Imran still chasing talks with military establishment

Imran still chasing talks with military establishment​

ISLAMABAD: Former prime minister Imran Khan on Monday ruled out talks with the government led by Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif calling it an exercise in futility, but appeared to be keen on initiating a dialogue with the military establishment — the ‘real decision makers’.

Talking to the media during his appearance at the Islamabad High Court (IHC) in connection with multiple cases, the PTI chairman said that he did not believe in “vengeance and will strive for the rule of law” if he came to power again.

In response to a question whether he was ready to hold talks with politicians on the charter of economy, Mr Khan replied that politicians, including the incumbent rulers, were “powerless and they have no authority to conclude the dialogues”. The establishment is the “real decision maker and power is concentrated” within the military, he claimed.

Mr Khan accused former army chief Qamar Javed Bajwa of “backstabbing” and said that he could have sacked Mr Bajwa on at least three different occasions, but he exercised restraint. The PTI chief dispelled the impression of being under pressure and said that he was more concerned for the economy.

He said that the debt servicing exceeded the federal budget, the economy was on the verge of default, and industry had almost collapsed and added that all the economic indicators declined in just one year.

He said that the incumbent government was responsible for the poor economy and the only solution for this problem was to explore venues of income generation, mega reforms, and taking drastic measures.

He further said that his government was buying Russian oil at 40 per cent less price. “Is this a solution, is this a reason for toppling my regime?” he questioned. It may be noted that the first shipment of Russian fuel reached Pakistan on Sunday.

In a comment on the statement of the opposition leader in the National Assembly about a delay in general elections, Mr Khan said that the ruling coalition was reluctant to hold elections even in October fearing defeat. He said that they thought PTI would be crushed but they could only dream for this. He termed the departure of heavyweights from his party ‘as a blessing in disguise’, saying that “he got rid of the electables and that those who had parted ways with him and formed a new party are the ultimate losers”. He was optimistic about winning the next general elections even if he would be jailed.

Mr Khan also distanced himself from the drugs case registered against Rana Sanaullah during his tenure and blamed it on the Anti-Narcotics Force (ANF) headed by a serving major general who had briefed the federal cabinet on the arrest of Mr Sanaullah.

He expressed apprehensions about his military trial in connection with the May 9 violence and said that the authorities were turning “approvers to charge him” under the Army Act. He termed trials of civilians in military courts as the end of democracy and justice.

Bail in graft case

Earlier, Mr Khan appeared before the IHC to pursue his petition seeking direction for the chief commissioner to shift at least four courts from Sector F-8 Markaz to the comparatively secure Federal Judicial Complex (FJC) in Sector G-11.

His lawyer stated that due to the fragile law and order situation in Sector F-8 Markaz, it was not convenient for Mr Khan to appear in the relevant judicial magistrates/trial courts.

These cases were based on the FIRs registered at four police stations in Islamabad.

Also on Monday, the PTI chairman filed two separate petitions, one of which pertained to a corruption case registered in Dera Ghazi Khan.

IHC Chief Justice Aamer Farooq granted Mr Khan protective bail in the corruption case and directed him to approach the chief commissioner for shifting of courts from F-8 to the judicial complex in G-11.

Published in Dawn, June 13th, 2023

Imran still chasing talks with military establishment

Says politicians, including incumbent rulers, are "powerless".

www.dawn.com

https://twitter.com/x/status/1667598306942279685

 

[Meengla]

As for Ayub Khan's so-called Golden Days of Pakistan, it was nothing but foreign aid up to 60% per different sources that funded his vanity projects which, to date, haven't produced a profit on their own and have the ability to survive without the government feeding these dead weights. Even after the War on Terror, it was American blessing's they opened their markets to Pakistan; it was nothing but a 100B GDP economy before.

I firmly believe, beyond any doubts, if Pakistan is even standing today as a country, it was due to Ayub Khan. He took over after the disastrous, rapid govt. changes in the 1950s and that too for a new country with very limited resources and turned Pakistan's fortunes around. Pakistan was, rightly, looked as a 'model' of development by the likes of even South Korea. I don't think there are many Pakistanis who would dispute what I am saying here.

