Defending Imran Khan

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

ANALYSIS: Defending Imran Khan —Yasser Latif Hamdani​

Not that Imran Khan needs me to defend him but the intemperate attacks on him by certain quarters leave me no choice but to attempt to set the record straight. I can assure you, dear readers, that the impression created by some writers is nothing but a warped caricature of the only person in politics who is not just incorruptible but a selfless first rate humanist, one that this country is lucky to have at this critical juncture in its fragile democratic evolution. The only other politician whom I had such high hopes in was Benazir Bhutto in 2007 but she was not spared by the powers that be.

Perhaps the most inaccurate article, which in my view went out of its way to distort the truth about Khan’s politics, was the review of his book by Dr Aparna Pande titled ‘Imran Khan’s self-serving journey’ (Daily Times, November 14, 2011). For one thing, the book review was entirely misconceived. It seems that Dr Pande did not actually bother to read the book but merely went through the index and read snippets, which were then reproduced in the review out of context. Anyone familiar with my writings in this newspaper and other places knows that I stand for a secular liberal Pakistan as envisaged by Muhammad Ali Jinnah. I, therefore, do not quite agree with Imran Khan’s analysis of why Pakistan was created but I also understand that a debate about history is often lost in semantics. So is the case with politics. I support Imran Khan, as I explained in my own article ‘Why progressives should support Khan’ (Daily Times, November 7, 2011), because I am willing to look beyond disputes over terms such as secularism and Islam and look at the substance of what is being offered. Therefore, when Dr Pande points to apparent similarities of language between Imran Khan and General Zia, she sidesteps the fundamental ground reality that appeals to Islam is part of the political language in Pakistan. Imran Khan, in his book, goes on to define his commitment to Islam. He roundly criticises General Zia’s Islamisation project as being too narrow and counterproductive.

Islam and shariah to Imran Khan are not narrow straitjackets to be imposed on the masses but components of a comprehensive liberation theology that seeks to overturn existing inequities in society. Eqbal Ahmad, whose secular liberal credentials are beyond dispute, once wrote that when the Pakistani masses speak of an Islamic state, they mean not so much a theocracy imposing one version of shariah law, but a just and fair society where everyone has social and personal freedoms. Imran Khan’s vision of an Islamic state is an egalitarian, democratic and pluralistic state that does not distinguish between citizens on the basis of faith, class or gender, and he means every word of what he says; his record confirms this. Why should any secularist have any qualms about such a state? To argue that this vision is a continuum of Pakistan’s non-secular establishment is far too simplistic and naïve an analysis.

Dr Pande makes a big deal out of Imran Khan’s reference to Shah Waliullah. Having read the book, I could not at first recall where Imran Khan had delineated on Shah Waliullah’s thoughts. Going through the index, however, I did find a solitary reference to Waliullah in brackets to the effect that Waliullah thought monarchy had been instrumental in the decline of the Islamic world. Yet Dr Pande castigates Imran Khan for not mentioning the sectarian damage done by Waliullah. Not that Imran Khan has taken a firm position on the 18th century Muslim reformer, but it must be mentioned that Shah Waliullah has been praised by many Islamic modernists in the past for having tried to reopen the doors of ijtihad, i.e. reinterpretation of the foundational legal principles of the Islamic common law according to the times. In the closed and stifling academic environment of the 18th century, coming soon after the codification of ‘Fatwa-e-Alamgiri’ under the auspices of Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb, Waliullah’s efforts were revolutionary. To give an analogous example, would it be fair to characterise the Reformation in Europe, which led to enlightenment and progress, as simply a violent sectarian movement because for three centuries the Protestants persecuted the Catholics and vice versa? Or do we look at the historical impact of such a movement? Waliullah and Eqbal were human beings who might not have had it right on everything but the idea is to keep the debate going, and ultimately reason trumps irrational superstitions.

