VIEW : Imran Khan as Pakistan’s saviour?

[RabzonKhan]

VIEW : Imran Khan as Pakistan’s saviour?

S P Seth
September 05, 2012

At times it would appear that Pakistan is being torn apart by internal warfare. And its most disturbing manifestation is a string of attacks on military installations to avenge the killings of Osama bin Laden and other terrorist icons for which the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan has often claimed responsibility. The most recent target was the Kamra airbase off Islamabad. The ease with which such attacks have been mounted on some of the most secure military installations would suggest some internal help from extremist elements within the forces. Indeed, there were reports of this when Mehran naval base in Karachi was attacked in May last year.

If the Taliban have infiltrated the armed forces, directly or indirectly, the country is in a lot of trouble. In that case, the extremists would have succeeded in capturing the state from within. Pakistan’s other institutions like the government of the day and the judiciary will hardly be able to stem the slide into a Taliban-dominated state. The only other example of this is Afghanistan under Taliban rule, hardly a shining example. It might be worse in Pakistan, which is a large country of an estimated 180 million people. And if a Taliban-run state in Pakistan were to use or allow the country to be used for al Qaeda kind of activities, as the Taliban did in Afghanistan, the world would be a very scary place, with a tremendous destructive potential for Pakistan and its people.

Another highly disturbing development is the regularity with which the Shias are being targeted and killed in different parts of the country, with the state apparently unable or unwilling to do much about it, for all sorts of reasons. How much of a nexus there is between extremist Sunni groups and the Taliban behind these killings is not all that clear but it is all part of the culture of violence that is permeating the country. This kind of pattern of killings tends to reinforce the view that the state is almost ceasing to exist in a climate of mindless violence.

It is against this backdrop that Imran Khan (and his Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf) has staked his claim as the country’s possible saviour. Judging from the attendance at his rallies around the country, Khan appears to be Pakistan’s most popular political leader. There have to be some plausible reasons for this. One reason, of course, is that the country is in such a parlous state that people are desperately looking for a saviour. With their self-serving politicking, Pakistan’s political leaders are compounding the situation. No wonder the Taliban and other extremist elements are growing stronger. And here comes Imran Khan with his simple message, which is that he will be able to reconcile all competing, contending and conflicting forces in the country by simply opening a dialogue with them, particularly with the Taliban. Though Khan says that he does not approve of the Taliban violence, he however understands it as a reactive response to the army’s anti-terror strategy that targets them.

And why is the Taliban being targeted? Here Khan taps into the widespread anti-American rage in Pakistan across the spectrum that has become even more entrenched after the killing of Osama bin Laden in a US raid. As Khan told Steve Coll of The New Yorker, “The so-called ‘liberals’ [in Pakistan] treat the Taliban as if there were only one way to deal with them — through the military.” He added, “They are cut off from the rest of Pakistan. They look at Pakistan through Western lenses. They actually don’t know what Pakistan is.” This is an extraordinary statement to make that tends to absolve the Taliban of any responsibility for the virtual orgy of terrorist violence enveloping the country. And he promises to end terrorism in Pakistan through negotiations with the Taliban within 90 days.

By keeping his message simple and hopeful, Imran Khan is either being terribly naïve or politically smart to bank on his people’s desperation to vote him into power as a messiah waving a magic wand. We know that there is no such thing as a magic wand, even with Khan as the magician. His naivety is on display when asked how he would deal with the Pakistani military that is used to running the country directly or indirectly. He answered that he would discipline them the way he did his cricket team as their captain. They simply will have to fall in line like every other institution in the country, if he were to become the prime minister. In his own words, “...You have to tell them, ‘Look, this is the way it’s going to run now’.”

One wonders why nobody else in Pakistan thought of such a simple and straightforward solution. While Khan talks of running the army like his cricket team, there is considerable speculation in Pakistan that Khan himself, as a politician, is a creation of the ISI. In other words, it remains an open question if Khan will do the military’s bidding or the other way around.