In Pakistan, a political party is a cult; down to the grassroots level, there is too much personality, tribe, and clan worship;

In general, yes. But PTI was NEVER a political 'party'. Honestly, it was simply a cult like the Jim Jones cult. I truly believe that. Other parties like PPP and PMLN have at least some internal discussions. If rumors are to be true, then the witch-craft wife Bushra had an a huge role in Imran's policies. But other political parties have enough dissenting voices--especially in PPP. Even right now, PPP stalwarts like Raza Rabbani and Sherry Rehman (and probably more) are against the Military Courts; they are voicing their concerns against the party line. In case of Imran Khan's PTI: It was a total dictatorship!!

Why are you guys surprised by Imran's behavior? Those of us who saw him as a cricketer in the 70s and 80s were well aware of his self-absorbed arrogant ways. And the Power given to him, backed by the military, only made him worse. It is an open and shut case of very stupid behavior, with roots in arrogance and Narcissism.

 

[Chute]

I firmly believe, beyond any doubts, if Pakistan is even standing today as a country, it was due to Ayub Khan. He took over after the disastrous, rapid govt. changes in the 1950s and that too for a new country with very limited resources and turned Pakistan's fortunes around. Pakistan was, rightly, looked as a 'model' of development by the likes of even South Korea. I don't think there are many Pakistanis who would dispute what I am saying here.


In general, yes. But PTI was NEVER a political 'party'. Honestly, it was simply a cult like the Jim Jones cult. I truly believe that. Other parties like PPP and PMLN have at least some internal discussions. If rumors are to be true, then the witch-craft wife Bushra had an a huge role in Imran's policies. But other political parties have enough dissenting voices--especially in PPP. Even right now, PPP stalwarts like Raza Rabbani and Sherry Rehman (and probably more) are against the Military Courts; they are voicing their concerns against the party line. In case of Imran Khan's PTI: It was a total dictatorship!!

Why are you guys surprised by Imran's behavior? Those of us who saw him as a cricketer in the 70s and 80s were well aware of his self-absorbed arrogant ways. And the Power given to him, backed by the military, only made him worse. It is an open and shut case of very stupid behavior, with roots in arrogance and Narcissism.

@PakFactor is more or less correct though.

Pakistani economy simply had higher % of USD (especially pre-greenspan) circulating through it in the cold war (due to SEATO et al. relationship) compared to countries like India and China.

Hence when measuring GDP in USD, it would get a boost from that....past a more fairer basis of measuring total consumption (especially of things like energy consumption) would have suggested.

This is actually part of reason why Pakistan economist Mahbub Haq developed the PPP system in the 1980s to help address this phenomenon.

Hence why China and India have grown as they have done in USD terms too when they became much less autarkic-minded and more participatory in world economic system post cold war....of which USD is dominant.

This is all tied in the end to the really bad socioeconomic figures Pakistan has now from that cold war era too (literacy rate and so on) compared to even the south asian average (and even further behind the Chinese)....that are upstream to its economic stability and performance....and their terrible state increasingly.

Ayub Khan was big part of wrecking what could have been a far better route for Pakistan to follow on a proper republican system commensurate to its size, diversity and reality.

Likely a largely irrevocable wrecking as the powerful military establishment simply are too used to the position of power they occupy, too uncaring of the larger people underneath them and know fully well how to keep getting away with it.

So any institutional-public trust is close to zero in Pakistan...and you can see the results for yourself for next 10 and 20 years and after too.

 

[SaadH]

Would you like to tell us what he did?

I know few people of Pakistan are living in their own created fantasy and the majority are fully awake. “Cult” leader tried to give power to the people, tried to create an environment where no one is above the law. Establishment blind lover boys have failed to lane from their history of blunders.

Zia ruled for 10+years? What happened when elections were held? PPP came back with a strong majority. How long do you think this traitor in chief will rule for? Let’s give him 10 years, what happens after that? You think majority of Pakistanis which are young will forget everything? If khan was a cult leader, he would have agreed to a compromise with establishment.

