"Imran Khan, A loser in politics who suffers with Identity crisis": Shafqat Mehmood

[Rafael]

Yes but his current actions are really not helping his political views in the country he is misquoting stats and he has even been losing arguements on the television on alot of the debate shows we have on the numerous channels.

Yess, I agree..His current stance on this operation is not very popular amongst the people of pakistan...and I too am not convinced.

But then we shouldnt assasinate his image in a public forum just because we disagree with some of his actions..I am sure he still is cleaner than almost all of our frontline politicians.

 

[pak-marine]

IK has to learn a lot i guess first he has to travel back to earth from watever planet he thinks he is on i hope may be he will improve and stop applying his cricket strategy on pakistani nation , there arent 12-15 men its about 170 million people.

His advantage is that he is clean but i dont see him very successful unles he change his controversialpolicies ,he goes completly bizzerk ... he has an attitude and a short temper , sounds very dictorial in his speech .....unfortunatly not many people likes this and this cant win him hearts and minds ....his present failuer is clearly due to not supporting the war.

 

[dabong1]

Imran Khan and the Taliban
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Naeemul Haque

The extraordinary fluidity in the Swat situation has led to widespread confusion about the government policy and its effectiveness. The pervasive ad-hocism amongst our national decision makers has led to flip-flop policies which have already proven to be disastrous.

The National Assembly was asked to endorse the Nizam-e-Adl but was not consulted about the army action. Mr Zardari has managed to thwart the constitution and ignore the parliament thanks to a pliant prime minister, by agreeing to switch policy under intense American pressure.

This pressure has been so great that it has prevented the previous and the current governments from pursuing a realistic solution to the whole regional crisis encompassing Pakistan, Afghanistan and the Taliban.

Today the whole region is as far away from peace and that elusive prosperity as it can be, thanks to an unclear and directionless American policy. Amongst the political leadership of Pakistan those in power or sharing power have failed to define a road map to achieve these objectives and remain subservient to American whims.

Amongst the very few who have repeatedly called for a comprehensive solution to this growing crisis Imran Khan has stood out as a bold and independent leader reflecting the will of the majority of the people of Pakistan.

According to the most recent IRI opinion poll 72 per cent of Pakistanis support a peace deal with the Taliban, 52 per cent are against the army action in Swat and 61 per cent are against co-operating with the US in its "war on terror".

There are many who disagree with Imran Khan and many who don't understand him. And there are many more who don't understand the complexity of the situation but are quick to pass judgement.

Shafqat Mahmood's article published in this newspaper recently is a fine example of this. Shafqat has tried his luck in politics, 'grabbed many opportunities', was unable to sustain them and was quick to drop out preferring the life of an armchair observer.

His failure to understand Imran Khan's philosophy is understandable. Imran Khan is a man in touch with the people; people like Shafqat are not. Imran Khan believes strongly in a sovereign and self reliant Pakistan and stands for a fundamental change in the way our country is governed.

This goes against the thinking of many political pundits who cannot see Pakistan surviving without American support.

Imran Khan has consistently believed that the current crisis being faced by us has many dimensions and cannot be solved through army action. We have seen the separation of East Pakistan and alienation of Baluchistan which were caused by our attempts to resolve political issues through military means.

Military option should only be used as a last resort when all other options have failed, Imran believes. In case of the Nizam-e-Adl agreement, Imran supported it as it was carried out by a democratically elected provincial government and endorsed by the National Assembly. But then Imran was also quick to criticise Sufi Mohammad for violating the agreement and rejecting the constitution. His criticism of Sufi Mohammad was harsher than any other political leader of the country.

For the last two years Imran has been the leading proponent of the supremacy of the constitution (1973 version), rule of law and independence of judiciary. His commitment to these causes remains unparalleled and even in the context of the Swat situation he firmly believes that adherence to the constitution and rule of law should remain the guiding principles.

