Pakistan: Is there a Khan plan?

At his protest rally at the D Chowk in Islamabad, where few had been allowed in the past to stage a political event, PTI supremo Imran Khan reiterated many of the points he has been repeating over the past few weeks. Long on rhetoric and short on logic, Khan’s speech was disappointing for those still looking for serious political content from the ‘third force’. Clearly, the only art he seems to have picked up from established political traditions is the one of filibustering. Consider his rigging charges – a year after the event. Even if Khan is right about his mandate having been hijacked in the four constituencies he identifies, the four extra seats wouldn’t have propelled him into Khursheed Shah’s seat, let alone the PM’s seat. So what ‘mandate’ is he referring to? Khan’s emphasis on the role of the Election Commission of Pakistan is also puzzling. Yes, the ECP should be transparent and accountable; yes, free and fair elections should be the rule; yes, electoral disputes should be resolved fast. But since Khan doesn’t like the verdict of the ECP, the courts and tribunals and is disappointed with their pace of work, should all these institutions be disbanded? Should every electoral dispute henceforth be sent to the awaam for collective deliberation and adjudication? And who, precisely, are the awaam? The Islamabad-based PTI yuppies or the KP imports? (And can non-PTI, politically active persons qualify as awaam?)

Khan once more accused Jang/Geo of conducting this rigging – even though the channel and other experts have on more than one occasion pointed out it is simply not possible for a media house to manipulate a national election, particularly in the manner he suggests was done. Announcing results at any point after votes are cast cannot alter which symbol is marked on the ballot sheet or the total cast for a particular party. In his attack launched in the manner for which Khan has now become noted, he once again brought up the – false – allegations of foreign funding for various campaigns run by the Jang/Geo Group and suggested this involves them in some kind of conspiracy. The allegations are absurd. After they have been replied to and cleared in the past in courts where the detractors and liars had to apologise, the repetition of these lies borders on a sickness that sane politicians should not suffer from.

The timing of Khan’s speech also merits consideration. His favourite topic – talks with the Taliban – is dangerously close to being eclipsed by “Geo’s … play[ing] with national institutions”; shouldn’t he have focused on need to resume dialogue, especially since KP – the current PTI bastion – is the most affected by the violence? For many years now, Khan has been droning about the drones and the need to stop attacks so that more ‘meaningful’ work can be done. Now that there is a reprieve, what’s the Khan plan? But he didn’t talk about any of these issues. Instead, his adoring supporters of not-the-usual-suspects variety were treated to a lengthy diatribe about Geo using funds from the UK, US and India to further “their” agenda against “national institutions”. Who made Khan the arbiter of who is or isn’t patriotic? And why must anyone – including Jang/Geo – have to prove their patriotism to Khan? Unfortunately, to Imran Khan’s mind, being unpatriotic is like being a blasphemer in modern-day Pakistan: the onus of proving otherwise is on the accused, not the accuser. And the quality of politics in the country is all the poorer for this stance.