Who could have imagined that the most loved politician in Pakistan would be left in isolation, humiliated on daily basis, ditched by his people and companions? What an irony, thousands impatient to hear him and perchance shake his hand a month ago, are avoiding, even declaiming to know him.
He has been left with his sweeper to be witness for his bail in the court? Such is his aloneness and his fall from the power realm. His house that could witness sea of people, a month ago wears a deserted look. His political party PTI is in shambles.
His men and women, one after another are leaving him, declaring it on television sets that May 9th was a black day in the history of Pakistan. They cease their company with their leader and his party. PTI was Imran Khan and Khan is alone PTI.
All his party leaders have one after another, distanced themselves from him. There is no end to picking up people and putting them in jails. Thousands of his supporters are languishing in jails without trials. He himself feels that there won’t be even a lawyer willing to fight his case. He is cult figure, alone standing tall.
This is the state of horror and dominant hegemony and play of power without pretence of democratic minimum democratic civil norm. It is not new in Pakistan, but a repeat of history in one form or another.
However, the way it has been produced, as if army’s clout, image and heritage damned were engineered by one man, Imran khan.
Khan might have thought that his non violent protest would prove his legitimacy and how shocking it proved to him be that it has been sealed a mutiny on his name.
Pakistan, situated in highly significant geopolitical strategic region, was created by western powers to perpetuate their game of political chess against, powerful communist USSR and its leftist ideologies.
It was intentionally established on monolithic notion of religion, so that it could be governed only through political army, or civil leadership subservient to the army. It had to be made different to a plural, diverse and representative democratic India.
In actuality, it could not be. It is ethnically diverse in population, settled in four uneven geographic zones and controlled through selective distribution of resources and power. Punjab is its elite region, which sets the pattern of its governance and dominance through Army establishment and nexus of its feudal heads and religious influential elites.
The founding fathers, who could have built it into a civil nation state, accommodative inside and a good neighbouring country, perished soon. Its political leadership withered, permitting west to manoeuvre it through its army, which would be backed by religious nationalism and anti India discourse. It was engineered to make a client state to serve the interests of west and its allies.
Kashmir was put alive through UNSC. Bestowing with treaties and grants, the army was the only stakeholder in its decision making process, enjoying lavishness along with religious feudal elites. This worked well during the Cold War and until the end.
The military was empowered and politicians were under surveillance and controlled not only in Pakistan, but outside also, where reach would go to fit into the strategic depth and strategic asset polemics. Kashmir’s curse and sufferings are outcome of these geo political matrices. The War on terror has come to close.
The advent of globalization and post COVID realities of soft power has exposed each corner of this planet. It is difficult to make believe in one narrative, unless it stands to the scrutiny by private and authentic sources. Global world is competitive economically and tangible in materiality.
Western countries have lost that allure for Pakistan. Their moral binding has also diluted, since when Pakistan started wooing to china and declared it all weather friend to distance it from US.
History is witness to it, not much told, even, in mid sixties of previous century the tacit relationship of Pakistan with China during the Cold War era annoyed America to such an extent that made Pakistan to pay its price in mid sixties.
In recent years, China’s open impositions in Pakistan policies have distanced US in its conventional stance. This has created economic debacle and political fallout. Pakistan traditionally was dependent on US and its allies, including Saudi Arab, for its endurance.
China’s OROB agenda and Pakistan’s interest in CPAC has brought out internal contradictions of Pakistan as a country open to question. Whenever U.S has put its hand away, Pakistan has got encountered with problems, financial as well as social.
China is yet to take that responsibility of vulnerable states as US would venture in. China would never wish Pakistan in truce with India. It needs Pakistan’s’ vulnerability to have its writ on its rebel religious subjects. Army’s top brass knows it well.
It had enjoyed that status since 1953, the sole arbitrator to its inner politics and external policies, the decision making final authority. In the absence of social media and informational technology, its role remained invisible.
Of late with culpability of dynasty rule and its tested tainted politicians riddled with loot, army wanted to make a fresh experimentation away from dynastic politics. Imran was thought to fill up the shoes.
