Kasrkin
RETIRED MOD
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2008
- Messages
- 1,471
- Reaction score
- 0
The Darker Face of the Western Front Critics
Today Pakistan is at war on its north-western front. This has been a reality for the past seven or so years and the people and servants of Pakistan have suffered greatly, more so in fact than in any of the wars with its arch-rival India. The reason for this is that the war is being fought entirely on sovereign Pakistani territory; its mountains, its jungles, its villages and even its cities.
The domestic enemies of the Pakistani state are formidable and fighting them is tough, that much is without doubt. Surprisingly though, the fact that there is a genuine enemy is still disputed in the minds of the Pakistani people. The realities and compulsions of war have yet to sink in with the overwhelming majority of Pakistan’s population. Footages of heavily armed zealot militants infesting Pakistan’s territories and dominating entire districts have had little impact on the minds of citizens largely insulated from the actions of these men of extreme inclinations. Neither have scenes of sadistically emotional civilian funerals or solemn military burials invoked an emotional reaction in those who feel that their nation is confronted with a challenge that does not require the conventional concepts of courage or sacrifice to surmount. Instead it is supposed that compromise and appeasement with Pakistan’s enemies, who’re operating within Pakistan, is the only way to save the nation.
The reasons behind this disconcerting and dangerous trend are varied and complex. The leaders of the Pakistani ‘opposition’, particularly those who reside out of parliament, are manifestations as well as causes for these deeply flawed but popular notions that prevent Pakistan and Pakistanis from fully mobilizing and suffocating the rebels militarily, politically and socially. These politicians have been able to draw upon a vast reservoir of anti-American feeling and channeled it into an almost irrational discontent for all action that might be deemed conducive to American interests (the fact that its conducive to Pakistan’s interest is subconsciously seconded to stalling American interests). The rhetoric of these groups though is cleverly defined and sold as humanitarian or pacifist with a mix of Islamic ideals and lately (since it was convenient to all anti-government parties at the time) a near fanatical obsession with ideals of judicial supremacy. These notions may seem mild, even productive from the onset but there are many inherit contradictions in this line of thought as well as in the actions of those to purport to represent it. For Pakistan this has had a crippling effect on national resolve and a corrosive impact on its national security.
Suicide bombing have become a common happening in Pakistan and have been the single largest cause of loss of life in the war. Given the inevitable fact that the majority of the victims are innocent bystanders, wholehearted and unreserved condemnation of these acts and those who’re responsible for them should be forthcoming from those parties claiming to represent national interests and a moral integrity. The reactions of the anti-military politicians though often fail to condemn the act and those responsible, instead the bombings are openly rationalized, even justified as a ‘natural and human’ reaction to the actions of the Pakistan Army and from there on an endless barrage of unqualified criticism that usually boils down to ‘army killing own people – for dollars and on orders of America’ and that the people of Pakistan are ‘paying for the governments slavery’ etc.
Figures like Imran Khan and Qazi Hussain are regularly seen on TV vilifying and demonizing the armed forces and yet they are utterly disinclined to even draw a line in their criticism and have the courage to inform the public that no matter what ‘justifications’ the terrorists use (which are similar to what they themselves use) violence against the state and its institutions can not be justified. Imran Khan in fact has gone as far as to proclaim his willingness to join with the insurrectionists tribal warlords in Baluchistan had he been Baluch. Thus instead of discouraging ethnic violence he seems to be stroking, legitimizing and projecting the dubious moral arguments the terrorists rely on to conceal their selfish and chaotic intentions and justify their unjustifiable methods. It is ofcourse one thing to empathize with misguided and backward members of the population and to criticize and caution the armed forces on specific methods and actions, but to essentially become an enabling and legitimizing political influence for criminal and anti-national elements, providing a step-by step smokescreen of justification and ideological facilitation of militant advances and operations all the while whole-heartedly and unreservedly condemning each and every military attempt to contain or confront them is beyond simple cultural prudency or moral impartiality.
What is more, Imran Khan has been venomously critical, and rightly so, of the militantly ethnic and once anti-national MQM party based in Karachi. And yet the same ideals of non-violence and ethnic compromise and facilitation apparently do not apply to his views of tribal secessionists in Baluchistan who’ve taken upon themselves to cleanse all non-Baluchs from ‘their’ lands and who’s ethnically fueled, indiscriminate violence in and around Quetta presently surpasses that of the now tamed MQM in Karachi. Reports indicate that much of the rebellion in the north-west is also ethnically motivated, most of the tribal-taliban fighters affiliate their struggle against the government with the defense of Paktun culture and identity (which they also, inaccurately, affiliate with Islam) and the notion of ‘Greater Paktunistan’ present there is considered a real and dangerous threat by the Pakistan Army to the multi-ethnic federation.