Then we come to three articles by Dr Mohammad Taqi in which he approbates and reprobates his allegations against Imran Khan. In the first article titled, ‘No he Khan’t’ (Daily Times, November 3, 2011), he accuses Imran Khan of toeing the establishment line. In his second article titled, ‘PTI’s financial scruples’ (Daily Times, November 10, 2011), Dr Taqi goes on to imply that Imran Khan might be funded by the Americans. Not content with this charge, Dr Taqi warns American officials in these terms: “If one red US cent goes towards putting a US soldier in harm’s way, that does not reflect well on the US officials who had been cosying up to Imran Khan and had a meeting with him just before the Lahore rally.” The implication is obvious. Americans are funding Imran Khan and Imran Khan is toeing the establishment line by supporting the Taliban and al Qaeda. Predictably, Dr Taqi provides no evidence for his ridiculously farfetched charge. In the third installment of his invective against Imran Khan, ‘Small change and mini-NROs’ (Daily Times, November 17, 2011), after rephrasing and reproducing his earlier accusations, he goes on to claim that Imran Khan was signing ‘mini-NROs’ with politicians. This cleverly deceptive sound byte, of course, masks the virtual impossibility of such an event. Imran Khan is not a sovereign power signing blanket pardons for misdeeds in the past. Nor are people like Shah Mehmood Qureshi and Nabeel Gabol tainted with personal corruption.

So it is time to ask the naysayers what private grief they harbour against Imran Khan who has only tried to chart a course as he has seen fit as a patriotic Pakistani unable to see his country become a laughingstock of the world. This deliberate schism that is created between the ghairat (honour) and beyghairat (dishonour) segments cannot be productive for this country for we all have to live here together.

The writer is a lawyer based in Lahore. He is also a regular contributor to the Indian law website myLaw: A Contextual Network for Lawyers and blogs on http//globallegalforum.blogspot.com and Pak Tea House. He can be reached at yasser.hamdani@gmail.com

Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

And the author's earlier article referenced in the piece above:

ANALYSIS: Why progressives should support Khan —Yasser Latif Hamdani

Political pundits long poked fun at him and told him to stay out of politics because he was too ‘naïve’, ‘Im the Dim’, too ‘simple’, a ‘dunce’ or a ‘fool’, but they were unable to break his spirit. He was called an actor and a pretender by people who themselves are nothing more. His one time friend and later foe, Pakistan’s last tin pot dictator Pervez Musharraf referred to him as an unbalanced character who would never amount to much and who he had been wrong to suffer. Just as he began as a cricketer, dismissed as without talent who would never bowl fast, in politics too Imran Khan was dismissed with nothing but prejudice and contempt. He took each humiliation, insult and used it as a stepping stone to that ultimate triumph that now is only a matter of time. History, dear readers, is replete with such examples of persistence and courage; Jinnah being the last example from our recent history.

The reason I support him however is not because of his great moment of personal triumph, which even on its own is inspirational enough, but because, in my view, Imran Khan represents by far the most progressive option in Pakistan, all things considered. Consider.

The established definition of modernity rests on the following pillars: social justice, political democracy, secularism, responsible government and most importantly the rule of law. Imran Khan openly espouses four out of five of these conditions. He stands for social justice between economic groups and for the uplift of marginalised sections of society. He is committed to the electoral process and believes in a responsible and accountable government. Finally, he speaks of a society where the rule of law reigns supreme and therefore everyone — without exception — is equal in the eyes of the law.

As for secularism, I am not of the opinion that one should refrain from using terms that aptly describe an idea or a person just because that person refrains from using these terms. As Marx said so aptly that the politics of politicians of the day ought to be analysed not per the draperies that adorn it but that the veil should be pierced to get to the substance of such politics. Khan may denounce secularism and pledge allegiance to the Islamic faith, but his politics, centring on commonsense temporal issues like the creation of a social welfare state, is by definition secular politics and a secular agenda. Distinguishing Islamic ideology from secularism, Imran Khan says in no uncertain terms that an Islamic state would provide all the freedoms of a secular state but would preserve the family system, which is the essence of Islam in his view. This view by no means is unique. Great Britain, which in theory is a protestant monarchy, is in fact a secular democracy without a complete separation of church and state. It seems then that Imran Khan is pleading for a cultural ethos rooted in Islam and not necessarily a state policy that seeks to implement one interpretation of Islam over the other. By espousing a pluralistic, democratic and egalitarian state, albeit Islamic, Imran Khan is following in the footsteps of established Islam-based democrats like the great Reccip Erdogan of Turkey and more precisely Ennahda Party of Tunisia. This trend has been described by many scholars as post-Islamism, which loosely defines politics that might deploy Islamic symbols and be culturally at home with this rhetoric but which follows an agenda of reform and pluralism. Imran Khan is Pakistan’s and possibly, with the exception of the Turkish prime minister, the Islamic world’s most credible post-Islamist leader. He has the potential to be Pakistan’s Erdogan.

