Imran: The pied piper of Pakistan
NEW DELHI, MAY 17: He is the embodiment of Pakistan, exhibiting all pathologies the country is afflicted with, and yet prominent Pakistanis are supporting him
There is something about Imran Khan. He is a charmer—in every possible sense of the word. In his younger days, he became a national hero because of his cricketing prowess — and also a playboy. Today, he has become the pied piper of Pakistan, striving to charm the entire nation to doom.
Pakistan’s former prime minister has many skills, including the talent to abuse and misuse language. For instance, in an address broadcast on YouTube Saturday night, he said, “Freedom does not come easily. You have to snatch it. You have to sacrifice for it.”This might look like a quote from one of the patriots who fought against the British for American Independence. But we must remember that it is ‘freedom with Pakistani or Islamic characteristics.’
Imran’s utopia is not in the future but in seventh-century Arabia. In a newspaper article in January last year, he described his ideal, Riyasat-i-Madina: “In Islamic civilization, the manifestation of our spiritual principles happened in the Prophet’s (SAW) Madina. Besides many other important principles, there were five very important guiding principles upon which the state of Madina was built.” He listed the five guiding principles as: unity; justice and the rule of law leading to meritocracy; strong moral and ethical foundation; inclusion of all humans in progress and prosperity; and, finally, the quest for knowledge.
“The first principle which laid the foundation for Riyasat-i-Madina was of unity,” Imran wrote. “The idea of unity (Tawhid) comes from the Quran and in a sense, the entire religion is based on that. From unity of God to unity of mankind, it is the most fundamental principle of Islam… Besides Muslims, there were Christians, Jews, Sabeans and other groups who were all woven into a unitary communal whole under the state of Madina.”
These are nice words, but unfortunately, the reality was not as nice. Encyclopedia Britannica, quoting the Islamic tradition, says that the Jewish tribe of Qurayzah suffered heavily as “all adult males are executed, and the women and children are enslaved.”
Imran Khan wants Pakistan to be modelled on a 7th-century arrangement. When he was prime minister, he did succeed to some extent, as his regime was nightmarish for religious minorities and heretics. In the first two years of Khan’s administration, according to the online news magazine The Diplomat, 31 members of religious minorities were killed, 58 were injured, and 25 were targeted by blasphemy cases.
Terrorists are Imran’s heroes, the most prominent of them being Osama bin Laden, whom he glorified as a martyr.
On women, his views are as regressive as that of any other medievalist. He held women responsible for rape as they wear “very few clothes.” This is from the Oxford-educated former playboy cricketer! But then just as a cannibal with impeccable table manners is still a cannibal, an Islamist speaking flawless English is still an Islamist.
He is Pakistan’s national hero (widely expected to win elections if held today). In a way, he is the embodiment of Pakistan, exhibiting all pathologies the country is afflicted with.
Much of Pakistan’s pathologies are a product and function of its unique character: it is perhaps the only country in the world that has imported both its faith and its language. While there are dozens of countries with imported religions, our western neighbour is the only one that also got its national language, Urdu, from another country and that too from its mortal enemy—India (That is, a mortal enemy from its own perspective, not India’s). Much of its faith too comes from India—the Barelvi and Deobandi versions of Islam.
Come to think of it, Bangladesh, which was East Pakistan for 24 years, also separated from India on the basis of religion. When it seceded from Pakistan, it decided to continue as a separate nation, and yet it is not a creator and exporter of jihadist terror. Perhaps because it has not tried to import language and culture.
Pakistan began as a tryst with Islam. Downplaying its own roots, culture, and languages—Punjabi and Sindhi have been systematically slighted—and distorting its history for decades, Pakistan ended up with a covenant with Islamism. Ruler after ruler—military or civil—has strengthened the scope and scale of Islamisation.
But its heartbreak is the condescending attitude of Arabs and Turks to it. Prominent Pakistani journalist Hassan Nisar points out that Arabs and Turks despise Pakistanis as being lesser Muslims, and yet his compatriots identify themselves with Arabs and Turks. “Our biggest crisis is identity crisis,” Nisar says.
It is the search for a national identity, for its soul—which they can’t find in the land they are born in—that propels them to look outwards, look askance at the Arabs and Turks despite the latter’s unconcealed contempt for Pakistanis.
And yet prominent Pakistanis like Nisar and Aftab Iqbal, another refined and erudite broadcaster, are supporting Imran, the embodiment of Pakistan’s pathologies. But then there were also many among Germany’s intellectual elite who supported Hitler and the Nazis. Martin Heidegger, one of the most important philosophers of the last century, was one of them. There were also Nobel Prize-winning scientists Philipp Lenard and Johannes Stark who supported Hitler. Imran is following in the footsteps of Hitler.
-Pioneer