Shafqat Mahmood has accused Imran Khan of trying to take on Altaf Hussain of the MQM unprepared. If Shafqat had bothered to check the facts he would have found out that the Scotland Yard has been seeking information and cooperation from Pakistan's Ministry of Interior for the last few years without any luck as the MQM has remained part of the Musharraf and PPP governments.

Shafqat's disdain is based on lack of knowledge and a confused frustration. Shafqat laments Imran's failure to indulge in opportunism. Sheer opportunism may be a virtue to Shafqat and the likes but not to Imran.

A month before 9/11, a Taliban delegation was in the US meeting officials and oil companies with a view to getting them engaged in rebuilding Afghanistan. Their "world view" if any, was an inclusive one rather than an exclusive one. So they were not really the outcasts as Shafqat would like to believe.

Imran rejects the Taliban version of orthodox Islam and believes in the progressive view of Islam as preached by Quaid-e-Azam and Iqbal. Imran also values the rich cultural and religious heritage of Islam and how it has evolved in the sub-continent and West Asia.

It is in this perspective that he has focussed on finding indigenous solutions to our problems. This has never been understood by people like Shafqat who find it difficult to see beyond the western way of thinking.

Imran strongly believes that our region is engulfed in flames because of the ill-advised American invasion and subjugation of Afghanistan. He wrote in a letter to President Obama earlier this year that America must seek to change its role from an occupier to a partner.

Throughout history the Afghans have never accepted foreign domination and the American guns are not going to change that. The Afghan Taliban perceive this conflict as a battle to liberate their homeland. The Afghan Taliban are not anti Pakistan and are not involved in the anti-state activities of the numerous Pakistani "Taliban" groups . It is very important to differentiate between the two.

Imran believes that those who seek to destabilise the state of Pakistan must be dealt with severely, but those who seek changes within the constitutional framework must be heard. He believes that we as a nation have not been able to evolve a national agenda and it is this very lack of agenda that is making us more and more subservient to the American policy.

Imran Khan and his party want a comprehensive solution to this critical issue based on the following formula:

An international conference of all stakeholders in Afghanistan to prepare a road map for the departure of American and NATO forces from Afghanistan, their replacement by UN peacekeeping forces from Islamic countries, holding of free and fair elections in Afghanistan under UN supervision with full participation of all political forces of the country including the Taliban.

As the Afghan Taliban are given an opportunity to become part of the mainstream in their country, Imran believes, millions of their supporters and sympathisers in Pakistan would also be similarly inclined and can be brought into the Pakistani political framework through an intensified dialogue designed to address their real issues.

Imran's vision for Pakistan is based on sovereignty, dignity, opportunity and prosperity and as the latest IRI poll testifies he is already the second most popular leader in the country.

His message is already getting through. Shafqat Mahmood please stand up.

Imran Khan and the Taliban

The writer is a member of the central executive committee of Pakistan Tehrik-e-Insaf. Email: naeemul_ haque@yahoo.com

 

[Rafael]

Saturday, May 23, 2009
By Imran Khan

It was Goebbels who came up with the brilliant theory that if the government wanted people to follow its policy, it must first instill fear in them and then slap all dissenters with the unpatriotic card. Anyone like me, who disagrees with the current indiscriminate military operation is accused of being a Taliban apologist.

Let me state categorically that I have been against the military operations since the disaster of what was formerly the East Pakistan. From East Pakistan to the present Swat operation, the political mantra has always been “no option but the military”. Successive military operations in Balochistan have only added to the sufferings of the Baloch people, which nurtured the seeds of their disillusionment with the Pakistani state.

When Bush decided to attack Afghanistan in less than a month after 9/11, I opposed this US policy at every forum, including through the print and electronic media. Later, when he ordered the invasion of Iraq, I joined the nearly 2 million marchers in London opposing the Iraq war. It is noteworthy that at the time, over 90 per cent of Americans supported Bush’s Iraq invasion. Today, the overwhelming opinion in the US is that Iraq was a disaster. Moreover, the so-called “good war” in Afghanistan is being lost and its support dwindling.

