Leader
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2010
- Messages
- 29,159
- Reaction score
- 9
- Country
- Location
Why Imran Khan will Win...
With his piece titled Why Imran cannot win (July 27), Mr Farrukh Saleem joined the ranks of the few columnists and armchair intellectuals who defend the status quo, who are desperately trying to persuade people that despite the PTIs rising popularity, the votes in the ballot box will go to powerful landlords and feudals.
Farrukh Saleem has employed the unique approach of using incomplete statistics and findings from a PhD dissertation. But the columnist conveniently, perhaps deliberately, ignores the fact that in the freest and fairest elections of 1970 the vote of the downtrodden in West Pakistan, in what is Pakistan today, was overwhelmingly in favour of the populist Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. Bhutto was perceived by the masses, especially the rural population, as someone who could free them from the clutches of the landlords and feudals.
Powerful political leaders, some of them icons, were demolished in the populist tidal wave of 1970, destroying the myth of these leaders invincibility in which the political pundits of the day believed. In that eventful year, Pakistan did not have the electronic media that reaches the majority of households today. The fact that the sweeping change took place without Bhutto having this virtually universal outreach available to politicians now shows how baseless the myth is about Imran Khan and the Tehrik-e-Insaaf.
If incomplete and outdated statistics were the basis of analyses, there would be no hope for change in Pakistan, or anywhere else in the world. But in the wake of the Arab Spring starting in Tunisia which went on to sweep through Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain, Libya and Syria, and which did not leave Algeria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Oman unaffected Farrukh Saleems arguments are weak, at best.
The description of a vast majority of Pakistanis as kammis is demeaning and derogatory, to say the least. Pakistanis are not kammis doomed to a life of misery and deprivation forever. Recent opinion polls conducted by credible and internationally renowned research organisations show that the people of Pakistan have had enough of the self-serving politics of parties such as the PPP and the PML-N. The entrenched political parties may have electables, but if you take the shifting public opinion, that is the only thing they will soon be left with.
Farrukh Saleem advances a notion of perpetual stagnation in socio-political development in the rural areas. This is ignoring history. Exploitative systems in rural France and Russia, for example, eventually led to change. Or maybe Mr Saleem believes that things have to be far worse for our kammis to find impetus for an upheaval. Or else he is one of those who detest change, out of fear that it would dislodge them from their comfortable lifestyles. Despite their drawing-room chatter in which they advocate change, deep down, it seems, the privileged few abhor it.
The writer also fails to recognise the influence of modern-day communication, including the impact of text-messaging and social networking websites. In arriving at the conclusions from his statistical study, he completely ignores the exponential increase in the access to electronic media and the effect of increasingly easy means of communication through mobile phones. Farrukh Saleem may have got carried away by all the statistics and descriptions of our rural society resulting in an analysis that somehow based itself on the assumption that our rural areas have been and remain completely isolated to the developments taking place in other parts of the country.
Farrukh Saleem has chosen the side of the forces that seek the preservation of the status quo. His assertion that Imran Khan is about intangible ideas is beyond comprehension. Imran Khan and his Pakistan Tehrik-e-Insaf have always advocated a system which is just, where the powerful and weak are equal before the law. He is the first political leader in the last three decades who has led a campaign against the rampant corruption that has destroyed institutions and led to uncontrolled price hikes and inflation. In the mud-slinging contests that follow discussions and debates related to politicians wealth, assets and taxation, Imran Khan is the only name that comes out unscathed. On the issue of taxes, he is the only voice criticising the injustice of the salaried class and the poor being taxed while the rich ruling elite siphons out its wealth abroad without paying taxes. His tax reforms include taxing the rich to pay for social services for the poor.
And where other political parties and their visionless leaders merely appear to be waiting for their turn to come into power, Imran Khan is the only politician to have laid out a strategy for change the 100-day plan that provides a framework of policy changes to address the challenges confronting Pakistani society by taking them head-on. Challenges that affect the day-to-day lives of ordinary citizens, the majority kammis.
Indeed, Imran Khan talks about ghairat. How can any nation rise without self-esteem? Zulfikar Ali Bhuttos baptism in populist politics was his speech in the UN Security Council and his subsequent speeches during his whirlwind tour of the country in which he castigated President Ayub Khan for his alleged sell-out on Kashmir at Tashkent. Tashkent and Kashmir had nothing do with personal issues, but with the collective conscience of society. The party which Imran Khan founded and chairs is a Movement for Justice, and he did not join politics merely to try to bring about cosmetic changes in Pakistan. To his exponentially growing throngs of supporters he is a symbol of fundamental and structural changes in this country. He is the symbol of politics the way it should be practised, where those in power are meant to serve people, not to prolong their rule and enrich their coffers.
He began his party with the clear objective of creating a just society, especially for our downtrodden kammis, where everyone is equal under the law. And this is exactly why Imran Khan will win. Win he surely will, since, for the vast majority of youths in Pakistans rural and urban regions, he is a powerful and charismatic alternative. He is an alternative to the system that has deprived the common man, especially in the rural areas, of a life of equality and dignity. He aspires for a system where everyone can look forward to a better and prosperous future.
The winds of change are blowing and there is no stopping the PTI now.
