Imran Khan’s Hollow Dream of Becoming an International Statesman of Peace

Source: Prime Minister Office/samaa.tv

The New York Times issue of August 30 saw something peculiar. An opinion piece by the Pakistani leader Imran Khan with a passive-aggressive threat of nuclear war.

The piece is a chronology of recent events between India and Pakistan since the PTI leader took office following a controversial election in July 2018. Of course, he started the article referring to his first address in which he invited India to peace talks, which were rebuffed. Then he refers to the February 14 Pulawama suicide attack by a “young Kashmiri man” against Indian Troops, following which the Indian government held Pakistan responsible. He reminded the world of the return of a captured Indian Pilot and a subsequent letter to Modi to deescalate tensions. India instead took the lobbying route to seek Pakistan’s blacklisting at the FATF.

Imran Khan’s self-absorbed rant failed to take into account the history of India-Pakistan relations before his assumption of office and the long and glorious history of cross-border terrorism starting from Pakistan supporting militancy in Kashmir, the Parliament attacks following Lahore, Kargil war, and Mumbai attacks among many other incidents.

Pretending that India-Pakistan relations started with his party entering the government, he then had a sudden realization following India’s persistent rejections for talks after Pulwama.

Evidently Mr. Modi had mistaken our desire for peace in a nuclear neighborhood as appeasement. We were not simply up against a hostile government. We were up against a “New India,” which is governed by leaders and a party that are the products of the Hindu supremacist mother ship, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, or the R.S.S.

The Indian prime minister and several ministers of his government continue to be members of the R.S.S., whose founding fathers expressed their admiration for Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler. Mr. Modi has written with great love and reverence about M.S. Golwalkar, the second supreme leader of the R.S.S., and has referred to Mr. Golwakar as “Pujiniya Shri Guruji (Guru Worthy of Worship).”

Mr. Modi’s guru wrote admiringly about the Final Solution in “We, Our Nationhood Defined,” his 1939 book: “To keep up the purity of the race and its culture, Germany shocked the world by her purging the country of the Semitic Races — the Jews. National pride at its highest has been manifested here. Germany has also shown how well-nigh impossible it is for races and cultures, having differences going to the root, to be assimilated into one united whole, a good lesson for us in Hindustan for us to learn and profit by.”

Imran Khan probably came to know through one of his advisors that Indian Prime Minister was a lifelong member of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, a paramilitary organization dedicated to promoting Hindu characteristics among Indians, as well as the Hindutva political philosophy. Yet he thought that the reelection of Modi, instead of Rahul Gandhi, a Nehruvian secularist, would be a better idea for the peace in the region.

I had hoped that being elected prime minister might lead Mr. Modi to cast aside his old ways as the chief minister of the Indian state of Gujarat, when he gained global notoriety for the 2002 pogrom against local Muslims on his watch and was denied a visa to travelto the United States under its International Religious Freedom Act — a list of visa denials that included associates of Slobodan Milosevic.

Mr. Modi’s first term as prime minister had been marked by lynching of Muslims, Christians and Dalits by extremist Hindu mobs. In Indian-occupied Kashmir, we have witnessed increased state violence against defiant Kashmiris. Pellet-firing shotguns were introduced and aimed at the eyes of young Kashmiri protesters, blinding hundreds.

Imran Khan was well aware that Modi, a global persona non grata, was coming to power. It is indeed true that his administration has been complicit in the organized mob lynching of several Muslims, if not endorsing them. He was also aware that it was his administration, which started the heinous practice of deliberately targeting the eyes of Kashmiri civilian protesters with pellets, yet he hoped for his relations. Was he sucking up to him with his statement? If only he had addressed the issues India wanted Pakistan to offer guarantees about. But only if he could.

This is pretty strange because the Prime Minister should have realized Modi’s background before writing to him for peace. How can someone who admires Mussolini and Hitler be up for peace? What is even more ironic is that Imran Khan expected Modi to be better for India-Pakistan relations and to possibly “settle Kashmir issue.” Well, he got the latter right, at least.

On Aug. 5, in its most brazen and egregious move, Mr. Modi’s government altered the status of Indian-occupied Kashmir through the revocation of Article 370 and 35A of the Indian Constitution. The move is illegal under the Constitution of India, but more important, it is a violation of the United Nations Security Council resolutions on Kashmir and the Shimla Agreement between India and Pakistan.