The autonomous tribes of FATA have always had dubious loyalties; their deeply traditionalist and militant doctrines meant that it was the threat of military reprisals and not respect for fellow Pakistanis (none of whom are welcome in ‘their’ territory anyway) or for Pakistani laws (don’t apply to them) that prevented spasms of larger conquests and infighting at the expense of the unarmed Pakistani population. The status quo, and the uneasy peace, finally crumbled after the infiltration by al-Qaeda of the already despotic tribal groups and now the region is more unstable than ever with parts of the heavily armed tribal population on rampage. Hundreds of pro-Pakistani tribal elders have been assassinated and thousands of paramilitary soldiers killed, but Imran Khan has been persistently and staunchly anti-government in all this, calling the Pakistan Army’s attempts to seal the border with Afghanistan and defend itself and other citizens a ‘gross violation’ of the age old agreement binding the tribes to Pakistan. The mayhem caused by tribal elements and the fact that many of them were/are harboring and being lead by international terrorists has been over looked. This by the same Imran Khan who makes a show of accusing the British government of harboring the ‘terrorist’ MQM leader and who has labeled the MQM ‘fascists’ for their militant onslaughts against the central government in the 80s. Khan also actively campaigned for a clamp down against them for their involvement in the May 12 violence in Karachi. The May 12 events, while utterly condemnable, barely caused a small fraction of the loss of life inflicted by militants in NWFP and Baluchistan but Imran Khan apparently remains unaware of all this inherit hypocrisy.
The failure to up hold the ideals of non-violence and racial acceptance by elements in FATA and Baluchistan has not invoked the ire of parties like the TeI and JI, instead they’ve spent their considerable influence and airtime being little more than political enablers and apologists for these destructive elements. Again one is struck by the contrast within the Jamat-e-Islami agenda, where once the JI itself participated with a fanatical zeal in military operations against Bengali secessionists in what would turn out to be the bloodiest of the campaign to crush that threat to the federation, now the same organization doesn’t even offer mild censure to the rebels operating off Baluchistan and NWFP. This disparity can only be explained by the opportunistic and self-serving nature of the parties involved. Both the TeI and the JI have played the bloody-handed-Pakistani-loyalists when it suited them and now they play the Pakistan-is-a-suppressive-state card since it’s electorally convenient. We can go further and suggest that Imran Khan and Qazi Hussain are not so different from the MQM and Muktai Bahami after all when it comes to their inability to selflessly respect and defend Pakistan’s physical and ideological integrity above the more primitive tendencies of convenient self-service. Both are, subconsciously perhaps, reverting back to their primitive inclinations of ethnic preference given that Imran Khan is a proud Paktun and the JI’s mid-level leadership has a prominence of Paktun and Baluch elements (while their sister parties in MMA consists almost entirely of such).
Ideologically, the terrorist’s use of Islam as a justification and American involvement in the region has robbed these politicians and their few supporters of the ability to impartially evaluate the morality of situation or of those involved. Their stands are inconsistent, confused and crude with only one thing in common: projecting hopelessness, dissatisfaction and resentment. Qazi Hussain, for instance, when confronted by journalists over the fact that terrorists have repeatedly been found with connections to his organization, or over his failure to condemn any of the particularly hideous crimes they’ve committed, his reaction is that the militants are stooges of the Pakistani military, being used in an elaborate subterfuge to hoodwink the west into providing aid to Pakistan in exchange for the blood of the ‘Pakistani people’ being spilt by the Pakistan Army. Thus according to him, whatever crimes the militants commit, the Pakistani Army is behind it. On the other hand, when questioned on his views of the Taliban insurrection in general, the Qazi refers to the Taliban as representing the ‘genuine resentments and aspirations of their people’ and that to confront them would be ‘militaristic and suppressive’ and again the army is penalized when trying to act. Shocking as this ridiculous contradiction may be, it is not an exaggeration and it exposes Qazi’s unreasoning desire to malign the armed forces even if it means contradicting himself. It is not without reason that so many Pakistanis are disillusioned and frustrated in general, and with their reign in particular which saw a rise of the Taliban and governmental paralysis. After their electoral dismissal and the election of the impulsive and undisciplined, but less pro-Taliban, ANP government their attitude and hostility remained unchanged as can been seen by their attempt to stall a consensus reached in the recent all party conference under the threat of withdrawal. The contention was over a paragraph simply commending the armed forces and their sacrifices which the Prime Minister was then forced to cut out of the resolution. This was an insight into their pitifully contemptuous attitudes towards Pakistan’s servants who’re sacrificing themselves for this country’s interests and don’t deserve this scorn. Soon after the conference, which was widely hoped would generate some much needed consensus, the JI and the TeI were back to distancing themselves from the post-peace deal operation in Swat and saying that it was being conducted in order to get ‘dollars from the US’.