The socialist left should in particular recognise the potential Khan’s politics present to it. At the very least it is certain that the urban middle class — or to use Hamza Alavi’s innovative term, the ‘salariat’ — who supports Imran Khan represents the strengthening of capitalism and the rapid breakdown of traditional feudalism that has its hold over Pakistan. His challenge to the patwari (land record officer) system for example is significant for it promises to break down existing feudal structures and thereby disrupt in a significant way the control over the means of production in the agricultural rural areas. Another plank of his political design is to levy agricultural income tax, which will serve to strengthen the aforesaid salariat, which today bears the burden of heavy taxation because of the perpetual tax holiday unfairly and unjustly given to the landed class by the forces of the status quo. All these are steps in the right direction. Indeed it is the responsibility of every progressive patriot to lend a hand to Khan in doing away with these last vestiges of a medieval feudal society that have long held back our country.

Another idea that was mocked by some was Khan’s suggestion that police chiefs ought to be elected by the people. This is central to the idea of direct democracy though it is not without its cons. Still, elected officials are always better than unelected appointees. In this one finds the germs of a viable local government that can play an important intermediary role between the state and the individual. One needs to only attend a meeting of a city council in the US to see how important this idea is for the formation of an informed citizenry that is interacting with the state at the most basic level.

It is also important to note, for those who level the scurrilous charge that he is an establishment stooge, that Imran Khan has strongly condemned the brutalisation of Balochistan by the deep state. If Imran Khan opposes the bombardment of the tribes in Waziristan, he is consistent in applying the principle across the board by opposing any military solution to Balochistan. Here is the great merging of right and left on a single point agenda: dignity of the people of Pakistan, including all its oppressed groups and ethnic nationalities. Today if there is any one politician who can find a way out of the quagmire of Balochistan by restoring the constitutional rights of the Baloch people, it is Imran Khan and he is not someone who can be ignored easily by anyone who wants to see a fair and just solution to the issue. On the issue of the war on terror, Khan for long has advocated a peaceful political solution to the dismay of many, including myself. Today, even the most fervent advocate of the war on terror recognises the futility of armed conflict in Afghanistan.

The massive mobilisation of the de-politicised sections in Pakistan makes Imran Khan’s movement unique. There is a tendency to dismiss it as an urban middle class ghairat (honour) phenomenon but that flies in the face of reality. It is therefore for Pakistan’s marginalised left in disarray to seize this moment or remain forever irrelevant. Only through engagement with this new national movement can the ideas espoused by the dozen odd communist and socialist parties be mainstreamed. Time is of the essence.

The writer is a lawyer based in Lahore. He is also a regular contributor to the Indian law website myLaw: A Contextual Network for Lawyers and blogs on http//globallegalforum.blogspot.com and Pak Tea House. He can be reached at yasser.hamdani@gmail.com

Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan

 

[Omar1984]

In my opinion Imran Khan shares a lot of qualities with Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah and PTI is the only Pakistani political party that follows Quaid's princliples = FAITH, UNITY, and DISCIPLINE.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

In my opinion Imran Khan shares a lot of qualities with Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah and PTI is the only Pakistani political party that follows Quaid's princliples = FAITH, UNITY, and DISCIPLINE.

The arguments that YLH made, and the interpretation of IK's views on religion and the State, is exactly what I have been arguing in favor of for years on this forum.

