Pak Tea House » Uncategorized » Political Realities and Shades of Grey

Political Realities and Shades of Grey

November 21st, 2011 | 12 Comments

Raza Habib Raja

A few days ago I wrote an article titled as Why Some Liberals Are Supporting Imran. The basic thrust of the article was that with the passage of time and owing to a host of factors, the ideological differences between the political parties have blurred. This lack of clear cut distinction means that in reality (despite so called ideological differences) there is not much difference left between the most of the parties barring perhaps definitely religious parties such as Jamat-i-Islami.

One of the readers, Mr. Awais Aftab, twitted the article and also twitted another article which he had written on the same subject. Clicking on the link, I was taken to one of the best blogs, I have ever seen.

The article which he had written was short but in two paragraphs, he communicated so eloquently and precisely, what perhaps I could not do in two pages. Commenting about the political realities in terms of ideological bent, he wrote:

“The question of supporting this or that political party is a highly pragmatic decision given that in reality no political party is perfect, and no political party in Pakistan has a particularly liberal track-record, regardless of what they say in theory. Given this background, it is a mistake to think that the mere act of supporting PTI is a delusional betrayal of liberalism…..

Sane people understand that political realities exist in shades of grey, but when it comes to Imran Khan and PTI, suddenly everyone has the urge to see it as black and white. This applies not just to the liberal critics of Imran Khan, but even more to the hordes of PTI trolls who insist on proclaiming their kaptaan as the one and only messiah, and any criticism against him as an act of blasphemy.”

These words actually describe of whatever is wrong with our political discourse. In fact I would like to stretch it further and say that we see almost all politics as black and white, not just Imran though arguably the schism is much stronger in his case.

In recent times, Imran is arousing a lot of passion. His supporters are growing and so is the fanaticism of his support. The support is mostly an extension of personal hero worship of Imran and since Imran’s persona is financially clean so it is simply assumed that there is absolutely nothing wrong with his political beliefs. In his cricketing life, perhaps Imran seldom compromised but in political life one has to and he will. In fact signs are already there. However, for his supporters, it is simply not happening and when they hear some of “old” faces joining PTI ome how or the other it is assumed that those are “honest” lot out of the “rotten” lot!. What is being overlooked is that pragmatism at some point of time has to be factored in and it becomes increasingly difficult if your original stance had been so “principled”.

But let’s come to his critics.Here the shades of grey actually become more relevant because most of the criticism heaped on Imran is on his ideological orientation and is generally traced to his “Pro Taliban” orientation. Now a substantial segment of the liberal press shows “horror” on Imran’s beliefs and calls him Taliban Khan.

Personally I agree that Imran adopts an apologetic approach and believes that terrorism is just an outcome of Western imperialism and drones. I have severe disagreement with Imran on that account. However, this apologetic defense does not essentially mean that Imran endorses religious extremists like Taliban and in fact he has often tried to clarify his position in this regard. Moreover, a few days ago Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) actually issued a statement denouncing Imran.

However, that statement was completely ignored by the “liberal” press who perhaps just wants to stick to their black and white portrayal of Imran. On the other hand if TTP had issued a statement supporting Imran, then all the liberal press would have just leapt on to it.

Sometimes I actually feel that since Imran has also gotten the “fame” of being Taliban Khan some of the “liberal” writers have to criticize him just to appear safely liberal. They fear if they don’t criticize him, people will doubt their “liberal” credentials.

Imran, in my opinion, is the embodiment of upper middle class morality which is riddled with these greys and contradictions. It may be right to call him confused and reactionary but I think calling him Taliban Khan is at times stretching it too much.

We call Imran fixated by political Islam but then who in this country is not. Who made Islam the state religion in Pakistan? Who passed the second amendment and a host of other laws which aimed at Islamization of Pakistan? And PML N the other mainstream party has in fact even patronized extremist religious outfits in the past for petty political gains. What Mr. Khan is doing now has unfortunately been repeatedly done in the long tortuous history of this country.

Pakistan is a country where almost everyone has tried to play on the wicket of political Islam and Imran by no stretch of the imagination is the exception. It is this fact which needs to be admitted while we criticize him. It’s the entire approach, not any individual person or party, which needs to be criticized. And criticism has to include so called vanguards of liberalism. In fact, I hear so much about so called ‘secular”, “liberal’ and democratic parties and how they represent the last “hope’. But looking closely they are all riddled by the same contradictions and shades of grey though arguably with varying intensities.