And in the larger scheme of the country’s economic development, it is even a bigger challenge of raising enough, indeed huge, resources, but Imran Khan does not see it that way. His solution is again very simple. He will simply ensure that the rich will pay their taxes. Even if it were feasible to make the rich and everyone else into an honest citizen (though it has not happened anywhere else in the world), Pakistan will still need massive resources to make a credible start in lifting the country’s economy. This will require considerable foreign aid and investment that is unlikely to materialise on the scale required without relative peace and stability in Pakistan. But Khan is already set against any US aid regarding it as a “curse”, causing dependency. He might therefore be thinking of tapping into aid and investments from Saudi Arabia and other rich Middle Eastern countries, as well as China, but that still will be exchanging one dependency for another.

The point is that Imran Khan has no blueprint on any of the issues facing his country. What he has is a list of simple and pious wishes that will somehow be translated into action as he did with his cricket team, or in his charity work. But a country as complex as Pakistan, with its continuing terrorist violence and an overlay of sectarian and ethnic conflicts, cannot be equated with a cricket team or a charity event. May be Khan will surprise everyone, if he becomes Pakistan’s prime minister in the next election, beyond the reach of human experience!

The writer is a senior journalist and academic based in Sydney, Australia.

 

[Pak47]

Zardari will buy votes >__>

Imran Khan might never get a chance.

 

[Abingdonboy]

It is sickeing that a man who has shared a stage with accused terror masterminds is being touted a s a "saviour" but then I suppose it is all relative and in the context of Pakistani politics this man is pretty clean.

 

[Patriot]

Yeah like Zardari and Sharif has PHD in Economics or Public Administration.Using the same logic I can name at least few US Presidents who were not career politicians so according to Pakistanis these people are not capable of becoming President of a country yet they managed to run Government of United States.

MOD EDIT

 

[Pak47]

^^^

Indians want a defective Pakistan.. it fulfills their wet dreams.

 

[RabzonKhan]

Yeah like Zardari and Sharif has PHD in Economics or Public Administration.Using the same logic I can name at least few US Presidents who were not career politicians so according to Pakistanis these people are not capable of becoming President of a country yet they managed to run Government of United States.

Patriot, nowhere in the article has the author questioned Imran’s lack of political experience, the author is questioning Imran’s simpleton solutions to extremely complicated issues, for example:
Imran claims that he can end terrorism through negotiations with the Taliban within 90 days and that he will discipline the generals the way he did his cricket team.

Now, are we supposed to take this man seriously?

 

[Pak47]

 

[AstanoshKhan]

Patriot, nowhere in the article has the author questioned Imran’s lack of political experience, the author is questioning Imran’s simpleton solutions to extremely complicated issues, for example:
Imran claims that he can end terrorism through negotiations with the Taliban within 90 days and that he will discipline the generals the way he did his cricket team.

Now, are we supposed to take this man seriously?

Where on earth did you come with the bold part?

You need to study this man Imran Khan and his policies 'seriously'... and once you've done that, come and comment here about his character and policies.

 

[tarrar]

If Pakistan is to be saved it needs to be done right NOW & the traitors needs to arrested. PPP, PML-N, MQM, ANP & JUI are threat to Pakistan security & Pakistan security.

PTI is very young & Imran Khan does not what's going on with Pakistan he is just trying to gain popularity in these desperate hours.

To be honest the elections unfortunately are going to be won by PPP & PML-N because it is part of the deal with US & deal got even stronger when the supplies were open without any apology from the US.

Pakistan right now is in tons lots of trouble & Democracy is not the solution for Pakistan because it is totally owned & run by US. Martial Law or Military Coup only solution left today.

 

[RabzonKhan]

Where on earth did you come with the bold part?

AstanoshKhan, I'm quite surprised that you will ask me such a question, I mean, you seem to be a strong supporter of Imran Khan, how come you have never heard or read his statements on this particular issue before?