How damaging Imran Khan’s rants about the Pakistani Army ‘killing Pakistanis for American dollars’ in this ideological war are, most people don’t realize. It is a dangerous untruth the terrorists themselves use to justify their violence and beheadings of Pakistani servicemen. The terrorists have had great success explaining away all their crimes against fellow Muslims and fellow Pakistanis as action against ‘west’s slaves’ who ‘cannot be considered real Muslims’. Imran Khan’s extensive personal links with the west apparently do not irk his conscious when he refers to Pakistan’s partnership in the western-lead War on Terror as a moral outrage. Or when he insists that the US and UK are immoral and imperialists powers that cannot be trusted. Where close diplomatic or military ties with America are deemed ‘slavery’ or ‘servitude’ in his view, apparently that standard doesn’t apply to his own indulgences there.
One particular operation that Imran Khan and his supporters attributed to American ‘orders’ was the one launched in the aftermath of the collapse of the Swat peace deal, which Imran Khan himself had to acknowledge the militants were not respecting. The militants had used the peace deal to not only advance into other districts, but to openly renounce Pakistan’s democracy, Pakistan’s constitution, Pakistan’s judiciary and Pakistan’s laws. Imran Khan and Qazi Hussain, who will be long remembered for their raging protests against President Musharraf when he suspended the constitution for a few weeks, could not have had a more indifferent reaction. Imran Khan’s utopian ideals of the ‘supremacy of judiciary’ and ‘sacredness of democracy’, which had previously caused him to call for violent protests, civil disobedience, long marches, smear campaigns and what not, were nowhere to be seen when needed most and criminals were trying to take a chuck of our country for themselves. Apparently, the amount of empathy and tolerance extended to these school burning and body mutilating degenerates could not have been given to the country’s hard pressed president and decorated general who was desperately trying to save his country from the clutches of terrorism. There is nothing wrong with high headed ideals and expectations, but they become destructive when used selectively, because that’s when they stop being ‘ideals’ and become hypocritical antics of shameless and hungry opportunists. Had politicians like Imran Khan spent their considerable energies trying to oppose and isolate terrorist elements instead of trying to harness and ride the waves of resentment they create, then the so called ‘inhumane’ operations we’re seeing today might not have been necessary.
The Jamat-e-Islami’s blatant hypocrisy has not been checked with the appointment of their new Ameer. Recently, as the Taliban’s brutal murder of a renowned anti-militant cleric provoked much outrage against their cause, the JI as usual tried to deflect the anger onto the government by accusing them of being callous and irresponsible in regards to the cleric's security. It is not in the armed forces mandate or ability to protect Pakistan’s large and diverse clergy from these unstoppable suicide bombings, what they can do is go after the bomb makers and recruiters in Swat and Waziristan, which is something the JI and their allies whole heartedly condemn and rage against. Thus technically shouldn’t the responsibility for all these bombings and the continuation of terrorists activities lie with the JI who’ve long managed to keep public opinion against the army? Shouldn’t they at least have the decency to keep quiet and refrain from shamelessly salvaging the situation when their rhetoric backfires? Why did it take Pakistanis so long to see through this nonsense?
The dark truth is that Imran Khan’s and Qazi Hussain’s views, like so many others in Pakistan, are influenced by factors of ethnic preference. Perhaps subconsciously so, as they cater to their ethnic base and play on their stereotypes by politically posturing themselves to harness and encourage resentment generated by the government’s, at times crude, handling of the political and public relations in his home communities. The contradictions within their supposed political and social values are too stark to ignore or explain away. While claiming to be proponents of ethnic harmony and the federation, their sympathies lie with very anti-federal and ethnic/sectarian causes indicating opportunist politicians desperately seeking to remedy their lack of electoral success by indulging in undisciplined, flaming and often contradictory rhetoric.