It is not surprising to see the findings of a Rand Corporation study of the last 40 years of terrorist or asymmetric conflicts, which reveal that only 7 per cent of these conflicts were resolved through military means.

When Musharraf buckled under the US pressure and sent the Pakistan Army into Waziristan, I opposed it in parliament and through the media. Speaking to the editors, Musharraf called me a “terrorist without a beard” – as if terrorism is the sole domain of bearded folk. When the Pakistan Army was sent into Waziristan, there were no militant Taliban in Pakistan. As a result of the Army operation, the tribal social and political structure was destroyed throughout Fata and Malakand, and the vacuum has been filled by nine major militant Taliban groups.

Again, at the time Musharraf commenced military action in Balochistan I opposed it and was accused of backing the “anti-state” elements. Today, what was a movement for Baloch rights and autonomy within Pakistan has morphed into a Baloch independence movement. On opposing the Lal Masjid operation, some of the self-appointed “liberals” accused me of backing the Islamic fundamentalists. But soon most of the indefatigable crusaders for human rights joined the critics of the Lal Masjid operation. More sobering is the fact that there were 60 suicide attacks in the aftermath of the slaughter of the Lal Masjid inmates and a steep rise in extremism. The Swat flare-up is a direct consequence of the Lal Masjid operation.

While discussing my opposition to the current military operation, I must state where I stand politically and ideologically. My political inspiration is derived solely from Quaid-i-Azam, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the constitutionalist and democrat who believed in the rule of law above all else. My ideological moorings are firmly rooted in the political and spiritual dimensions of Allama Iqbal’s exposition of Islam, which not only liberates society from bondage but also the human soul from material desires – releasing the enormous God-given human potential.

Above all, I am an ardent follower of our Prophet’s (PBUH) example of inspiring the heart and the intellect rather than forcing ideas through the sword – a far cry from what has been happening in Swat in the name of Islam. So on no count can I possibly either support the un-Islamic acts such as beheadings, flogging of women, or forcing a way of life on others, nor am I an apologist for such people – I am only answerable on this count to my conscience and to my God.

As for my opposition to the Malakand military operation, first and foremost I believe that the military option, if it has to be used should always be a last resort. Yet in Swat, the military operation was started barely two weeks after the presidential signing of the accord without alternative political strategies being given a chance. In my opinion, a national conference of all stakeholders, including religious and political parties and groups, particularly those representing Swat, should have been called prior to the operation. A delegation from such a conference should have been mandated to visit Swat and talk reason to the militants and report back to parliament. In other words, every effort should have been made to make the militants abide by the peace deal. All along the political effort, a concerted effort should have been made to gain time to revive civil administration, police, and the paramilitary presence in Swat.

The diehard militants who consistently refused to adhere to peace agreement could have been isolated over time – a key counter-insurgency tactic followed by precise military action to decapacitate the leadership.

Assuming, there was no alternative to the military option, then while it was being planned, arrangements should have been made for the people who were going to be displaced. Sadly, and shamefully, the military operation began suddenly under increased US pressure, timed with Zardari’s US visit and with the least concern for the people of the area.

The unfolding tragedy that is taking place in Swat is mindboggling. To flush out a few thousand militant Taliban, more than two million people have been forced to live in misery in camps not fit for animals in civilised societies. Even more disturbing is the use of heavy artillery shelling and bombing from the air alongside helicopter gunships in areas with significant civilian population. Despite a heavy blackout, the news coming from the war zone tell tales of dozens if not hundreds of innocent civilian casualties.

Given the collapse of governance in the country, can we adequately look after so many displaced people – especially as summer temperatures soar? And for how long? The wheat crop has already been lost. If the IDPs cannot return within two months, the fruit cash crops will be at risk. Hence how will they sustain themselves for the coming year? Perhaps most dangerous is the possibility of IDPs’ anger and frustration that besides resulting in riots may also swell the ranks of the militants.

