Not that Imran Khan needs me to defend him but the intemperate attacks on him by certain quarters leave me no choice but to attempt to set the record straight. I can assure you, dear readers, that the impression created by some writers is nothing but a warped caricature of the only person in politics who is not just incorruptible but a selfless first rate humanist, one that this country is lucky to have at this critical juncture in its fragile democratic evolution. The only other politician whom I had such high hopes in was Benazir Bhutto in 2007 but she was not spared by the powers that be.
Perhaps the most inaccurate article, which in my view went out of its way to distort the truth about Khan’s politics, was the review of his book by Dr Aparna Pande titled ‘Imran Khan’s self-serving journey’ (Daily Times, November 14, 2011). For one thing, the book review was entirely misconceived. It seems that Dr Pande did not actually bother to read the book but merely went through the index and read snippets, which were then reproduced in the review out of context. Anyone familiar with my writings in this newspaper and other places knows that I stand for a secular liberal Pakistan as envisaged by Muhammad Ali Jinnah. I, therefore, do not quite agree with Imran Khan’s analysis of why Pakistan was created but I also understand that a debate about history is often lost in semantics. So is the case with politics. I support Imran Khan, as I explained in my own article ‘Why progressives should support Khan’ (Daily Times, November 7, 2011), because I am willing to look beyond disputes over terms such as secularism and Islam and look at the substance of what is being offered. Therefore, when Dr Pande points to apparent similarities of language between Imran Khan and General Zia, she sidesteps the fundamental ground reality that appeals to Islam is part of the political language in Pakistan. Imran Khan, in his book, goes on to define his commitment to Islam. He roundly criticises General Zia’s Islamisation project as being too narrow and counterproductive.
Islam and shariah to Imran Khan are not narrow straitjackets to be imposed on the masses but components of a comprehensive liberation theology that seeks to overturn existing inequities in society. Eqbal Ahmad, whose secular liberal credentials are beyond dispute, once wrote that when the Pakistani masses speak of an Islamic state, they mean not so much a theocracy imposing one version of shariah law, but a just and fair society where everyone has social and personal freedoms. Imran Khan’s vision of an Islamic state is an egalitarian, democratic and pluralistic state that does not distinguish between citizens on the basis of faith, class or gender, and he means every word of what he says; his record confirms this. Why should any secularist have any qualms about such a state? To argue that this vision is a continuum of Pakistan’s non-secular establishment is far too simplistic and naïve an analysis.
Dr Pande makes a big deal out of Imran Khan’s reference to Shah Waliullah. Having read the book, I could not at first recall where Imran Khan had delineated on Shah Waliullah’s thoughts. Going through the index, however, I did find a solitary reference to Waliullah in brackets to the effect that Waliullah thought monarchy had been instrumental in the decline of the Islamic world. Yet Dr Pande castigates Imran Khan for not mentioning the sectarian damage done by Waliullah. Not that Imran Khan has taken a firm position on the 18th century Muslim reformer, but it must be mentioned that Shah Waliullah has been praised by many Islamic modernists in the past for having tried to reopen the doors of ijtihad, i.e. reinterpretation of the foundational legal principles of the Islamic common law according to the times. In the closed and stifling academic environment of the 18th century, coming soon after the codification of ‘Fatwa-e-Alamgiri’ under the auspices of Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb, Waliullah’s efforts were revolutionary. To give an analogous example, would it be fair to characterise the Reformation in Europe, which led to enlightenment and progress, as simply a violent sectarian movement because for three centuries the Protestants persecuted the Catholics and vice versa? Or do we look at the historical impact of such a movement? Waliullah and Eqbal were human beings who might not have had it right on everything but the idea is to keep the debate going, and ultimately reason trumps irrational superstitions.
Then we come to three articles by Dr Mohammad Taqi in which he approbates and reprobates his allegations against Imran Khan. In the first article titled, ‘No he Khan’t’ (Daily Times, November 3, 2011), he accuses Imran Khan of toeing the establishment line. In his second article titled, ‘PTI’s financial scruples’ (Daily Times, November 10, 2011), Dr Taqi goes on to imply that Imran Khan might be funded by the Americans. Not content with this charge, Dr Taqi warns American officials in these terms: “If one red US cent goes towards putting a US soldier in harm’s way, that does not reflect well on the US officials who had been cosying up to Imran Khan and had a meeting with him just before the Lahore rally.” The implication is obvious. Americans are funding Imran Khan and Imran Khan is toeing the establishment line by supporting the Taliban and al Qaeda. Predictably, Dr Taqi provides no evidence for his ridiculously farfetched charge. In the third installment of his invective against Imran Khan, ‘Small change and mini-NROs’ (Daily Times, November 17, 2011), after rephrasing and reproducing his earlier accusations, he goes on to claim that Imran Khan was signing ‘mini-NROs’ with politicians. This cleverly deceptive sound byte, of course, masks the virtual impossibility of such an event. Imran Khan is not a sovereign power signing blanket pardons for misdeeds in the past. Nor are people like Shah Mehmood Qureshi and Nabeel Gabol tainted with personal corruption.
So it is time to ask the naysayers what private grief they harbour against Imran Khan who has only tried to chart a course as he has seen fit as a patriotic Pakistani unable to see his country become a laughingstock of the world. This deliberate schism that is created between the ghairat (honour) and beyghairat (dishonour) segments cannot be productive for this country for we all have to live here together.
The writer is a lawyer based in Lahore. He is also a regular contributor to the Indian law website http://mylaw.net and blogs on http//globallegalforum.blogspot.com and http://pakteahouse.net. He can be reached at [email protected]