And likewise, I have also heard that all those who support Imran are in essence Taliban supporters. This in my opinion is highly exaggerated as in recent times his appeal has broadened and many of the moderates are also supporting him. PTI is becoming somewhat mainstream, at least as far as the composition of its supporters are concerned.And this may actually be a good thing as it may force Mr. Khan to soften his rhetoric. In fact early signs are already there.

A lot is also said on his undemocratic credentials and there is substantial merit in that. It is clear that at least right now, he is being propped up by hidden forces but the problem is that in Pakistan’s long history almost all the parties at one point or the other have compromised and have been supported by the so called establishment and it includes PML N which apparently is right now the most anti establishment.

In fact even more than Imran,right now it is the “liberal” party in Karachi which has been giving openly pro army statements and in fact “requesting” the generals to cleanse up the system.

We need to be more inclusive and take every statement and fact into our analysis before coming up with our opinion. In other words, learn to recognize those shades of grey. Imran should be criticized and there are genuine basis for criticism but the criticism should not be based on just hearsay and at the cost of losing our credibility.

Written by razaraja

Filed under: Uncategorized · Tags: fact, Imran, party, political

12 Responses to "Political Realities and Shades of Grey"

Salman Arshad says:

November 21, 2011 at 9:51 am

@RHR:
The reason Imran Khan receives more serious criticism is that DESPITE being a dishonest politician like all the others, he is posing to be an honest person. He may not be acting as such deliberately, but the reason he is being criticized so much is that his IMAGE is being made to be that of a man of a very strong character, whereas he is weaker in character than all the rest.
Having Sheereen Mazari or Hamid Gul or Sipah e Sahaba as allies and posing to be the “new” face and a “revolutionary” or an agent of “change” is the only reason he is facing so much criticism.
There is nothing wrong if he is allied to Islamist ideology, but he should have the guts to pose as such as well, but he only chooses to mince his words when asked about his ideology. None of the other political parties make statements that are against their ideology (except for Islamist parties, who need to show how “liberal” Islam is).
.
These are not shades of grey. These are contradictions.
Mustafa says:

November 21, 2011 at 12:40 pm

@Salman Arshad: Typical liberal rambling. These are the typical noises made by the liberals, who honestly, are totally out of touch with reality. They do not understand Pakistan, its people. Also they do not understand PTI or Imran Khan. These labels of Pro Taleban and rightist are getting really old now. Its very clear that you cant put Imran Khan in a box and you cant attatch left, right, liberal or conservative as they do not apply in Pakistan anymore. Its about Status Quo and Anti Status Quo.

He responds to criticism in healthy way unlike our other politicians, who just like to play blame game.

Also you accuse him of dishonesty , can you quote a specific instance?

Also you place a ridiculous accusation that he is allied wiht Sipha E Sahaba. What is the proof of this? Where did SSP come from?

Gen Hamid Gul and Shirin Mazari are close to Imran Khan, they are nationalists who have thier own ideas and everybody has the rite to participate in politics.
RHR says:

November 21, 2011 at 5:35 pm

@ Salman Arshad

I dont support Imran and I agree that he is a reactionary. If you read this article and all the previous articles of mine you will know it. My sole contention is that the extent of “horror” he arouses in liberals is frankly beyond reasonable. He is like the rest.
In a country where religion is such a big part of political discourse and almost all the parties have played on the wicket of political Islam, heaping criticism on Imran alone is some what lopsided.

PPP is called the “secular” or quasi secular party, but it was the party which in 1973 made Islam the state religion and followed it by taking several steps such second amendment and banning of alcohol etc to make country more Islamic. Regarding PML N, well the lesser one says on usage of Islam for political gains, the better it is. It has been supporting Sapah Sahab for paltry electoral gains in Jhang.

The point which i am trying to make is that here almost everyone is riddled by contradictions and Imran is not the exception. For that matter your stance that he calls everyone as dishonest while acting honest is not true. PML N calls zardari the most corrupt while praising themselves as virtous and vice versa. These tactics of all others are dishonest except themselves have been applied by almost everyone. In Imran’s case his “honest” reputation is more pronounced and hence a greater scrutiny also.
RHR says:

November 21, 2011 at 5:39 pm

@ Mustafe

Sorry yaar, Hamid Gul is a very bad example and please so is Ms Shereen Mazari..As PTI becomes more popular, I hope these people are relegated. I wont vote for PTI but I sincerely hope that it has better people

Regards

Raza
Tilsim says:

November 21, 2011 at 6:39 pm

If IK sets his stall by honesty and competence then let him pump it all up higher and higher. The higher he hoists his pedestal, the more the wider public will judge him by the height of that pedestal. Like ZAB he will be judged by history by the force of his rhetoric.