Pakistan's masses and politics are grounded in religion - that reality needs to be recognized, worked with, and molded to bring about progressive change.

Denigrating a 'theocratic State, conservative Muslims' etc. is not going to win votes and elections, and is not going to bring about any social change or constructive discourse on 'reforming regressive practices' and 'reinterpreting some regressive interpretations of Islam'.

 

[W.11]

[edited.................................

 

[Leader]

Why I Chose Imran Khan – II « Elucidations


In July I wrote a blog explaining why I would vote for the Pakistan Movement for Justice, or Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI). Opinions in the comments varied, but the most frequent hitch people had with Imran Khan’s party was their belief that it was politically insignificant, unelectable and more of a fan club. These arguments were presented to me numerous times before the post but I always disagreed, and after Sunday’s rally I feel many people have finally turned side.

The enormous turnout at Minaar-e-Pakistan was not a surprise to me, or my friends. Regardless of what we feel about policies, Khan still stands head and shoulders above his opponents in terms of financial transparency, honesty, statement consistency and has the cleanest criminal record. In addition to that he is one of the greatest living Pakistanis and is a national hero because of both sport and philanthropy. His credibility and honesty as a politician had been well established over the past few years during the wiki-leaks saga, and at the same time Pakistan reached new lows. What helped Khan was that almost every other major Political party was/is in power in some capacity, and hence could all be held accountable for the country’s dismal state in some manner.

Thanks to the free and independent media, nothing went unnoticed. Every error by the provincial and federal governments was highlighted and reported and soon the truth was in front of everyone. The country had become extremely politicized and when the likes of my friend Zohair Toru went to the streets is when I realized times in Pakistan had changed. For most people Khan, with his track record in social work for his country was incomparable to the likes of the status quo, under who’s rule people were facing unprecedented poverty, unemployment and injustice. Hence support for his party increased exponentially, while everyone else’s decreased.

Perhaps naively, but then that is indeed why initially ‘I chose Imran Khan’. I did not know much about his party’s policies, but at the time they quite frankly did not matter. What mattered was that criminals taking charge of the country was unacceptable, and I and many like me would rather have a national hero take that honor. This was followed by an immense nationwide membership drive, multiple rallies, demonstrations and sit-ins against U.S drone strikes and also very importantly the removal of 35 million fake votes by the Supreme Court thanks to the party’s petition. The hearts and minds of the Pakistani people were won way before October 30th, and the Sit-in in Islamabad on Independence Day should have convinced analysts and pessimists that the PTI was a force to be reckoned with.

With all this in mind, in the weeks before the rally I could not understand the countless columns I read and current affair shows I watched in which analysts and guests alike played the down the possibility of a successful rally in a place like Iqbal Park. None of the ‘experts’ gave PTI a chance, but myself and so much of the urban youth who are so often labeled as ‘naïve’ and ‘politically inept’ by the same experts, expected nothing less than the successful rally that took place. While so many have finally confessed to have underestimated the party’s strength, some analysts still hold the opinion that the rally was a failure with not more than 60,000 people present at the venue. I think it’s safe to say that any sane person would admit that estimating a crowd of the size of 60K present at the location is absurd. I have been to the Minaar-e-Pakistan, I have been to stadiums that hold 100,000 people and I have been to an open concert where 175,000 people have attended. The area in front of the Minaar-e-Pakistan for the attendants was roughly 1200x1200square feet, which should accommodate at capacity at the very least 300,000 people estimating a single person takes up over 4square feet. Pictures and reports suggest that the area mentioned was beyond filled and people were standing even by the roads. In all honesty I could not care less if 100,000 or 500,000 were present because the purpose was fulfilled, but math and logic (both of which I major in) tell you that at the extreme very least, the attendance to the PTI rally could not possibly have been less than 200,000.

Getting back on track, Imran Khan’s and other senior party member’s speeches at the rally focused on why my support is strongly with the PTI. Some of the usual rhetoric was avoided, and issues like women empowerment through an education emergency, peace in Baluchistan, religious tolerance and minority rights were promised. The party also stated that they would cooperate with the U.S as equals instead of slaves and help them in a withdrawal from Afghanistan. Somehow this ended up as anti-Americanism as were the stories about the rally in the international media. Nothing was discussed in too much detail, and I do concede that some personal remarks about opposition leaders could have been avoided.