Today Pakistan is at war on its north-western front. This has been a reality for the past seven or so years and the people and servants of Pakistan have suffered greatly, more so in fact than in any of the wars with its arch-rival India. The reason for this is that the war is being fought entirely on sovereign Pakistani territory; its mountains, its jungles, its villages and even its cities.
The domestic enemies of the Pakistani state are formidable and fighting them is tough, that much is without doubt. Surprisingly though, the fact that there is a genuine enemy is still disputed in the minds of the Pakistani people. The realities and compulsions of war have yet to sink in with the overwhelming majority of Pakistan’s population. Footages of heavily armed zealot militants infesting Pakistan’s territories and dominating entire districts have had little impact on the minds of citizens largely insulated from the actions of these men of extreme inclinations. Neither have scenes of sadistically emotional civilian funerals or solemn military burials invoked an emotional reaction in those who feel that their nation is confronted with a challenge that does not require the conventional concepts of courage or sacrifice to surmount. Instead it is supposed that compromise and appeasement with Pakistan’s enemies, who’re operating within Pakistan, is the only way to save the nation.
The reasons behind this disconcerting and dangerous trend are varied and complex. The leaders of the Pakistani ‘opposition’, particularly those who reside out of parliament, are manifestations as well as causes for these deeply flawed but popular notions that prevent Pakistan and Pakistanis from fully mobilizing and suffocating the rebels militarily, politically and socially. These politicians have been able to draw upon a vast reservoir of anti-American feeling and channeled it into an almost irrational discontent for all action that might be deemed conducive to American interests (the fact that its conducive to Pakistan’s interest is subconsciously seconded to stalling American interests). The rhetoric of these groups though is cleverly defined and sold as humanitarian or pacifist with a mix of Islamic ideals and lately (since it was convenient to all anti-government parties at the time) a near fanatical obsession with ideals of judicial supremacy. These notions may seem mild, even productive from the onset but there are many inherit contradictions in this line of thought as well as in the actions of those to purport to represent it. For Pakistan this has had a crippling effect on national resolve and a corrosive impact on its national security.
Suicide bombing have become a common happening in Pakistan and have been the single largest cause of loss of life in the war. Given the inevitable fact that the majority of the victims are innocent bystanders, wholehearted and unreserved condemnation of these acts and those who’re responsible for them should be forthcoming from those parties claiming to represent national interests and a moral integrity. The reactions of the anti-military politicians though often fail to condemn the act and those responsible, instead the bombings are openly rationalized, even justified as a ‘natural and human’ reaction to the actions of the Pakistan Army and from there on an endless barrage of unqualified criticism that usually boils down to ‘army killing own people – for dollars and on orders of America’ and that the people of Pakistan are ‘paying for the governments slavery’ etc.
Figures like Imran Khan and Qazi Hussain are regularly seen on TV vilifying and demonizing the armed forces and yet they are utterly disinclined to even draw a line in their criticism and have the courage to inform the public that no matter what ‘justifications’ the terrorists use (which are similar to what they themselves use) violence against the state and its institutions can not be justified. Imran Khan in fact has gone as far as to proclaim his willingness to join with the insurrectionists tribal warlords in Baluchistan had he been Baluch. Thus instead of discouraging ethnic violence he seems to be stroking, legitimizing and projecting the dubious moral arguments the terrorists rely on to conceal their selfish and chaotic intentions and justify their unjustifiable methods. It is ofcourse one thing to empathize with misguided and backward members of the population and to criticize and caution the armed forces on specific methods and actions, but to essentially become an enabling and legitimizing political influence for criminal and anti-national elements, providing a step-by step smokescreen of justification and ideological facilitation of militant advances and operations all the while whole-heartedly and unreservedly condemning each and every military attempt to contain or confront them is beyond simple cultural prudency or moral impartiality.
What is more, Imran Khan has been venomously critical, and rightly so, of the militantly ethnic and once anti-national MQM party based in Karachi. And yet the same ideals of non-violence and ethnic compromise and facilitation apparently do not apply to his views of tribal secessionists in Baluchistan who’ve taken upon themselves to cleanse all non-Baluchs from ‘their’ lands and who’s ethnically fueled, indiscriminate violence in and around Quetta presently surpasses that of the now tamed MQM in Karachi. Reports indicate that much of the rebellion in the north-west is also ethnically motivated, most of the tribal-taliban fighters affiliate their struggle against the government with the defense of Paktun culture and identity (which they also, inaccurately, affiliate with Islam) and the notion of ‘Greater Paktunistan’ present there is considered a real and dangerous threat by the Pakistan Army to the multi-ethnic federation.