And Mr. Modi’s “New India” chose to do this by imposing a military curfew in Kashmir, imprisoning its population in their homes and cutting off their phone, internet and television connections, rendering them without news of the world or their loved ones. The siege was followed by a purge: Thousands of Kashmiris have been arrested and thrown into prisons across India. A blood bath is feared in Kashmir when the curfew is lifted. Already, Kashmiris coming out in defiance of the curfew are being shot and killed.

If the world does nothing to stop the Indian assault on Kashmir and its people, there will be consequences for the whole world as two nuclear-armed states get ever closer to a direct military confrontation. India’s defense minister has issued a not-so-veiled nuclear threat to Pakistan by saying that the future of India’s “no first use” policy on nuclear weapons will “depend on circumstances.” Similar statements have been made by Indian leaders periodically. Pakistan has long viewed India’s “no first use” claims with skepticism.

With the nuclear shadow hovering over South Asia, we realize that Pakistan and India have to move out of a zero-sum mind-set to begin dialogue on Kashmir, various strategic matters and trade. On Kashmir, the dialogue must include all stakeholders, especially the Kashmiris. We have already prepared multiple options that can be worked on while honoring the right to self-determination the Kashmiris were promised by the Security Council resolutions and India’s first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru.

Imran Khan hilariously brings his favorite jargon of “New Pakistan” to allude to Modi’s “New India” and mourns the revocation of Article 370. As he goes on to criticize the lack of international reaction to the horrific curbs on civil liberties in India and a majoritarian constitutional amendment, he alludes to the threat of nuclear war. His case clearly is that India has threatened Pakistan with nuclear war because they had made statements about making the “no first use” policy conditional to circumstances. Interestingly, those circumstances can possibly include the “use of tactical nuclear weapons by Pakistan in the event of an Indian attack.” Pakistan’s nuclear doctrine can be learned about through various sources and the reasons pushing India to adopt such a stance after years of threats escape Imran Khan’s memory.

Through dialogue and negotiations, the stakeholders can arrive at a viable solution to end the decades of suffering of the Kashmiri people and move toward a stable and just peace in the region. But dialogue can start only when India reverses its illegal annexation of Kashmir, ends the curfew and lockdown, and withdraws its troops to the barracks.

It is imperative that the international community think beyond trade and business advantages. World War II happened because of appeasement at Munich. A similar threat looms over the world again, but this time under the nuclear shadow.

Interestingly, when no one is bringing up nuclear war, Imran Khan invokes it over and over again. He believes that is the best way to attract the attention of the international community to Kashmir is threatening nuclear war. This is his idea of a short cut to peace in the region. If Kashmir is under India’s draconian authoritarian control, why does Pakistan have to respond with nuclear war considering Pakistan is already showing solidarity with Kashmir through peaceful means.

Imran Khan’s stance on India seems to be just about as confused as his imaginary “Medina Riyasat” or “Medina State” model which attempts to present Islamic Caliphate as a “fair” welfare state that protects religious minority groups. He is apparently not being able to make up his mind whether Indians are Nazis that must not be appeased and should be nuked or if they are a legitimate state which should be engaged in peace talks. Why would he engage with Modi, after declaring him to be a follower of an ideology comparable to Nazism, at all? Wouldn’t it violate his staunch stance against fascism?

Those familiar with Imran Khan’s personal history recognize him to be a narcissist and a megalomaniac. Despite his first year in office being a failure, he sees his rise to power as a historic and revolutionary moment with divine inspiration. He sees his stature in global politics no less, even though the reality is very different. While Modi is being awarded the highest civilian awards in the UAE, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia, Imran Khan had driven their leaders from the airport like a chauffer, seeking aid money to bail his bankrupt country out.

As much as his case for Kashmir might sound pleasant to the eyes of unsuspecting commentators, you simply cannot ignore the parallel rhetoric from the military, dubbed his “selectors” by the opposition. Actually, their actions speak louder than words as the military tested the “Ghaznavi” ballistic nuclear missile a day before the Kashmir Hour solidarity protest enforced on the public through a 30-minute traffic jam.

Before lecturing the world, he conveniently forgets the state of democracy, civil liberties, and human rights at home, which is caused by the policies of his administration under the guidance of the Bajwa military administration. He has revived the culture of caustic divisive politics in Pakistan, making blatant political arrests targeting the opposition and dissenting citizens and criticized India of doing the same in parliament floor. He and his supporters complain about a lack of national unity at the time when the entire opposition leadership of Pakistan is in jail and deprived of proper medical facilities.