Why I support Imran Khan is because his party represents what I believe in most strongly, justice. I remember Imran Khan visiting Ahemdi victims in hospital after a violent attack on their mosque, I remember a wing of the PTI protesting against the killing of two innocent Christian brothers on charges of blasphemy and I remember when he sided with Salman Taseer on the case of Asia Bibi. Imran Khan has clearly stated that his party’s position is to repeal the Hudood Ordinance of rape and debate it in parliament and he strongly condemned the hero’s reception of Mumtaz Qadri. He even dared to speak about the intolerance of homosexuality in society. These kinds of gestures are what make my trust and belief in him and the party so strong, apart from other policies which I touched on in the last post.

To some the rally was a failure, the PTI is still a political minnow and a fringe party. To others Imran Khan is still a terrorist sympathizer and a Taliban stooge. As far as I’m concerned I don’t think anything can convince someone who is bent on not being convinced, but slowly, especially after the rally even the most pessimistic onlookers of the PTI’s progress have had a change of heart. Others display remarkable characteristics of madness and blindness. I guess critics search forever for the wrong word, which to their credit, they eventually find.

 

[truthseer]

Imran Khan, the only guy Pakistan can trust

 

[Leader]

another wonderful article, reasons to be optimistic, that is why we should never ever give up hope,


Odd as it may seem, 2011 is proving to be a year of rebirth
Something deep and impressive is going on in the new generation who have an innate sense of justice and fairness.



When New York's mayor, Michael Bloomberg, sent stormtrooper cops – equipped with batons, pepper spray and ear-splitting pain compliance devices – to sweep the Occupy protesters from Wall Street, he was attacked by the American TV commentator Keith Olbermann as "a smaller, more embarrassing version of the tinpot tyrants who have fallen around the globe this year".

That will have pricked Bloomberg's technocratic vanity, yet there he is, three months away from his 70th birthday and worth approximately $19.5bn, ordering his police chief, Ray Kelly, who has already hit 70 but is still, incidentally, a familiar figure on the Manhattan party circuit, to unleash a shocking level of force against young people who were simply agitating for a better economic system, more equity and transparency.

It is not a good look in a country where, as Joseph Stiglitz revealed in Vanity Fair, 1% of the population now takes nearly 25% of the nation's income. Justly or not, Bloomberg will be lumped with that international class of rich, often kleptomaniac, elderly men who have been brought down or who are looking shaky as demands for reform circle the world in what I believe to be a surge of optimism and, crucially, reason.

The Age of Downfalls, inaugurated when the 74-year-old President Ben Ali of Tunisia flew into exile and a coma, has claimed a surprising number of his generation. And it's not just the toppling of tyrants such as Ben Ali, the 83-year-old former President Mubarak of Egypt, or the 69-year-old Muammar Gaddafi, but also the demise of such men as Silvio Berlusconi (75), the former head of the IMF Dominique Strauss Khan (62) and the variety of threats faced by many Middle Eastern leaders, Rupert Murdoch (80) and the president of Fifa, Sepp Blatter (75).

Obviously, the same forces are not responsible for each man's troubles, but a year ago each of them seemed bombproof. We had no inkling that the world was about to be remade in such astonishingly short order; that history would decide, for whatever reason, that these men have had their time and the pathetic fiction of the dictator's hair dye would no longer work. If neutrinos can travel the length of Italy faster than the speed of light, calling into question our most fundamental assumptions about the universe, just about anything can happen.

One of the important traits of the Age of Downfalls is the exposure of myths and lies, a characteristic established in its initial months last winter by Wikileaks, which told us how things really were – that Saudi Arabia urged the US to bomb Iran; that the CIA tried to collect the UN general secretary's DNA; that China ordered the hacking of Google; that Ben Ali's family were looting Tunisia.

