Friends and readers have been urging me for a long time to express my views on the rising star on the Pakistani political horizon — cricket legend Imran Khan. I have been his admirer ever since he began his campaign for the Shaukat Khanum Cancer Hospital, where so many poor people in need are taken care of, when society in general and the state in particular has abandoned them. I have read Imran Khan’s Pakistan (Bantam Press, 2011), and found him to be a deeply religious but not a fanatical, patriotic Pakistani. He spells out his case for Islam, Pakistan and a welfare state with conviction. The only point to note is that whereas the welfare state of the pious caliphs was based on conquest and the inflow of maal-e-ghanimat (war booty), the Scandinavian welfare state that he also admires is based on production, scientific advances and progressive taxation. Khan will have to recast his welfare state idea in the context of the 21st century. It is very pleasing to note that Khan is respectful of Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru and Abul Kalam Azad, even when his admiration for Mohammad Ali Jinnah is boundless. However, I would urge him to revisit the Mountbatten-Nehru-Edwina conspiracy against Pakistan. In my book, The Punjab Bloodied, Partitioned and Cleansed (Karachi: Oxford University Press, 2011), Mountbatten does not appear to be the fiendish character that he is made out to be in Pakistani narratives. He not only brokered talks between Jinnah and Sikh leaders that could keep the Punjab united, but the Radcliffe Award he is supposed to have tampered with, upheld primarily Pakistan’s claims to territory. It was Mountbatten’s predecessor Lord Wavell who had already on February 7, 1946 in his Demarcation Plan laid down that Gurdaspur must remain in India. I have explained why that happened, with the help of a map in colour and a discussion on it. The major omission in Imran Khan’s book is a discussion on relations between Pakistan and India. Considering that he has many friends in India and has visited India many times privately, such an omission is a great disappointment. He can provide leadership in healing the wounds of a bloody and painful partition that he does mention in his book. Mian Nawaz Sharif has shown greater leadership and integrity on this question. The most fascinating personal story in Khan’s book is his belief in miracles and holy men who can predict the future. Mian Bashir is one personality that he mentions a lot. We learn that Mian Bashir is a humble, pious, and kindly Muslim. Therefore, he is not a stereotypical ‘pir’ but a truly saintly person. Does Khan’s faith in holy men make him superstitious? I do not think the matter is that simple. I quite admire his telling these stories with utmost candour. Such mystical experiences convinced him about the power of religion and his faith in Islam was strengthened. If such experiences have made him a good human being then it is good. Khan’s account of Pakistani politics is accurate and correct. He does not mince words in condemning the repressive Zia regime. Also, he has rightly exposed the corruption that transpired during the so-called democratic period when Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif were vying with each other to become prime ministers. He is very critical of Pervez Musharraf as well, especially for joining the so-called war on terror. However, in his understanding of Pashtun culture, he succumbs to the romanticism about Pashtunwali (the Pashtun code) as some timeless code of honour and behaviour. The fact is that Pashtun aggressiveness and cruelty and comprehensive oppression of women is also a product of the same Pashtunwali. Khan’s belief that the US’s withdrawal from Afghanistan is a prerequisite for the establishment of peace in the region is interesting but oversimplified. He needs to realise that extremism among Muslims has an indigenous history going back to the assassination of the third Caliph, Hazrat Usman. Both external and internal factors have driven Pakistan towards extremism. Apart from Jinnah, Imran Khan’s great hero and inspiration is Allama Iqbal. He lays stress on Iqbal’s idea of ijtihad (right to interpret Islam collectively) as the way forward for Muslim societies. Ijithad does not mean freedom of thinking, but only freedom to think within the parameters of sacred texts, and that means precious little freedom to think creatively, innovatively and independently. Any discussion on the emancipation of women is conspicuous by its absence from Iqbal’s poetry and thinking, and if Khan’s party is truly a movement for justice, he needs to look for inspiration somewhere else. Wilfred Cantwell Smith demonstrated (Modern Islam in India, Lahore: Sheikh Muhammad Ashraf, 1963) that Iqbal’s ideas can be classified both as progressive and reactionary, and it is no wonder that people can selectively quote Iqbal to justify contradictory standpoints. That Zaid Hamid invokes Iqbal with a relish should underscore this point. I have seen Lashkar-e-Tayyaba and Jaish-e-Muhammad also quoting Iqbal to justify their violent politics. However, I hope Khan is able to use the progressive poetry and ideas of Iqbal to create a modern Pakistan. Created as a separate state for Muslims and through heavy invocation of Islamic symbols and slogans, Pakistan will always have a problem defining the rights and status of women and non-Muslims, and now one can add that of sub-sects as well. If we accept that limitation, then Imran Khan’s Pakistan as a welfare state — tolerant of minorities, relatively free of corruption and based on Islamic social justice — makes sense. The writer has a PhD from Stockholm University. He is a Professor Emeritus of Political Science, StockholmUniversity. He is also Honorary Senior Fellow of the Institute of South AsianStudies, National University of Singapore. His latest publication is The Punjab Bloodied, Partitioned and Cleansed: Unravelling the 1947 Tragedy through Secret British Reports and First-Person Accounts (Karachi: Oxford University Press, 2012; New Delhi: Rupa Books, 2011). He can be reached at billumian@gmail.com