Imran had entered politics with his glories of transformative image in cricket and in social work. His world cup triumph and building of Shaukat Khanum Hospital, he had made his name in the country. Army saw catch in him, a fresh face and new party.
His parting with Jemima Khan, transformation from blue eyed flamboyancy, carefree cricketer, to a rosary practitioner married to a highly conservative religious woman fitted well in army’s political calculus. It also made him valued to his religious toxic audiences and growing youth.
He was brought in through proper elections to replace dynastic rule. Since he was sole authority in his party, it produced a cult authoritative person in him. He would not listen to dissent, projected his own decisions that were mostly vetoed by invisible force of army.
He proved to be a leader of ‘U-turns’, honest, but discredited for inefficient governance. There were indications that he was not at one page with army. He was for accountability of institutions, but openly named dynastic politicians and persons of power responsible for the ruin of his country. He was very aggressive in his utterances.
When it became difficult for army to play shots, behind the curtain, it removed him in a constitutional coupe, gave power back to tested and loyal dynasty, a common opposition (PDM).The public perceived an intrigue against him. Their support enhanced, quite against the expectations of army and PDM.
With mounting financial crisis, non governability, fractured politics, judicial divide, ethnic antagonisms and sectarian violence and price rise, people were fed up and they rallied round Imran Khan.
PDM tried to implicate him in any charge that could make him insignificant. It failed, despite hundreds of charges put against Imran Khan, PTI, his party was the first choice in the ensuing elections.
On May 9th, when he was summoned to court, he was unceremoniously jailed by Rangers. It brought out natural anger against the army. A protesting, non violent group, all of sudden, attacked Jinnah house and other symbolic national representative sights.
Army acted back through PDM to invoke nationalism and declare Imran Khan anti national. May 9th protests gave them full chance and space to wrap the culpability and regain the control.
They made May 9th its alibi, a military campaign for nationalism and revolt against army. The Army and PDM lost no ground to make believe that Army installations, heritage house and martyrs’ symbolism were attacked by enraged agitating masses on PTI’s behest.
Imran Khan was directly blamed. PTI’s top leadership was taught lessons; solitary imprisonments to unveiled threats. Their nerve was broken and on daily basis they are made to denounce their affiliation with Imran Khan.
His wings are cut one after another to make him frozen in turbulence. The establishment is weighing that moment, when they could unleash stage second of Khan’s exit from his political scene.
The developments have cast such long shadows on Imran Khan’s PTI and on his power politics. The Establishment is heading for new experimentation, breaking parties and remaking persons. In Pakistan democratic recognition does not matter, it is the pleasure of the establishment that matters, finally. There is no judicial impartial enquiry on May 9th occurrences.
No cries of human right activists. Only one assurance on televising messages from PTI supports: ‘loyalty to the army and cut off with Imran Khan’. Was that violence scripted, engineered or happened naturally? Why were those areas unprotected? How protesters could indulge in violence in the red zones? Is it an end to Imran Khan’s politics? Can they wash him off, in this era of social media and information bloom? It is to be seen. He has his admirers from religious seminaries as well.
Quite outspoken, a sports person by nature believing in excellence, he has been a cult figure for his party workers. PTI is Imran Khan and Khan is an unmatched leader. He thought that he could make things happen with people’s support.
He failed to understand the structure of power politics in Pakistan right after 1953 is difficult to change, unless the very discourse of its nationalism is changed. Despite his place in the hearts of Pakistani electorate, establishment in nexus with conventional ruling parties (PDM) are against him, heavily.
He had an assassination bid on his life; he did not yield and stood firm against the persons in power. He is alone, stirred but not broken. It is unlikely that at this stage of life, army against him, when past is his prime and jilted by his party colleagues, he would be able to make a come back. His sufferings are hard to minimize.
Would he be another Shakespearian tragic hero, to fill the missing links of history of Pakistan? These are the wages of being ideal and then trying to cross the set boundaries. If he emerges, it would be a new Pakistan on fresh discourse.
Ashok Kaul, Emeritus Professor in Sociology at Banaras Hindu University
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are the personal opinions of the author.
The facts, analysis, assumptions and perspective appearing in the article do not reflect the views of GK.