Zia was a benevolent softie compared to the current lot of bloodthirsty sepoy vampires. By the time they are done, there won't be anyone left to vote. Plus as Karachi mayoral elections have proven, sepoys only believe in the '71 election template, get the guy with half of other guy's seat to be the PM

 

[PakFactor]

I firmly believe, beyond any doubts, if Pakistan is even standing today as a country, it was due to Ayub Khan. He took over after the disastrous, rapid govt. changes in the 1950s and that too for a new country with very limited resources and turned Pakistan's fortunes around. Pakistan was, rightly, looked as a 'model' of development by the likes of even South Korea. I don't think there are many Pakistanis who would dispute what I am saying here.


In general, yes. But PTI was NEVER a political 'party'. Honestly, it was simply a cult like the Jim Jones cult. I truly believe that. Other parties like PPP and PMLN have at least some internal discussions. If rumors are to be true, then the witch-craft wife Bushra had an a huge role in Imran's policies. But other political parties have enough dissenting voices--especially in PPP. Even right now, PPP stalwarts like Raza Rabbani and Sherry Rehman (and probably more) are against the Military Courts; they are voicing their concerns against the party line. In case of Imran Khan's PTI: It was a total dictatorship!!

Why are you guys surprised by Imran's behavior? Those of us who saw him as a cricketer in the 70s and 80s were well aware of his self-absorbed arrogant ways. And the Power given to him, backed by the military, only made him worse. It is an open and shut case of very stupid behavior, with roots in arrogance and Narcissism.

Yes, it was the Five Year Plan that the South Korean and others liked and how it would build up as new leadership in the future took power. However, that fell through while the Koreans and others held onto our initial thinking. But as I said, it was nothing but aid money being pumped into the system during Ayub, yet none of the development and work yielded any results. Why? Because, as others on this forum said, things became concentrated in the hands of a few families, and those assets that Ayub built were underutilized and awarded to a few families. Subsiding imports using aid money, we did it then as we did it now while racking up loans on the side. Some say upwards of $ 4- $ 5 billion dollars were given to Pakistan aid separate from defense aid. To give you a perspective of the dollar amount, let's use $ 3.5 billion in 1960. Today in dollar terms, it's almost $ 34 billion.

So image as the below article states, using 60% to subsidize imports rather than expanding profitable industrial units and setting up technical schools. So you see, it's not just the Five Year Plan, but the model in which we failed, and others were successful. On this forum last year, I stated even in Gwadar, we need technical schools set up to maintain and develop further because if not, you will be back to where you started, just as with Ayub.

Eventually, the people had to pay for the burden of Ayub's follies just as we are paying for PPP/PML failed policies. Let's not even go into his failed 1965 War with Operation Gibraltar; that set us back even more economically, and his stupid thinking joining CETO would grant him access to weapons while warring with India.

Regarding your "cult," you have N-Leaguers saying to let Nawaz back, and everything will be alright. While that man is sitting in London running the show. Then you have 40-year veterans of politics standing behind Bilawal to be the PM, and the question should be asked if this was to be the case, what the f*ck was the purpose of you being politicians? Then bowing your heads to a chokra that can't lift a clit up. A few dissents mean nothing in the grand scheme of things.



Below should be a good read before going too deep into the subject matter: What they never tell us about Ayub Khan's regime - Pakistan - DAWN.COM

The economics of inequality​

Shahid Javed Burki, a former World Bank economist, rightly identified the fundamental disconnect between the public and the Ayub Junta that celebrated 10-years of being in power by highlighting GDP growth and other inflated macroeconomic indicators.

The general public, however, cared less of the aggregate statistics as they struggled without much success against price inflation and spatial income disparities.

Burki points out that the so-called economic growth was rooted in income inequality, which worsened over time between regions and among people with the growth in the macroeconomy.

The result was evident: half of the industrial wealth accrued to Chinioties in Punjab and the immigrant Memons, Bohras, and Khojas.

At the same time, General Ayub opened the door to foreign experts who were ignorant of, and alien to, the political economy of Pakistan.

Yet they came armed with policies that might have worked elsewhere but were ill-suited for Pakistan's challenges.