He conveniently forgets that the world is well aware of the state of democracy and religious freedom under his administration before he can make a legitimate case about any other. He forgets that before lecturing India on fairness, he cannot utter the word “secularism” in the same sentence with “Pakistan” at home. His refusal to acknowledge the Chinese atrocities on Uighur Muslims has been astounding for his supposed image as an upright and principled politician.

Imran Khan may very well dream of being the next Zulfikar Ali Bhutto or Jinnah, but he simply cannot shrug off the history of Pakistan that burdens him. He cannot break the shackles of the military establishment he used to criticize and now colludes with. His follower might think that being a hypocrite and a liar might be characteristics of a great leader but he simply cannot be an independent leader as long as he remains a puppet in the hand of his masters.

The Blasphemy Hunger Games

Source: poplr.pk/dunyaurdu.com

Source: poplr.pk/dunyaurdu.com

Our public inquisitors and blasphemy scanners, who have taken it upon themselves to inform the public of every little mischievous soul taking the Lord’s name in vain, are dominating the TV waves.

The biggest problem is who would decide that it is a blasphemy.

The answer is simple. The public inquisitors and blasphemy scanners themselves.

The rule is simple too.

If it looks like a blasphemy, and if it sounds like a blasphemy to certain people, rest assured that it is.

Hey, I am not even presenting the same old liberal argument of insanity or fake profiles. Let’s talk about things that people actually say.

Even Hamza Ali Abbasi asking about the rights of a minority community is considered blasphemy in this day and age.

Thou shalt not question the Second Amendment, even if you are not really doing so.

This is hilarious and dangerous at the same time.

In the Indian subcontinent, one of the perks of living in a society with so many religions is that people are just so easy to offend.

You would feel as if you were watching the moral policing version of the Hunger Games on your TV.

The only difference is that in the Hunger Games, the condemned contestants actually stand a chance to save their lives by winning.

We are witnessing a race on national TV to nominate blasphemers and waiting for the faithful to take them out. It’s a thrilling game of survival.

It may come across as free speech but it is precisely the very opposite, because this sort of behavior is not only meant to shut people up. It is meant to shut them up for good. As in the case of the murdered Bangladeshi bloggers.

Now do not forget, such behavior comes from this taken-for-granted belief that the society needs to think in a certain way, and anything and everything must be done to silence the deviants.

Our former philosopher-kings such as Orya Maqbool Jan and the inquisitor-in-chief Mubasher Lucman, who often pretends not to be concerned with others’ private affairs, are just the prominent faces of this reality witch-hunting show.

Blasphemy and public morality scanners have a certain goal in mind.

It’s not that such elements are not present on the liberal side of the political spectrum, but their goal is usually confined to naming and shaming. They get their orgasms out of people being publicly humiliated instead of offering allusions that people could hack you to death when out of control.

Many of my naïve friends ask me why secularism is needed in the presence of an Islamic state, not to be confused with the menacing political entity in Iraq and Syria.

With public inquisitors in charge, whose tone claim authority over the national discourse, considering atheism as rebellion to the Constitution of Pakistan, you do need secularism.

You need secularism because otherwise even existing could have serious consequences in an Islamic State, again not to confuse with the menacing political entity in Iraq and Syria.

In my opinion, witch hunters such as Orya Maqbool Jan and Mubasher Lucman themselves are the biggest argument in favor of secularism.

Because apparently, the very existence of a community in a country is a source of offense to the supposed view of the majority.

Now don’t bring up Jinnah’s view, please. Haven’t we trashed that already with the 1973 constitution?

Now as entertaining as they are, the blasphemy hunger games are nevertheless dangerous.

They are dangerous because not only are they intellectually bankrupt, but also socially authoritarian.

Sometimes, I do feel sorry for the people on the religious conservative side of the fence. Because the very presentation of their ideological view involves violating others’ free speech and personal security. And that is precisely how theocratic forces have been enforcing their view for centuries.

However, this does not absolve them of their sheer idiocy, lack of information, moral hypocrisy, and malicious intentions.

But since it is an Islamic State, the Blasphemy Hunger Games must go on.

The post was originally published in The Nation blogs.