So what's the trap?

Anyhow, here's the link:

Imran says he’ll end terrorism in 90 days

You need to study this man Imran Khan and his policies 'seriously'... and once you've done that, come and comment here about his character and policies.

I don't have a huge problem with his character, but I strongly disagree with his stance on war on terror, he is playing a very destructive role and is misguiding the public, he keeps making contradictory statements that mostly benefit the Taliban terrorists.

He has been spreading disinformation on the war on terrorism by mixing some truth, outright lies and false conclusions.

Here’s one example:

Imran Khan Taliban aren't Burning Schools its propaganda

 

[RabzonKhan]

Imran Khan’s escapade


The News
S Iftikhar Murshed
October 07, 2012


Politicians worldwide are devoured by an insatiable lust for publicity and self-projection. The Pakistani variety is particularly adept in exploiting popular emotions which are almost wholly centred on affronts to religious sensibilities and the violation of national sovereignty. The rage of the moment is anti-Americanism spurred by drone strikes in the conflict-ravaged Federally Administered Tribal Areas of the country.

Imran Khan’s anti-drone “peace march” to Kotkai in South Waziristan with a hundred thousand of his supporters is yet another example of thoughtless political gimmickry. A few weeks back, the banned Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) threatened to suicide-bomb the procession and warned the chief of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) to stay away from the area.

But within days the TTP realised that this threat was a tactical blunder because the termination of drone attacks would enable them to consolidate their hold in the tribal regions, and, on Tuesday, they announced: “We are ready to provide the PTI security if they need. We endorse Imran Khan’s plea that drone strikes are against our sovereignty...we would not harm him or his followers.”

Yet another change came on Friday when the TTP denied any such assurance had been given, thereby revealing that it was irretrievably fractured. However, what emerged is that the Predator attacks had eroded what the TTP touted as its “sovereignty” in an area where the writ of the state does not prevail.

Even if cast-iron security guarantees are provided by the TTP, the danger cannot be discounted because the region is infested by scores of foreign and local terrorist groups. But the propaganda mileage to be gained from bravado obviously means much more to the PTI leader than the safety of his followers. Such is the soulless world of Pakistani politics.

At a joint press conference with former US deputy ambassador Ann Wright on September 30, Imran Khan, who, like other political leaders of the country, is incapable of saying anything without an oratorical flourish, berated his political opponents. “Not a single one has ever shown the courage to visit Waziristan and ours would be the first step towards peace,” he said. As for the safety of the marchers, he said that the Bhittani, Burki and Mehsud tribes of South Waziristan “have ensured us security.”

The absurdity of this assertion becomes immediately apparent from the inability of these tribes to protect themselves from the TTP. Furthermore, it is inexplicable why Kotkai, the hometown of TTP leader Hakimullah Mehsud, was selected as the destination of the anti-drone march. This becomes all the more baffling because the Mehsud tribe, which inhabited the area, has been compelled by the violence to relocate to safer places. It is, therefore, not clear who the PTI leader will be addressing other than his “peace march” supporters, in this tawny, rugged and barren wilderness.

For her part, Ann Wright openly urged Pakistanis to “stand up against” their government. No country in the world would allow foreigners on its soil to interfere so blatantly in its internal affairs. But this seems to have been lost on Imran Khan, whose response was: “These campaigners against the war on terror are here to raise their voice against atrocities. Anti-Americanism will reduce when people like them visit Pakistan.”

The PTI leader and all opposition politicians have unfailingly advanced the argument that terrorist violence, and in particular suicide bombings, have been triggered by drone strikes. But there were 413 incidents of terrorism, including 11 suicide attacks in the country prior to the first drone strike on June 18, 2004, which resulted in the killing of Nek Muhammad Wazir near Wana, South Waziristan. There is also no statistical correlation between terrorism-related deaths and drone attacks. A recent study shows that in 2009 there were 53 drone strikes and the fatalities from terrorist attacks were 11,704, but this fell to 7,435 the following year, though the Predator strikes more than doubled to 117.