The writer is a freelance contributor based in Rawalpindi. Email: zirgham@gmail.com
why Imran Khan will Win
With his piece titled Why Imran cannot win (July 27), Mr Farrukh Saleem joined the ranks of the few columnists and armchair intellectuals who defend the status quo, who are desperately trying to persuade people that despite the PTIs rising popularity, the votes in the ballot box will go to powerful landlords and feudals.
Farrukh Saleem has employed the unique approach of using incomplete statistics and findings from a PhD dissertation. But the columnist conveniently, perhaps deliberately, ignores the fact that in the freest and fairest elections of 1970 the vote of the downtrodden in West Pakistan, in what is Pakistan today, was overwhelmingly in favour of the populist Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. Bhutto was perceived by the masses, especially the rural population, as someone who could free them from the clutches of the landlords and feudals.
Powerful political leaders, some of them icons, were demolished in the populist tidal wave of 1970, destroying the myth of these leaders invincibility in which the political pundits of the day believed. In that eventful year, Pakistan did not have the electronic media that reaches the majority of households today. The fact that the sweeping change took place without Bhutto having this virtually universal outreach available to politicians now shows how baseless the myth is about Imran Khan and the Tehrik-e-Insaaf.
If incomplete and outdated statistics were the basis of analyses, there would be no hope for change in Pakistan, or anywhere else in the world. But in the wake of the Arab Spring starting in Tunisia which went on to sweep through Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain, Libya and Syria, and which did not leave Algeria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Oman unaffected Farrukh Saleems arguments are weak, at best.
The description of a vast majority of Pakistanis as kammis is demeaning and derogatory, to say the least. Pakistanis are not kammis doomed to a life of misery and deprivation forever. Recent opinion polls conducted by credible and internationally renowned research organisations show that the people of Pakistan have had enough of the self-serving politics of parties such as the PPP and the PML-N. The entrenched political parties may have electables, but if you take the shifting public opinion, that is the only thing they will soon be left with.
Farrukh Saleem advances a notion of perpetual stagnation in socio-political development in the rural areas. This is ignoring history. Exploitative systems in rural France and Russia, for example, eventually led to change. Or maybe Mr Saleem believes that things have to be far worse for our kammis to find impetus for an upheaval. Or else he is one of those who detest change, out of fear that it would dislodge them from their comfortable lifestyles. Despite their drawing-room chatter in which they advocate change, deep down, it seems, the privileged few abhor it.
The writer also fails to recognise the influence of modern-day communication, including the impact of text-messaging and social networking websites. In arriving at the conclusions from his statistical study, he completely ignores the exponential increase in the access to electronic media and the effect of increasingly easy means of communication through mobile phones. Farrukh Saleem may have got carried away by all the statistics and descriptions of our rural society resulting in an analysis that somehow based itself on the assumption that our rural areas have been and remain completely isolated to the developments taking place in other parts of the country.
Farrukh Saleem has chosen the side of the forces that seek the preservation of the status quo. His assertion that Imran Khan is about intangible ideas is beyond comprehension. Imran Khan and his Pakistan Tehrik-e-Insaf have always advocated a system which is just, where the powerful and weak are equal before the law. He is the first political leader in the last three decades who has led a campaign against the rampant corruption that has destroyed institutions and led to uncontrolled price hikes and inflation. In the mud-slinging contests that follow discussions and debates related to politicians wealth, assets and taxation, Imran Khan is the only name that comes out unscathed. On the issue of taxes, he is the only voice criticising the injustice of the salaried class and the poor being taxed while the rich ruling elite siphons out its wealth abroad without paying taxes. His tax reforms include taxing the rich to pay for social services for the poor.
And where other political parties and their visionless leaders merely appear to be waiting for their turn to come into power, Imran Khan is the only politician to have laid out a strategy for change the 100-day plan that provides a framework of policy changes to address the challenges confronting Pakistani society by taking them head-on. Challenges that affect the day-to-day lives of ordinary citizens, the majority kammis.
Indeed, Imran Khan talks about ghairat. How can any nation rise without self-esteem? Zulfikar Ali Bhuttos baptism in populist politics was his speech in the UN Security Council and his subsequent speeches during his whirlwind tour of the country in which he castigated President Ayub Khan for his alleged sell-out on Kashmir at Tashkent. Tashkent and Kashmir had nothing do with personal issues, but with the collective conscience of society. The party which Imran Khan founded and chairs is a Movement for Justice, and he did not join politics merely to try to bring about cosmetic changes in Pakistan. To his exponentially growing throngs of supporters he is a symbol of fundamental and structural changes in this country. He is the symbol of politics the way it should be practised, where those in power are meant to serve people, not to prolong their rule and enrich their coffers.
He began his party with the clear objective of creating a just society, especially for our downtrodden kammis, where everyone is equal under the law. And this is exactly why Imran Khan will win. Win he surely will, since, for the vast majority of youths in Pakistans rural and urban regions, he is a powerful and charismatic alternative. He is an alternative to the system that has deprived the common man, especially in the rural areas, of a life of equality and dignity. He aspires for a system where everyone can look forward to a better and prosperous future.
The winds of change are blowing and there is no stopping the PTI now.
The writer is a freelance contributor based in Rawalpindi. Email: zirgham@gmail.com
why Imran Khan will Win