The autonomous tribes of FATA have always had dubious loyalties; their deeply traditionalist and militant doctrines meant that it was the threat of military reprisals and not respect for fellow Pakistanis (none of whom are welcome in ‘their’ territory anyway) or for Pakistani laws (don’t apply to them) that prevented spasms of larger conquests and infighting at the expense of the unarmed Pakistani population. The status quo, and the uneasy peace, finally crumbled after the infiltration by al-Qaeda of the already despotic tribal groups and now the region is more unstable than ever with parts of the heavily armed tribal population on rampage. Hundreds of pro-Pakistani tribal elders have been assassinated and thousands of paramilitary soldiers killed, but Imran Khan has been persistently and staunchly anti-government in all this, calling the Pakistan Army’s attempts to seal the border with Afghanistan and defend itself and other citizens a ‘gross violation’ of the age old agreement binding the tribes to Pakistan. The mayhem caused by tribal elements and the fact that many of them were/are harboring and being lead by international terrorists has been over looked. This by the same Imran Khan who makes a show of accusing the British government of harboring the ‘terrorist’ MQM leader and who has labeled the MQM ‘fascists’ for their militant onslaughts against the central government in the 80s. Khan also actively campaigned for a clamp down against them for their involvement in the May 12 violence in Karachi. The May 12 events, while utterly condemnable, barely caused a small fraction of the loss of life inflicted by militants in NWFP and Baluchistan but Imran Khan apparently remains unaware of all this inherit hypocrisy.
The failure to up hold the ideals of non-violence and racial acceptance by elements in FATA and Baluchistan has not invoked the ire of parties like the TeI and JI, instead they’ve spent their considerable influence and airtime being little more than political enablers and apologists for these destructive elements. Again one is struck by the contrast within the Jamat-e-Islami agenda, where once the JI itself participated with a fanatical zeal in military operations against Bengali secessionists in what would turn out to be the bloodiest of the campaign to crush that threat to the federation, now the same organization doesn’t even offer mild censure to the rebels operating off Baluchistan and NWFP. This disparity can only be explained by the opportunistic and self-serving nature of the parties involved. Both the TeI and the JI have played the bloody-handed-Pakistani-loyalists when it suited them and now they play the Pakistan-is-a-suppressive-state card since it’s electorally convenient. We can go further and suggest that Imran Khan and Qazi Hussain are not so different from the MQM and Muktai Bahami after all when it comes to their inability to selflessly respect and defend Pakistan’s physical and ideological integrity above the more primitive tendencies of convenient self-service. Both are, subconsciously perhaps, reverting back to their primitive inclinations of ethnic preference given that Imran Khan is a proud Paktun and the JI’s mid-level leadership has a prominence of Paktun and Baluch elements (while their sister parties in MMA consists almost entirely of such).
Ideologically, the terrorist’s use of Islam as a justification and American involvement in the region has robbed these politicians and their few supporters of the ability to impartially evaluate the morality of situation or of those involved. Their stands are inconsistent, confused and crude with only one thing in common: projecting hopelessness, dissatisfaction and resentment. Qazi Hussain, for instance, when confronted by journalists over the fact that terrorists have repeatedly been found with connections to his organization, or over his failure to condemn any of the particularly hideous crimes they’ve committed, his reaction is that the militants are stooges of the Pakistani military, being used in an elaborate subterfuge to hoodwink the west into providing aid to Pakistan in exchange for the blood of the ‘Pakistani people’ being spilt by the Pakistan Army. Thus according to him, whatever crimes the militants commit, the Pakistani Army is behind it. On the other hand, when questioned on his views of the Taliban insurrection in general, the Qazi refers to the Taliban as representing the ‘genuine resentments and aspirations of their people’ and that to confront them would be ‘militaristic and suppressive’ and again the army is penalized when trying to act. Shocking as this ridiculous contradiction may be, it is not an exaggeration and it exposes Qazi’s unreasoning desire to malign the armed forces even if it means contradicting himself. It is not without reason that so many Pakistanis are disillusioned and frustrated in general, and with their reign in particular which saw a rise of the Taliban and governmental paralysis. After their electoral dismissal and the election of the impulsive and undisciplined, but less pro-Taliban, ANP government their attitude and hostility remained unchanged as can been seen by their attempt to stall a consensus reached in the recent all party conference under the threat of withdrawal. The contention was over a paragraph simply commending the armed forces and their sacrifices which the Prime Minister was then forced to cut out of the resolution. This was an insight into their pitifully contemptuous attitudes towards Pakistan’s servants who’re sacrificing themselves for this country’s interests and don’t deserve this scorn. Soon after the conference, which was widely hoped would generate some much needed consensus, the JI and the TeI were back to distancing themselves from the post-peace deal operation in Swat and saying that it was being conducted in order to get ‘dollars from the US’.