Research institutes have gone into an overdrive and have churned out hugely divergent estimates on the number of civilians and militants killed in drone strikes. From January 1 to August 25 this year there were 31 Predator attacks, mostly in North Waziristan which, according to the New American Foundation, resulted in 207 fatalities. The Long War Journal has unconvincingly claimed that none of these were civilians. It believes that 2,307 Al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters have been killed, as opposed to only 138 civilian casualties, since the commencement of the drone war.

As opposed to this, in September a joint study by researchers from Stanford University and New York University concluded that only two percent of drone attack casualties are terrorists. The scholars were also critical of the Long War Journal report, but avoided giving an estimate on civilian fatalities.

By far the most reliable assessment is that of the Pakistani army. On March 9, 2011, Maj Gen Ghayur Mehmood of the 7th Infantry Division told journalists in Miranshah, North Waziristan, that most of those killed in these strikes were hardcore Al-Qaeda and TTP fighters. He circulated a pamphlet titled “Myths and Rumours about US Predator Strikes,” which stated that between 2007 and 2011 there had been 164 drone attacks. As a result 964 terrorists, who included 793 locals and 172 foreigners, had been killed.

One of the documents retrieved from Osama bin Laden’s hideout in Abbottabad in May 2011 shows that Atiyah Abd al-Rahman, the number-two man in the Al-Qaeda hierarchy, was extremely frustrated that Predator-launched missiles were eliminating the outfit’s fighters faster than they could be replaced. (Atiyah was subsequently killed in a drone strike on August 22, 2011, and his successor, Abu Hafs al-Shari, met the same fate 19 days later.)

This explains the undeniable infighting within the TTP and its uncertain offer of protection to Imran Khan’s peace march. The bottom line is that Al-Qaeda and its affiliates have been severely mauled by the drone attacks and they will be the primary beneficiaries if these are terminated. In her address to the Asia Society in Washington on September 27, Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar admitted that Pakistan was not opposed to drone strikes against terrorists and then, with an air of ecclesiastical unction, she waffled, “but we have to find ways which are lawful...”

The government must come clean on drones. The WikiLeaks disclosures show that former Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani did not have any objection to the Predator attacks “as long as they get the right people...We’ll protest in the National Assembly and then ignore it.” In May 2011, in an interview to Time magazine, he publicly conceded for the first time that Pakistan supported the drone operations.

In early 2011, reports sourced to American officials emerged that a verbal understanding had been reached with Pakistan under which the US would notify Islamabad through fax about intended drone flights, and, in return, the military establishment would merely acknowledge receipt. Foreign Minister Khar’s musings about the legality of the drone operations are thus laid bare.

On Tuesday, the South Waziristan administration denied permission for the PTI’s Kotkai escapade because of the security situation. But Imran Khan, impervious as ever to reason, appeared in a television talk show with Ann Wright and Lauren Booth, the sister-in-law of former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and announced that the peace march would not be aborted. Like all politicians, he is a creature of emotions and went to the extent of saying that, should he become prime minister, he could, if the need arose, even order the shooting down of drones.

An estimated 250,000 children have been denied polio immunisation in the tribal areas, but it is unlikely that any impassioned plea will be made in Kotkai on their behalf, because that will not yield publicity dividends. There is nothing more shameful than the reckless pursuit of power by those who ignore the dreadful plight of little children.


The writer is the publisher of Criterion quarterly.

 

[RabzonKhan]

Naya Pakistan is the new slogan of PTI, sounds excellent, who wouldn't want a new Pakistan, but, the question is, how can one envision Naya Pakistan by making an electoral alliance or seat adjustment with the likes of Munawar Hassan of Jamaat-e-Islami, he calls Osama bin Laden a “great martyr” and even supports the Taliban’s terrorism against Pakistan.

