had been cast by our U-turn without any choice for Musharraf himself suffering from a crisis of legitimacy. Over $10 billion package given to us in the War On Terror has made us - externally and internally - more weak than it was before. It gave rise to so many problems. NWFP and Balochistan are faced with crises of penetration without immediate solution in sight. The ratio of alienation among the people is much higher today than before. A simple question that one may ask is: have we served our national and public interests, which should come first. The writer is an academic