In such a situation, according to the Army briefing given to the parliamentarians, there is every possibility of the Taliban resurfacing not just in Malakand Division but elsewhere in the country – possibly the urban centres. Can we afford further spread of terrorism in our cities given the precarious security and fragile economic situation? Military action breeds more militancy.

An Army action which has already led to almost 2.5 million displaced countrymen cannot simply be accepted without questions. And, as if we do not already have a crisis, Zardari has declared that the war in Swat is merely the beginning of a wider war, which is likely to engulf other parts of the country. It is time to take stock and stop ourselves from committing collective suicide. What needs to be done is the following:

* The military action unfortunately is already underway but there is no political, particularly governance, strategy which is guiding this operation. That should be the first priority so that the military action does not continue in a political vacuum.

* A clear governance and political strategy that allows the IDPs to return following a swift end to military operation is needed. This strategy should be focused on a system of speedy justice through the Nizam-e-Adl and effective civil administration. The writ of the state and the rule of law go together and this has to be ensured if violent challenges to state and government are to be avoided in the future.

* The military action, if at all, should have been extremely limited in scale and targeted with precision to minimise civilian casualties. Tragically, this did not happen and my fear is that widespread use of aerial weapons would only result in greater civilian casualties, swelling the ranks of the militants. So the military action needs to be revised to focus more on specific targeting and commando action.

Will any of this happen? Unfortunately in the present mood of the ruling elite, this does not seem likely. Instead, we will see increasing military action in the tribal areas as long as the US is in occupation of Afghanistan.

In other words, as long as US troops in Afghanistan are perceived to be an occupying force that is anti-Pushtun and anti-Islam, there will be no peace in this region. We are heading in a fatal direction unless we change our strategy and pull out of this insane war that is sinking us into chaos. The longer this persists, the deeper we will find ourselves in this quagmire and we will confront a deeply divided society.

Finally, my heart bleeds for the poor soldier confronting his own people turned into misguided and brutalised militants and giving his life for a war wrought on him by a corrupt and decadent ruling elite that cannot see beyond the lure of American dollars that have become as much of a curse for this hapless nation as the criminal extremists in our very midst.
----

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Although I dont agree with all of above article, but some points that he has raised are very important and they need full attention and the support of the govt which unfortunately is busy begging the international community and I think we have seen how serious they are while " going into night clubs and spending thousand of dollars in USA" and asking for Aid at the same time...

They should have arranged for the IDP's before the start of the operation...and this criminal negligence on the part of the GOP can be very dangerous for us...The whole next generation of these IDP's can become "terrorist" if not taken care properly.

 

[iioal malik]

you got me all wrong there BANE.... THERIK INSAF might have distinguised backgrounds....yet no one can name 3 members of tehrik insaf....

when you think of PML(N) you think of besides the 2 btohers.....JAVED HASHMEI,SAAD RAFIQUE,CHAUDRY NISAR

in PPP you get alot of names that are prominent....

whenever there is a talk show or any event or anything if TEHRIK INSAF has to have a representation it has to be IMRAN KHAN or no one!!!

@ Reheel

bro i do give him credit for sastaa tandoor,chief justice,cancer hospital... however, there are alot of issues that i think he is clueless or seriously lacks a vision!!

do u think imran or THERIK INSAF give a daam wat you give them creidit for n wat not for. ignorant people like u only support ignorant people corrupt people. perhaps you are not smart enough to understand the vision of THERIK INSAF . in pakistan political parties always want to be in power all the time they don't care if they support a dictator in that process like MQM PMLQ.THERIK INSAF has not been in the power yet. it's preety new party which doesn't have any corrupt politicians which is gud for pakistan.