Much more has followed – a proper understanding of Greece's fraudulent application to join the euro; the revelations about oil companies owned by the Koch brothers paying for inaccurate and misleading information on climate change; the relentless uncovering of News International's evasions about hacking and police corruption; the protests when China started burying the wreckage of a train crash; and the exposure of the hopeful falsehood of the euro project, which suggests countries with widely varying economic performance and different cultures can unite in a single currency.

Whether through the market or the media, the internet or the instincts of the masses, truth has become the revolutionary weapon in the Age of Downfalls. That is surely a cause for optimism.

Indeed, the reason for hope is reason itself. Across the world, millions have demonstrated for fairness and enlightenment values. The chants of young people that echoed through the cities of Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Dubai, Syria, Greece, Spain, Italy, Israel, Chile, America and Britain are very similar – they are about freedom, self-determination, fairness, justice, access to education and jobs, as well as the corruption, mismanagement and greed of their elders.

In Burma, demand for reforms have led to Aung San Suu Kyi's announcement that she will stand in the next election. Even in Pakistan, a country generally regarded as beyond repair, Imran Khan's recent rally in Lahore struck the familiar notes of the Arab Spring. According to Tariq Ali in the London Review of Books, Khan's limited programme to end corruption, institute a strict tax regime, restore public services and terminate the servile relationship with the US was cheered as loudly by "young women in jeans and T-shirts… as those in hijabs". It is now possible to believe that Khan and Suu Kyi may both end up bringing a very different eye to the government of their peoples.

Reason has not won the battle against mythomaniac religions and greedy interests, particularly with the right of American politics, which embraces both these menaces as an article of national pride. Yet something deep and impressive is going on in the new generation, who have come of age. it seems. with an almost innate understanding of justice and fairness, and are – significantly – managing their religious convictions in the context of wanting improved societies.

Barely a week has gone by this year when I have not thrilled at the turn of events and pinched myself at some new surprise. A small example is the latest crime survey for the US, released by the FBI in the summer. Murder, rape, robbery and other serious crimes have fallen to a 48-year low. The murder rate has halved and robberies are down 10%, following an 8% fall in 2009. Canada shows the same fall (without locking up the vast numbers the US has) and England and Wales recorded an overall drop of 4%, with violence causing injury and firearms offences both down by 9%. We are perhaps better than we know, or at least better than governments give us credit for.

The key question seems to be this: will all the hopes of the year evaporate as we revert to type? Are we basically limited by human nature? Recent Swiss research published by the New Scientist suggests that each of us is programmed to behave like Ben Ali or Putin, or the corporate monsters, Berlusconi and Murdoch. If a person is given power over people and has more to gain from underhand dealings, abuse almost always follows. Yet research shows that a very few individuals will defy the pattern and set an example and that culture and institutions restrict corruption and the abuse of power.

That is the vital point: millions are calling not just for fairness and justice, but a reform of the institutions that will guard against the crimes and corruption of the few against the many. This is an amazingly important step for humanity and it is one of the reasons that despite the sense of impending crisis, I take heart from the Age of Downfalls.

Odd as it may seem, 2011 is proving to be a year of rebirth | Henry Porter | Comment is free | The Observer


worth reading...

 

[Tayyab1796]

In my opinion Imran Khan shares a lot of qualities with Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah and PTI is the only Pakistani political party that follows Quaid's princliples = FAITH, UNITY, and DISCIPLINE.

To add more i m sure if Quaid e Azam were alive in today's environment where media and information (and disinformation) is very easy he would hav his character torn to shreds by his opponents , by today's standards Quaid may be a lota (he changed his loyalties from Congress to Muslim League) .Eventhough he was 'one of the finest leaders' produced by the contemporary Muslim World .

 

[StandForInsaf]

To add more i m sure if Quaid e Azam were alive in today's environment where media and information (and disinformation) is very easy he would hav his character torn to shreds by his opponents , by today's standards Quaid may be a lota (he changed his loyalties from Congress to Muslim League) .Eventhough he was 'one of the finest leaders' produced by the contemporary Muslim World .

Wrong one who change party without resigning from assembly seat is lota not every one.