General Ayub's economic prowess need not be discounted entirely. His penchant for central planning is evident in the second five-year plan.

The inflow of foreign capital, at twice the rate of that of India, sparked growth in industries that supported consumer goods.

One must also review what drove the growth and what industrial sectors blossomed as a result.

A close look at what transpired reveals that there was nothing organic about the growth.

It was primarily driven by foreign aid, the same way General Musharraf's rule was buttressed by American aid after 9/11.

By December 1961, foreign aid was more than twice the size of foreign loans. With the second five-year plan in 1964, foreign aid was responsible for 40% of the total investment.

And that's not all. Foreign aid covered 66% of the cost of imports. One must give credit where it's due, and it's mainly foreign aid.

Read next: Religious orthodoxy during Ayub regime

Despite the foreign investment as aid and credit, and the aggressive public works programme pursued by the regime to generate new jobs, unemployment persisted, and even worsened during the second five year plan from 5.5 million man-years in 1960-1 to 5.8 million man-years in 1964-5 in East Pakistan.

The regime allocated twice as much for atomic energy than it did for technical training.

What about the rapid industrialisation undertook by the Ayub regime using foreign aid? As soon as the industries started generating revenue, the regime disposed of them to private investors.

During 1964-65, the loans and advances by the government to the private sector were twice the size of the direct investments by the industry.

However, profit-making units that should have been set up by the industry in the first place should have not been handed over to the industrialists as an unearned reward.

Those who defend General Ayub Khan’s reign also hold false memories of peace and harmony. Do such claims withstand empirical scrutiny?

Raunaq Jahangir, quoted by Burki, demonstrated that violence, especially in Bangladesh (East Pakistan), increased tremendously during the Ayub era.

If there was peace and tranquility in the sixties, why did the unrest in 1968-69 reach such a feverish pitch?

It was not the economic growth, but the increasing concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few that irked the have-nots and fuelled violence.

A critical report by none other than Dr Mehboobul Haq, the then Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission, revealed that a coterie of just 20 families controlled two-thirds of the industry and three-fourth of the banking.

Pakistan's poet laureate, Habib Jalib, could not ignore the injustice. His poetry galvanised the public as he recited poems at gatherings where tens-of-thousands heard him denounce the 20 nouveau riche, who became even richer at the cost of keeping millions poor. Jalib wrote:

Biis gharanay hein abaad / Or karorron hein nashaad / Sadar Ayub Zindabad.

 

[ghazi52]

.,.,.,
For the powerful, the door of Khanna-e-Kaaba opens and also of the court.
For the weak ,they are only making circles.

 

[PakFactor]

Khan's first interview with Orya right after Bajwa retired was an eye opener. He said that he wasn't as disappointed with being removed as he was being removed just as when they had finally stabilized the economy and the future looked promising. I had always argued with family the same, that the army let Khan come into power, but only until he fixes the mess.

Despite Khan's shortcomings, exports and remittances, the only way to escape the debt cycle, were at a historical high. Since his departure, both exports & remittances have dropped and country has lost $7 billion.

In other words, the establishment did not remove Imran Khan because he was a threat to them. The establishment removed him because he was going to make Pakistan a strong, economically independent country. That was something no one could tolerate.

Just as ZAB started the nuclear program and paid for it with his life, Khan paid for trying to free the country from its shackles. Pakistan is supposed to be unstable, economically weak, dependent on foreign loans by design. The establishment is simply a tool to ensure that this country remains within these parameters.

The mullah brigade led by that ghasti ki aulad leader of TLP was responsible for removing Atif Mian, who the IMF regarded as one of the individuals who would be one of the leading leaders and thinkers of the global macro-economics. His specialty was the study of debt in relation to macroeconomics growth. No one in Pakistan could study the issues and develop the tools needed to address them than better Atif Mian. Then IK had to fight off the image of these religious parties having more weight than they should before correctly setting the course of the country's ship.

Even after his team fell apart triggered by Atif's removal, the other 24 economists resigned in mass; he got the country on a footing where it could stand.

But nope, as the saying goes kutta ko kajur, and soor ko kheer nai hazam hoti.