Imran Khan is the talk of the town as his bombast of bringing ‘change’ and building a ‘new Pakistan’ has caught the imagination of the youth - the biggest stratum of country’s population - who throng his public meetings in thousands. The youth of today should not forget that he made similar tall claims, fifteen years ago, when he launched ‘Tehrik-e-Insaf’. The teenagers of 1996 are in their thirties now, a bit disappointed and disillusioned because he failed to deliver what he had promised, then.
One remains sceptical about the youth’s enthusiasm for Imran, being bowled out by his charisma, without realising that he has no solid political agenda as to what and how he will sort the political, economic and social malaise afflicting Pakistan. Charisma is nothing in itself if it is not backed by a program or an ideology to pursue. Quaid-e-Azam used charisma to achieve the Muslim homeland of Pakistan on the ‘two-nation’ agenda; Mahatma Gandhi capitalised on charisma to fight for Indian independence on the philosophy of ‘non-violence’ whereas Adolf Hitler built a ‘new Germany’ on the ideology of Nazism.
What is Imran’s philosophy for a ‘new Pakistan’? So far, like Mussolini of Italy, he has just indulged in the politics of negativity, criticising others, without presenting any comprehensive positive programme of his own. What we do know is that he disapproves of a secular state because he thinks that Pakistan was acquired in the name of Islam thus a secular polity would be a negation of the very rationale of its inception. Does this mean that he stands closer to the right-wing conservatives? If so then what new or different he has to offer from the already existing centre-right PMLs or the myriad religio-political parties such as Jamat-i-Islami, Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam, etc. In 1997, he is on the record to have said that he would usher an Islamic revolution of the type of ‘Khulfa-i-Rashideen’ (the first four righteous caliphs in Islamic history) yet his role models include such varied figures as Mahathir Muhammad, Quaid-e-Azam, Allama Iqbal, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and the pious Omayyad Caliph Hazrat Omar bin Abdul Aziz (RA), the last one was mentioned as the classical role model, when he presented his fourteen-point manifesto (a reminder of Jinnah’s fourteen points) back in the first week of January 1997.
Today’s Pakistan is struggling between liberalism and religious conservatism. Where does Imran Khan stand? Has he deeply studied the plethora of problems faced by the nation and has his party come up with any workable solutions? Keep your fingers crossed! In December 1997, he had announced that his party had a number of think tanks which were busy day and night to formulate viable policies on pressing issues like health, education, economy, law, etc. Where is the output of these think tanks? Similarly, in April 1997, he promised to launch a social development movement by opening schools and dispensaries for the poor. Where are they? We do know about his cancer hospital - a great monument for which generations will remain grateful to him - but where are Imran’s dispensaries for the poor among the deluge of private clinics and hospitals fleecing the people. Similarly, while ‘madrassahs’ and private schools have seen a mushroom growth, one doesn’t come across Imran’s schools. Khan Sahib! Mujhey sub hai yad zara zara, tumhey yad ho kay na yad ho!
On top of such a track record, he is claiming to be the harbinger of a ‘political tsunami’ and ‘mini-revolution’. Why does he tout ‘mini-revolution’ and not a ‘total revolution?’ Is it because he is just a reformist and not a committed revolutionary? Over the years, the widening gap between the rich and the poor has hit the Pakistani middle classes, the most. They are being crushed under the burden of price hike, inflation, unemployment and diminishing opportunities of decent livelihood. The problem with the middle classes is that they can never support a total revolution because it threatens their safe middle position in the society, thus, they crave for reforms to ensure some more breathing space for themselves within the existing system. In the long run, the middle class favours the status quo and the Pakistani middle classes have found their spokesman in Imran Khan. That is why Imran advocates that “a bloody revolution is not the answer to our problems as it would trigger many more problems.” Such statements have a lot of appeal for the middle classes that mostly reside in the urban areas and it is they who crowd his public meetings, the most.
Incidentally, a leader that just insists on reforms and doesn’t threaten to rock the boat happens to suit the Pakistani establishment as well because at the end of the day, it is often they who decide as to who should don the crown of power. Of the available lot of discredited politicians, Imran has the advantage of being ‘Mr Clean’ and the powers-that-be also think, like many others, that his ‘clean’ image can put a new life in the otherwise demoralized nation that is teetering on the brink due to religious militancy, economic downhill and political incompetence.
The trickiest question is: will Imran play ball with the arbiters of power? In the past, he has not only been offered minister ship on different occasions but also the prime ministerial office, twice, according to his own admission to the Calcutta weekly ‘Sunday’, in March 1996, however, he flatly refused to enter the corridors of power through the backdoor. A bit of an alarming fact for those, who matter most in the power game, may have been his statement at the launching of ‘Tehrik-e-Insaf’ in April 1996, when he stated that even “becoming prime minister is too small a thing for him.” It can be anybody’s guess as to what he meant by this? Does he desire unchallenged absolute power that he would not like to share with anyone? Well! In the past, he willfully abstained from forming electoral alliance though he was offered about 30/35 seats by PML(N) before the February 1997 general elections, and is reported to have said, “We don’t like coalitions.” Either he is naive of country’s contemporary political history of coalition governments or is dangerously bold.
Moreover, he has already warned that though he would welcome ‘political heavy weights’ yet he would not allow them to ‘hijack’ the party, meaning thereby that the absolute authority would vest in him. His critics have accused him of being ‘arrogant’ and a ‘dictator of cricket’. While he may not have been so lest he should not forget that the kingmakers don’t tolerate such autocratic tendencies, and the examples of Z A Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif should serve as stark reminders. How he resolves this dilemma will determine his political destiny.
By: Basharat Hussain Qizilbash
The writer is an academic and journalist. He can be reached at qizilbash2000@yahoo.com