 

[batmannow]

Birds of a feather flock together? Pakistan it seems really can change, at least one sees glimses of it - a Pakistan free of angry, identity politics based on language, ethnicity, regionalism, casteism even - the engine of this change is economics and a awareness of what the life of others is becoming.

Batman says "imran has had a strange political career" -- Batman, do you recall the Nawabzada? referred to by some as Haramzada, a comparison of the career and the particular role in politics they choose to plat will be instructive.

muse;dear
i guss, what i forget to include in my "STRANGE" is "E"!
SORY ,muse!
HE cant even think to be in the boots, of Nawabzada sahib?
Nawabzada sahib, was a prominent political pakistani leader, who was a master of political manuvers?

i dont , think IMRAN can reach that hieght, any way in his political carrerr.
no, IMRAN cant, be what you call a leader, but i guss he can become a young QAZI
& THATS it.

 

[Zob]

do u think imran or THERIK INSAF give a daam wat you give them creidit for n wat not for. ignorant people like u only support ignorant people corrupt people. perhaps you are not smart enough to understand the vision of THERIK INSAF . in pakistan political parties always want to be in power all the time they don't care if they support a dictator in that process like MQM PMLQ.THERIK INSAF has not been in the power yet. it's preety new party which doesn't have any corrupt politicians which is gud for pakistan.

the highlighted statement my friend clearly shows that there is not much diffrence between you and a die hard supporter of MQM.....

vision of IMRAN KHAN is against the operation in SWAT....clearly i am a very short sighted person can you elaborate why he is against the operation.....??

 

[niaz]

Let me take the liberty of pointing out holes in Imrans arguments.

Firstly he states that when Army went into Waziristan, there were no militants Taliban in Waziristan. The two attempts on Musharaf’s life in Dec 2003 were found to have originated in Waziristan. In March 2004 PA was confronted with armed resistance by some 400 militants holed up in fortified positions near Wana. Militants must have been there long enough to prepare fortifications. Imran’s assertion is therefore incorrect.

Anyone who has followed Baluchistan operation ( many posts in the archives of this forum) will know that Akbar Bugti also had a state within a state around Dera Bugti and had armed lashkar holed up around hill top positions, making Dera Bugti a no go area. GOP did carry out long and extended discussions with the Nawab before actual army action. Whether there was still room for further negotiations is a debatable issue.

Imran Khan correctly states that there have 60 suicide attacks after the Lal Masjid, but forgets to mention that real cause of the spate of suicide attacks is the out and out opposition by bigots such as Imran Khan and extremely biased reporting by another bigot Hamid Mir and Pak Dushman TV (Geo TV). These people made heroes out of the gun totting thugs. Imran Khan sidesteps the issue as to how long should GOP have allowed burqa clad lathi wielding women to open defy govt writ? Doesn’t he know that Jamia Hafsa students had occupied Children’s library building for almost 6 months and refused to vacate despite repeated appeals and discussions. Whether it was okay to have guns inside mosque has be ignored altogether.

Swat flare up as direct result of Lal Masjid operation is also incorrect. TNFSM existed long before Taliban appeared in Afghanistan. It may be true that the anti state elements who wanted to impose their will on Islamabad found Swat an easier victim.

Imran’s claim that he is an ardent follower of the Quaid is the biggest lie of all. Did Imran not initially support Musharraf’s ouster of NS government? How can anyone with the slightest regard of Quaid's words as mentioned in the speech of 11th August actually support the Taliban views of forcing their version of Islam by brute force in any way?

Isn’t it hypocrisy in the extreme to claim to be a democrat as well as argue for Sufi Mohammed who shouted for all to hear that democracy was kufr; he didn’t care for Pakistan constitution and went on to say that he would even refuse to offer prayers behind people who took part in the elections?

Imran is however correct is criticizing that the operation was planned in haste and without adequate preparations for handling the problems of IDPs.

This retort by Imran Khan is typical of a politician who would exploit every thing to show gov’t in a bad light in an attempt to earn political brownie points with the voters.