How damaging Imran Khan’s rants about the Pakistani Army ‘killing Pakistanis for American dollars’ in this ideological war are, most people don’t realize. It is a dangerous untruth the terrorists themselves use to justify their violence and beheadings of Pakistani servicemen. The terrorists have had great success explaining away all their crimes against fellow Muslims and fellow Pakistanis as action against ‘west’s slaves’ who ‘cannot be considered real Muslims’. Imran Khan’s extensive personal links with the west apparently do not irk his conscious when he refers to Pakistan’s partnership in the western-lead War on Terror as a moral outrage. Or when he insists that the US and UK are immoral and imperialists powers that cannot be trusted. Where close diplomatic or military ties with America are deemed ‘slavery’ or ‘servitude’ in his view, apparently that standard doesn’t apply to his own indulgences there.
One particular operation that Imran Khan and his supporters attributed to American ‘orders’ was the one launched in the aftermath of the collapse of the Swat peace deal, which Imran Khan himself had to acknowledge the militants were not respecting. The militants had used the peace deal to not only advance into other districts, but to openly renounce Pakistan’s democracy, Pakistan’s constitution, Pakistan’s judiciary and Pakistan’s laws. Imran Khan and Qazi Hussain, who will be long remembered for their raging protests against President Musharraf when he suspended the constitution for a few weeks, could not have had a more indifferent reaction. Imran Khan’s utopian ideals of the ‘supremacy of judiciary’ and ‘sacredness of democracy’, which had previously caused him to call for violent protests, civil disobedience, long marches, smear campaigns and what not, were nowhere to be seen when needed most and criminals were trying to take a chuck of our country for themselves. Apparently, the amount of empathy and tolerance extended to these school burning and body mutilating degenerates could not have been given to the country’s hard pressed president and decorated general who was desperately trying to save his country from the clutches of terrorism. There is nothing wrong with high headed ideals and expectations, but they become destructive when used selectively, because that’s when they stop being ‘ideals’ and become hypocritical antics of shameless and hungry opportunists. Had politicians like Imran Khan spent their considerable energies trying to oppose and isolate terrorist elements instead of trying to harness and ride the waves of resentment they create, then the so called ‘inhumane’ operations we’re seeing today might not have been necessary.
The Jamat-e-Islami’s blatant hypocrisy has not been checked with the appointment of their new Ameer. Recently, as the Taliban’s brutal murder of a renowned anti-militant cleric provoked much outrage against their cause, the JI as usual tried to deflect the anger onto the government by accusing them of being callous and irresponsible in regards to the cleric's security. It is not in the armed forces mandate or ability to protect Pakistan’s large and diverse clergy from these unstoppable suicide bombings, what they can do is go after the bomb makers and recruiters in Swat and Waziristan, which is something the JI and their allies whole heartedly condemn and rage against. Thus technically shouldn’t the responsibility for all these bombings and the continuation of terrorists activities lie with the JI who’ve long managed to keep public opinion against the army? Shouldn’t they at least have the decency to keep quiet and refrain from shamelessly salvaging the situation when their rhetoric backfires? Why did it take Pakistanis so long to see through this nonsense?
The dark truth is that Imran Khan’s and Qazi Hussain’s views, like so many others in Pakistan, are influenced by factors of ethnic preference. Perhaps subconsciously so, as they cater to their ethnic base and play on their stereotypes by politically posturing themselves to harness and encourage resentment generated by the government’s, at times crude, handling of the political and public relations in his home communities. The contradictions within their supposed political and social values are too stark to ignore or explain away. While claiming to be proponents of ethnic harmony and the federation, their sympathies lie with very anti-federal and ethnic/sectarian causes indicating opportunist politicians desperately seeking to remedy their lack of electoral success by indulging in undisciplined, flaming and often contradictory rhetoric.
Last edited:
