Posted on Facebook on April 13, 2022 here.

Text:

The manner in which Imran Khan has been covered recently is an all-time low for the subcontinental media. The scale of character assassination, bias confirmation, false equivalences, lazy conclusions and blatant lies passed off with bluster has been surreal. The omnipresent nature of it, with practically zero contrarian views offered, is something new and perhaps leads to something very disturbing.

Some questions first.

Can we agree that the two biggest fresh challenges (that is, those he did not inherit) Imran Khan faced in his 3.5 years as PM were Covid and the post-Balakot crisis?

Would it be wrong to say that he dealt with the latter with statesman-like efficiency, constantly de-escalating — that was universally acknowledged, right? So, why is this not brought up now while recapping his prime-ministership? Is it not important enough?

As far as Covid goes, perhaps you are aware that he very vocally stood up to liberal hysteria in his country in the early days and refused to impose universal lockdown so as to not destroy the poor? And instead executed localised lockdowns that led to one of the lowest Covid deaths per million ratios in Asia? You are aware WHO said in 2020 that “Pakistan was among countries from whom the international community should learn how to deal with the Covid-19 pandemic”?

Did Imran Khan ever get credit for that? Forget health cards, dam constructions, the Kartarpur corridor…historic measures he may have taken. Forget that no one asks why terrorist attacks appear a thing of the past in Pakistan, or why there is very little talk of militant camps anymore. But why has he not got enough credit for dealing so well with the two fresh challenges mentioned above?

Sure, he got a few things wrong as well — his impatience with the system led to rash moments; he did not maintain relationships the way he might have. Perhaps he has been insular and overly outspoken at times, and less diplomatic, which he has paid a price for. He has not succeeded in handpicking political and governance talent as successfully as he did as cricket captain — which has caused its own problems. This is on him, but what is the place of those in the big picture of his 3.5 years as PM?

Oh yes, the economy, his inherited problem. But before that, it is important to revisit this.

Right since 9/11, IK has been consistent about his opposition to being the US’s “partner” in the “war on terror” — due to the huge price Pakistan would pay economically and socially. He has been prophetic about that many times over (as he was about there being no military solution with the Taliban, for which he was nicknamed “Taliban Khan” — not retracted even after the US eventually had to negotiate with the Taliban). So, when IK became PM, true to character, he actually acted upon it — with the stated aim of being partners with the US during peace, but not during war — his objective being to attain the self-respect of a sovereign nation that Pakistan has denied itself all these years, according to him (which he praises India for having attained comprehensively). There was absolute incredulity from the US when it happened (see this small clip from an HBO interview from just last year, in the first comment below).

There is obviously an economic dimension to this, given Pakistan’s tattered economy, which is why IK was forced to move Pakistan closer towards China (further fury for the US), who offered that financial help at a much lower human cost. He did not want to borrow more from the likes of IMF but eventually had to, due to the dire situation, though on a lower scale than he had feared he would have to initially. This is also why IK during his interviews and regular speeches on TV addressed the situation with his citizens, taking care to explain with clarity in simple terms for everybody. He also specifically said in 2019 itself that things would get economically worse and requested his people to bear with it for a short while, for the sake of a better and more independent future. He promised he would never allow things to go out of control (like it has in Sri Lanka currently, for example) and would try to reduce the timespan of hardship as much as he could. But Covid struck almost immediately after that. Even though Pakistan’s domestic production suffered relatively the least in that period (due to the above mentioned policies), trade was still badly affected as Pakistan’s trading partners were badly affected. Obviously, that took a further toll on Pakistan’s economy, which further led to inflation.

This tattered economy is also why IK was pursuing corruption cases against the Bhuttos/ Zardaris and the Sharifs, whom he has consistently accused of selling out the country — that they did so is hardly disputed by anybody (except their loyal supporters, and sometimes not even some of them). IK is the only person of this stature in Pakistani politics who could attack corruption this aggressively because he is universally considered to be spotlessly clean in that regard (despite the innuendos the opposition hurl at him). However, those corruption cases had not progressed far enough in the courts to IK’s satisfaction (due to the kinship-based society and military-controlled patron-client politics) but it is again important to remember that only 3.5 (very eventful) years had passed.

Both these factors — the forced delinking of Pakistan from American foreign interests by IK’s initiative and his anti-corruption drive against those opposition leaders came together to eventually topple his government. For these two factors to come together is American Foreign Policy 101. Imran Khan’s coalition government found itself in trouble as suddenly his allies switched loyalties in favour of a united opposition (who otherwise were fierce opponents themselves) that IK was vociferous about bringing to book. None of this was particularly unexpected — IK himself predicted this a few months ago and warned his own colleagues about what was coming. Nobody even bothers to dispute that the loyalty-shifting MPs sold their allegiance (look up the Sindh House episode) — the only question is who paid them?

For those who laugh at this “conspiracy theory”, here’s a quick primer. Among the 193 countries in the world, the US has invaded or fought or interfered in their internal affairs in 84 of those (reference in first comment) since the Second World War. Disrupting or replacing foreign governments not favourable to them is modern-day muscle memory for them. In just the last five decades, there are plenty of countries in South America and Africa who still bear those scars (Chile famously had its own 9/11 in 1973 — where the US played quite the same role Bin Laden did 28 years later). In the 21st century itself, there are Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen bearing testimony, and of course, Ukraine (where, in 2014, mainstream American politicians, like John McCain, were giving inciting speeches in rallies against the ruling government IN Kyiv) — on-going stories, the last three. Pakistan is a natural progression in this sequence, given the way IK stood up to them. It is quite likely that the same people laughing this off as a “conspiracy theory” now will be regaling themselves with a thriller made on this same subject a decade later on HBO or Amazon Prime (assuming Netflix would be called Netcrime by then) without a trace of irony.

Thing is, IK said he had documented proof; he recounted instances of attempts to influence his party-members by American embassy members and even took a specific name of a senior American official (Donald Lu). To avoid the vote of no confidence (that would have dismissed IK), the deputy speaker dismissed the assembly session calling it ‘unconstitutional” (even though that act was technically unconstitutional) ostensibly to force the judiciary to examine this evidence, but guess what? The judiciary did not even look at it. They did not factor in the most damning evidence that threatens their democracy. It’s one thing if they had and rejected it; they did not even have the courage to look at it. The technicality of constitutionality was more important to them than the credibility of their democracy (in fact, keeping even the foreign hand evidence aside for a second, didn’t just MPs changing their stripes for what they were not elected for subvert democracy itself?). It also appears that the Army has fallen out with IK on the same issue, which would explain this indifference perfectly. None of this went unnoticed by the Pakistan public because IK made a big noise about it.

Look what has happened since then — the volume of crowds that came out on Sunday in support of IK after he was dismissed is unprecedented in Pakistani history (post-independence subcontinental history, actually), not just across more than 50 Pakistani cities and towns (at least the claim that ordinary Pakistanis are fed up of his governance can die down now?) but also internationally, in London, Dubai, New York, Houston, Sydney, Paris, Doha and more. These were not “loyal PTI supporters” or organised crowds but common people — men, women and children, old, middle aged and most significantly, the youth, coming out in leaderless rallies in support of something very concrete to them. Most notably, there were also placards and slogans raised against the Army, which is a disconcertingly unique development (and perhaps explains why the Army Chief was not present for Shehbaz Sharif’s swearing-in). Are these the beginnings of Pakistan’s Arab Spring? Early days perhaps, but it is definitely an Elites/ Intelligentsia vs Common People clash today that has been ignited — the sort of polarisation Pakistan has not seen till date. It is a civil war if they let it become one — history tells us that the elites always lose that one.

As things stand now, Imran Khan’s singular focus is fresh elections. On the evidence of the turnout for him on Sunday, he will be elected by a landslide, a historic mandate that may well threaten the Army’s position too. The opposition knows that and will do everything to delay elections. Given the doubts that have been raised, and the scale of protests going on by common citizens, you decide whether a true democracy in the current situation demands fresh elections or not. These developments appear to have quashed further dissent in his own party (especially after more than hundred of his MPs resigned from parliament, further pushing them to re-election). It’ll be interesting to see now, how many among the same people who castigated him before, gradually start speaking favourably about him. Only because his popularity has changed so dramatically in their eyes — this is the world we’re living in today.

And this is where comparing Imran Khan to Donald Trump becomes an old, lazy and very ignorant trope, but out it has come again. It is staggering how most people who regurgitate that equivalence cannot even wrap around their (redundant) heads that Imran Khan was not subverting democracy but actually demanding its functioning — he was asking for fresh elections, not a chance to hold on to power!

And this is actually why this is a historic moment in Pakistan. Not what the ignorant or sold-out media celebrated — of a sold-out judiciary passing a biased order. After the staggering spontaneous protests against the “imported government”, ask yourself why the Indian media has not covered this volume of support for Imran Khan. Or why so many lies are being peddled out, again and again. Forget the trash on the Times Nows and the Republics and the Zees, ask why literally no channel provided a counterpoint. Why Zakka Jacob of CNN News 18 said he feared Imran Khan would incite violence after he was ousted — such a blatantly ignorant comment about IK. Why Barkha Dutta (no stranger to corruption herself anyway, despite the very occasional stellar work she does) would interview IK’s ex-wife Reham Khan (who was asked to leave by IK after 9 months of marriage; her “memoirs” came out just in time for the 2018 elections, post which she has been a rabid opposition supporter — you do the math; many in Pakistan have) and well-known rabid ex-political opponent Husain Haqqani on her Youtube channel, never bothering with the other side. This is notable because self-respecting journalists do not do this normally; even as a token, there is always a representative of the other point-of-view in some form. It may be too much to attribute this kind of biased coverage to corruption but what other explanation is there? American money is not really required anyway (though it shouldn’t be ruled out, going by their history) since this current Indian dispensation clearly does not want IK in power too — there is way too much plainspeak in play for them.

But there has also been gross ignorance or just impressionistic shabbiness. No less a person than Pratik Sinha (the worthiest person in the context of fake news in India) casually said something on social media in late-2019 about Imran’s “hate speeches”. When challenged (by me) to show one clip of his that qualified as hate speech, just one, from his 20-plus years in politics, he went quiet. If people like this can be inadvertently biased on such issues, what chance do the rest of us have in these low attention span times?

It is actually worth examining why IK has evoked such a huge response from his common citizens, against their own “intelligentsia”. His honesty and clarity was on view throughout his 3.5 years as PM through his speeches and interviews in the media — he rarely ducked the hard questions or the unpleasant subjects. And this is the thing for those who have actually followed him even reasonably over the last 25 years in politics — contrary to the impression the media has given him (“U-turn Imran” is as nonsensical as moniker as “Taliban Khan”), he has stayed unwavering to the big picture that he has consistently stated as his true aim for Pakistan (laid out in clear detail in his 2011 book “Pakistan: A Personal History” and apparent from his interviews for those who care to spend the time on them) — alleviation of poverty and rule of law (which has direct economic implications). As a means to that end, he has made alterations, changed his path, even made compromises (sometimes problematic ones too perhaps) but all of it to reach his big picture goal — which has not changed even an iota — the end has stayed exactly the same. That integrity and clear demonstration of vision is actually very palpable to a lot of people who don’t fall for the media spin.

(FUN ASIDE: Maybe this is an opportunity for us to understand why Pakistan’s Coke Studio and TV plays -since the early-1980s — have always been far superior to ours. For some reason, the Pakistani people just seem to grasp and express honesty better than we can.)

It’s amusing that IK is often referred to as authoritarian without a thought given to why the Pakistani media still manages to criticise him (often rabidly) so often, and on such a scale. Or why the courts can dismiss his attempt to thwart a vote-of-no-confidence motion. Not a very competent authoritarian, is he? There is considerable evidence to suggest that his allegiance is to his people, especially the socially and economically disadvantaged sections and not to power. Which is again, just a means to him, to accomplish his idealistic aims.

Actually, Imran Khan has a history of not playing by the rules even before he entered politics. Between 1971 and 1992, he was of course an international cricketer (purely on personal contribution to Test results as a player, among the four greatest players to have ever played the game — along with Bradman, Muralitharan and Sobers). His greatest cricketing achievement was actually not leading the 1992 World Cup-winning team, but leading Pakistan through its greatest run in Test history till date; between 1985 and 1993, Pakistan lost just one Test series (in Australia, 1990) — making them the second-best side in the world after the all-time great West Indian sides of the era (against whom they drew two series in this period). As arguably the most influential cricket captain ever, he presided over many “ball tampering” experiments for his team (that every team indulged in, in varying degrees, at every level). He flirted with illegality and pushed the envelope for the sport — today, the rules have been redefined and reverse swing as an art form owes a great deal to Imran the captain. He never flinched from taking the rap for it and its grey area (see first comment below, a 1994 show where he faces his detractors) but it evolved his sport further. Similarly, now, it can be argued that his focus on Pakistan as a genuine democracy is greater than constitutional processes within that system that subvert its democratic quality through manipulation. The constantly shifting means towards an unshakable end.

The biggest reason why Imran Khan does not get the benefit of doubt from the press and the liberals is because he is seen as an Islamist. The liberal Pakistani paranoia of that, given their history, is entirely understandable, but his ideals of a modern-day Islamic welfare state does not mean a fundamentalist state by any stretch of the imagination; there can be such a thing as an Islamic modernist. Within the context of a religious state, there are multiple balancing acts he has to do anyway. But even as an individual, have his personal religious beliefs ever translated blatantly as policy action? Is personal faith not mere fuel when people outside his immediate circles should really concern themselves with just the distance covered?

In fact, IK is proof that religious faith, even the sort worn on one’s sleeve, does not come before the quality of being a humanist — which is what IK is over and above everything else. The cancer hospital he built (named after his mother who died of cancer), not as a mere philanthropist but as a man possessed by a vision, has over 3000 employees, has treated over 100,000 patients free from its inception, and today, treats 75% of its patients for free (WHO acknowledged its excellence in 2006). How many heads of state have this on their CV? For those who question IK’s attitude towards women, they could ask the female students of Namal University, that IK founded in 2008 (while being Chancellor at University of Bradford from 2005 to 2014, the second future PM after Harold Wilson to hold that post). Given the diametrically opposite life he leads now from his cricketing years, it is easy to find his pronouncements contradictory without looking at the bigger picture. (For example, HBO put out an interview that made him seem like a rape apologist last year; his office had to insist on procuring the raw footage and put it out on YouTube — please see first comment below). The amount of selective sensationalism, social media style, that goes on in IK’s context is disconcerting. Those who just regurgitate what they hear elsewhere without bothering to examine it for themselves, can they not see how they are being manipulated?

It is eerie how many similarities there are between the political trajectories of Imran Khan and Arvind Kejriwal. It is not just the enormous focus on health and education in their lives but their accent on common people and the irrational and scathing hatred many in the upper middle, liberal classes and the media have for them. And how often they are castigated for what they do not say, in favour of whatever balancing act they’re doing then. In February 2014, when Kejriwal resigned as CM of Delhi, and his government fell (also a coalition then), hoping to fight fresh elections (that he hoped would be held soon), no less a person than the astute Vinod Mehta had lambasted him for “running away”, predicting that his political career was over. Is this current situation a mirror image moment for IK? Is his Feb 2015 moment about to come? Will the power of common citizens prop him up as spectacularly as it did with Kejriwal? Is it mere wishful thinking to imagine AK and IK one day representing their countries while they address common problems that have not been resolved for three generations? Would their presumed success in that actually prove that personal faith, however prominently it may be worn on the sleeve, does not affect humanist, and fundamentally secular, aims? Surely, in these strange and difficult times, with hate as the default setting so often, hope is not a bad thing, right?

LINKS:

Rejecting CIA presence on Pakistani soil:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9ZKpfWXRHA

America’s sordid history after the Second World War:
https://www.amazon.in/.../ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_d_asin_title...

1994 — The Devil’s Advocate — (this is just for fun; the delightful West Indian anchor included) — though this is illuminating about IK in other ways as well. There’s Mike Marqusee, Geoff Boycott, Deryck Murray, Sadiq Mohammed and Don Oslear in there too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZYwQKbBvwI&t=1300s

Raw footage of HBO interview:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8sU90kIG0U

Also: Piece in the Gulf Times when Imran Khan became Prime Minister: 20th August, 2018, elaborating on the idea that he is the biggest achiever in modern times, if not ever, to become Head of State anywhere in the world.