I am all ears.



Of hate and glory...Legal eye

The News
Babar Sattar ... The writer is a lawyer based in Islamabad.
March 30, 2013

Whether or not you plan to vote for Imran Khan’s party, if you wish for democracy to prosper in Pakistan, it is hard not to wish for the PTI to emerge as a viable political party. The political arena in Pakistan doesn’t provide a level-playing field. Many see Pakistan’s political landscape as a choice between evil and the lesser evil. The critique of continuity of political process as a solution to our national challenges is: what if continuity keeps throwing up the same tried, tested and failed representatives and further entrenches the status quo instead of providing for change? This is no trivial concern.

A key element essential to make procedural democracy a solution of sorts is internal party democracy. And this has been missing from all promises of reform by our mainstream political parties. There was no mention of internal party democracy in the Charter of Democracy signed between the PPP and the PML-N. And as part of the 18th Amendment both these parties came together to erase the requirement of mandatory party elections from the constitution. Political parties are the engines of democracy and their internal functioning provides a trailer of the nature of democracy they will afford citizens when in power.

It is not surprising then that a few players have traditionally monopolised Pakistan’s politics. The barriers for fresh entrants remain sky high. Imran Khan is gate-crashing this party by virtue of his celebrity, charisma and sheer perseverance. Pakistan now seems to be heading into elections with three mainstream parties. This is welcome news, as the more viable choices there are to choose from the better for democracy and the political process. Further, his is the first party to have had meaningful intra-party elections. The PTI cannot be praised enough for this feat amidst a political culture that provides no established route to upward mobility within parties.

Our political parties are largely hereditary and make no bones about it. The PPP has been handed down as an heirloom and is being managed by the legal guardian of the successors who have not yet come of age. The PML-N is not as brash about its top leadership being a family enterprise. But the fact remains that scions of our party leaders have a deeply ingrained sense of entitlement to inheriting the mantle of party leadership if they are politically inclined and second-tier leaders readily accept such familial ‘right’. The problem of top party position not being open to merit-based succession results in the art of sycophancy and not personal merit becoming the primary vehicle to climb up within party ranks.

In this regard the PTI has stood out so far. Imran Khan has announced that his kids will have nothing to do with his party. Internal party elections threatened to entrench divisions within the PTI very close to national elections and jeopardise its performance at the polls. But the PTI’s leadership did not falter. Can there be any justifiable basis to argue that while democracy is a good thing for the country, it is not essential for internal party governance? Those who present procedural democracy as a cure to our ills must not be selective in practising it.

Ayesha Jalal has convincingly argued that democracy remains frail and vulnerable in Pakistan because the style and scheme of governance under elected governments is autocratic and hardly distinguishable from that under dictatorships. If controlled democracy is bad for the country, it can’t be good for political parties either. Charity begins at home and full marks to the PTI for putting its money where its mouth is. The other major contribution of the PTI has been its role as an effective pressure group. It has successfully flagged issues and brought national attention to focus on them. Its presence in the political arena is undoubtedly forcing its potential competitors to embrace reform.

But does the PTI wish to be a vehicle for change and not just a pressure group? Why is the PTI bent upon making it impossible for proponents of change within Pakistan to support it? That nobody wishes to engage a hack to treat a life-threatening condition is a given. But how is a scrupulously honest and well-meaning doctor any good if he keeps getting the prognosis wrong? The PTI emerged on the national scene with a bang in 2012. By then it chose to consolidate its gains by inducting a menagerie of tainted ‘electables’. It is ok to make mistakes so long as you learn from them. So how does it build on its success after the March 23 jalsa? It goes ahead and announces seat adjustment with Jamaat-e-Islami!

