Pakistan Today

The overhyped Khan

Appearances have their place in life—especially for those selling themselves as dispassionate observers engaging in putatively objective analysis of politics. However, post-PTI’s Lahore rally many such appearances have fallen by the wayside. A few TV anchors who sell themselves as analysts have mentioned the ‘tingling’ they experienced during Imran’s rally. While reliance on tingling sensations, as a mode of analysis, is debatable the most intellectually honest step for these people would be to openly endorse Mr Khan and stop misleading the public with pretences of objective analysis. At least Glenn Beck and Fox News openly acknowledge ideological leanings.
Despite the blind optimism of PTI warriors, questioning and criticizing Imran Khan is not the moral/intellectual equivalent of endorsing corruption. Anyone who, like Khan, engages in ceaseless rhetoric should be prepared to be peppered with hard questions.
There is something lamentable in the way the PTI phenomenon is taking hold among the many young minds of Pakistan. The biggest casualty in the process is open debate. When I heard a renowned historian say some days ago that ‘majorities have to be earned in a democracy’ I felt uncertain of his meaning but now the dangers posed by majorities that are not earned are becoming clear. Thousands of people, apparently so weary of corruption and abuse of power, are unquestioningly buying into the rhetoric of a party and a man whose leanings deserve the strictest scrutiny like all other politicians.
Even if corruption is ‘the’ issue in the eyes of so many, why is there an assumption that the PTI will not be corrupt? It is laughable that Imran Khan’s management of a hospital is an argument for the purity of a political party. Most people, including politicians, would run any project that they have a financial interest in a manner that benefits the project. Therefore, while Khan’s hospital is a commendable effort it is ridiculous to hold that up as an argument against corruption by party members.
If Khan is relying on ‘electable’ candidates who were part of the allegedly corrupt political parties (i.e. any party that is not PTI) then how does his dependence on these candidates reduce chances of corruption? You cannot run the ‘if leader is clean the rest will be clean’ argument here since the leader is dependent on the rest — they control his chances and he does not control them.
Furthermore, your worry about PTI’s corruption should also incorporate a broader view of corruption, i.e. whether Khan calls a spade a spade. In all the rabble rousing ways he hits the right buttons. He lambasts US policy, he opposes drone strokes and he demonises politicians in general except those who join him. However, as he told Karan Thapar in a TV interview he does not believe in questioning General Kayani since ‘the Prime Minister is the head of state’. If ever there was a case of willful blindness, this was it. Khan proceeded to compare Pakistan with India in the same breath and asked Thapar whether the army chief or the prime minister should be questioned?
India is not Pakistan in so many ways. Civil-military imbalance is not an unrelenting reality of the life of the Indian state as it is in Pakistan. If Khan refuses to acknowledge that the military is the biggest player in Pakistan’s politics and thinks that the army should be questioned only when it is directly in power then he is a leader who does not deserve anyone’s confidence — except the ISI’s. And who knows? The stars may have aligned there.
Having someone like Mr Hameed Gul on one’s team ought to have been suicidal in a country awash with cynicism. But this rhetoric of demonising politicians apparently has enough power for people to forget the dangers of a leader keeping dodgy company — very dodgy company at that. Also on Khan’s agenda is negotiating with the Taliban. He shamelessly said that all political leaders in Pakistan are ‘non-leaders and are here to take money’. One wonders what Khan makes of the courageous stance taken by the ANP against the Taliban in KP and the sacrifices endured by that party? It has lost party workers, ministers and children of its members to Taliban’s violence. Those people were killed not because the Taliban was reacting to a drone strike but because the ANP, instead of engaging in rhetoric, took a courageous principled stand to denounce the madness perpetrated in the name of religion. That is what political parties do.
I want to ask Khan that if all politicians are just interested in money then why the Federal Government would stand behind a war on militancy—a war that is not making the incumbents popular but is our war based on principle. Surely it is not the money? If it was the money they wouldn’t want to risk unpopularity since staying in office means more money. Get the argument?
The statistics stated in his latest book are absurd; he says that 90% of all militants are not terrorists and the remaining 10% that are terrorists can be negotiated with. No sources cited of course. And he ignores a vital point: the Pakistani Taliban are not ordinary militants or terrorists opposing a country’s foreign policy. The Pakistani Taliban seek to establish their extremely orthodox version of an Islamic state; a version that violates the rights of people (especially women). Most importantly, they want political power. This has already been manifested in Swat where the Nizam-e-Adl regulation was only accepted since it gave them power. But the inevitable happened—it failed. And what will we negotiate? Give them an area where they reign supreme? What about the rights of people living under them and the injustices they suffer because PTI chose a hands-off policy?
A government that denounces terror and is willing to wage a fight to protect the rights of its children to attend schools is one that is courageous. A party that doles out rhetoric with no concern for the nuances of reality is our ticket to moral decrepitude and a numb conscience.

The writer is a Barrister and an Advocate of the High Courts. He is currently pursuing an LLM in the United States and can be reached at wmir.rma@gmail.com

Exit mobile version