However IK has been lowering that pedestal lately. He says that he can’t bring fellow politicans into his party from the sky or moon. His supporters don’t seem to be too disturbed by this statement. It suggests that deep down something other than honesty and competence comprises the real vote catching package for IK. They certainly are not bothered by fears of him being a Taliban apologist, close to Gul or Mazari. As long as certain internalised truths about the attractions of the IK package hold, his supporters should not be disturbed by his actual record in office (if he ever manages to get power). The same phenomenon was observed with Bhutto supporters (who remained loyal Bhutto supporters), long after the rhetoric was exposed for it’s hollowness.

One should study in depth why IK is appealing right now to understand what is going on with certain sections of Pakistani public opinion; correctly identified as middle and upper middle class opinion in the central and northern parts of Pakistan.

We should also understand how opinion is created in Pakistan appealing as it does to messianic figures, tradition, nationalism, Islam, love of martial solutions, ‘anti-imperialism’, charitable handouts, desire to change the status quo. All these levers hold appeal, to varying degrees, for voters at different times. Manipulation of the ballot box in Pakistan does the rest.

IK is no messiah or doyen of virtue. The carefully crafted image can be fractured but to what avail? He is a man of the time for an increasing number of disenchanted people. He represents hope for hope’s sake. He is engaging people who have been disengaged from active politics, perhaps since the 1970s. Let the cameras roll, once more. It’s not the first time. Better to hope than die.
Raees Aslam Punno says:

November 21, 2011 at 11:11 pm

@ Raza Habib Raja!

For major part of your article I have no reservations.
Well, I want you to comment on one point i.e.
going through the corridors of history of Pakistan, don’t you think that unlike to other political parties, PTI has not opened eyes in the lap of any dictators (Civil and/or Military) and will not it be rational to give him a try?
RHR says:

November 22, 2011 at 2:42 am

@ Raees

Nice to see you interacting..
He may not have started in the laps of a dictator but right now he is being supported by the “real” forces

Regards

Raza
Mustafa says:

November 25, 2011 at 2:56 pm

@Tilism: Point is there is no one better than him. Who would you vote for and why? OR not vote? Also can you prove that he is dishonest? The sky or moon statement is very practical. Thats common sense, whats dishonest about being realistic? Also he never promised that he would bring completely new people, all he said that he would not allow people who had curroptions of accusations on them. Disagree with the rest of your comment.

@RHR: Gen Hamid Gul and Shireen Mazari, I like them, but even if you dont like them , everyone has the freedom to join a party, give thier input and present thier views to the public. The people love them and IK agress with most of thier views and the people chose him, atleast his voters so nothing wrong going on.

As far as Taliban apologist label goes, its incorrect, they explain the phenomenon in terms of cause and effect and in no way support the Taliban movement and infact they condemn it. People who point to external factors do not ignore the internal factors and faults even though they dont mention it. Both internal and external factors play a role.
Mustafa says:

November 25, 2011 at 2:58 pm

@RHR: You siad IK is being backed by ”real” forces . You mean ISI and Army? Where is the proof for this? What are they gonna bribe him wiht? Money? Power? Also do they have any leverage over him? Do you have solid evidence that the Establishment covertly supports him?

Public gives you popularity, no amount of Establishment support or money brings Public support and popularity. So again, where is the proof?
Mustafa says:

November 25, 2011 at 3:01 pm

Also disagree with article. Whats wrong with political Islam? Islam is religion of Pakistan, so how is it wrong to use Islam not only as a political base but in practical implementation? Especially since 90% Pakistani population agree with these things?

Misuse of Islam in a wrong way is bad, but from what I understand from both the comments and article, its also the legitimate use of Islam that you oppose. So what is wrong with that? Most people want Islam in thier politics and public life.
Tilsim says:

November 25, 2011 at 6:42 pm

@ Mustafa

What is the legitimate use of Islam? I am a Muslim but what I unfortunately see is chaos and fitna wherever Muslims use religion to order the affairs of the State. They believe they are doing the right thing but the opposite happens. As you know the AKP leader of Turkey, Erdogan calls for secular states amongst the Muslim world. This is an honestly held view amongst many Muslims, based on the bitter experience of religious discord, and it should be respected.
Sikander says:

November 26, 2011 at 5:41 am

The “liberals’ and PTH had credibility? Since when?