Without procedural democracy there can be no substantive democracy. But mastering procedure means nothing if the substance that it brings along won’t uphold rights that form the heart and soul of democracy. We are living in an age where democracy has come to be affiliated with a minimum content: rule of law and guarantee of inalienable human rights including the right to life, liberty, equality and dignity. Thus majority rule must promise a core set of rights and values to each and every citizen if it wishes to qualify as democracy. Can the JI’s worldview and political programme create such democracy for Pakistanis of all faiths alike?

When we speak of meaningful change, we no longer have the luxury to bandy about platitudes and banal solutions. Here are some of the drawing-room solutions that are dangerously misconceived: all we need is one good leader to sort out our problems; there would be no terror only if America were to leave us alone; only if we could exploit our natural resources honestly we’d be an economic giant. Let us understand that corruption is a manifestation of our socio-political condition: our abominable political ethos rooted in the bigotry that cultivates and sustains regressive cultural values and traditions, and state and societal institutions that imbibe and strengthen such ethos and traditions.

Any vision for a progressive new Pakistan must recognise intolerance as our foremost ailment. And further that the brand of intolerance afflicting us is inspired by the idea that state has a right to enforce a view of religion on its citizens. Pakistan is struggling with multiple fault-lines, prominent amongst which is the progressive-extremist divide and the civil-military divide. The JI on both counts falls on the wrong side. As a historical matter it qualifies as a retrogressive pro-status quo force that has mixed faith with politics, confused morality and religion, muddled sin and crime and advocated a programme that undermines both procedural and substantive democracy.

It has pursued a politics of hate coupled with a false promise of glory built on concocted history. It has diverted attention from our urgent need for social reform and behavioral change by pointing fingers at ‘foreign powers’ and nurturing xenophobia rooted in a conspiratorial mindset. The JI’s politics has stood for everything that must be rejected in a rational and progressive society. This is no theoretical debate about whether liberalism is better than conservatism or whether Pakistan was conceived as a Muslim country or an Islamic state. This is about what kind of society we wish to raise our kids in.

When a patient is terminally ill and medical science has no remedy (or hope) to offer, it is understandable for the superstitious to rely on faith healers as last resort. But Pakistan isn’t terminally ill yet to turn to bearded and un-bearded faith-healers. We need sensible, pragmatic and bigotry-free politicos to begin implementing proven measures for progressive social, political and economic reform that focus on needs of citizen in this world and not the next. If the PTI’s leadership decides that its worldview, agenda for reform and political and social value-set is close enough to that of the JI to merit an electoral seat adjustment between the two, the PTI might not be the party of change many wish for it to be.

 

[muse]

the question is, how can one envision Naya Pakistan by making an electoral alliance or seat adjustment with the likes of Munawar Hassan of Jamaat-e-Islami, he calls Osama bin Laden a “great martyr” and even supports the Taliban’s terrorism against Pakistan.

One can only agree that seat adjustments or anything to do with the likes of the Jamaati is nothing but abominable - and I am persuaded that politics is about doing do - some say that politics is the art of the possible -- and yet are these two objectives mutually exclusive?

Having said that if seat adjustments with the Jamaati are acceptable, why are they unacceptable with others? With the seat adjustment with the Jamaati, the PTI have once again opened themselves to the criticism that they will fall for anything that has the word "Islamic" in it -- don't get me wrong, it's not that anything with the word "Islamic" by virtue of having the word "Islamic" in it the same as unacceptable and insane, what must be considered is what the term "islamic" means in Pakistan, does it mean an emphasis on "Rahmaam and Raheem"?? Certainly not, it overwhelming means "literalism", "Intolerance", Rejection of Pluralism ad the Sadistic pleasure derived from barbarous "punishments and "Orders of God".

 

[tarrar]

I don't think so he is still an amateur & it is because of his decision making power.

Pakistan needs a leader who knows the enemies of Pakistan & a leader who can talk with power.

 

[RangerPK]

At first I thought I would vote for PTI but I don't know anymore. Now I think even pml-n and pml-q seems credible enough to vote for.