Mr Imran Khan need not become a cricket patron to show his patriotism to critics like Ms Khan.
LAHORE: It should be seen as a vindication of the status of Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) as a formidable political entity when a publication prints an article on the party’s leadership claim to bring about a revolution through the next general elections. Whether written derisively or seemingly to register opposition to the policies of the PTI, the article published in The Express Tribune, on October 30, 2010, written by Ms Mahreen Khan, articulates the apprehensions of a clique determined to build politics around Machiavellian machinations rather than humanitarian and philanthropic initiatives.
Mehreen Khan’s critique on PTI chairman, Mr Imran Khan’s claims to effect a revolution is not dismissed by the party leadership as biased opinion. The PTI acknowledges the right to dissent of each individual which in itself is an inference to the party’s visibility amidst other incumbent political parties.
While respecting Ms Khan’s right to dissent, the same right to rational defence must be provided to the party to put into proper perspective certain aspects of the article believed by the party to be misrepresented.
Setting off from questioning Mr Imran Khan’s ability to bring revolution in Pakistan, Ms Khan’s article loses context by accusing him of “u-turning” and being “glaringly inconsistent”. If the ‘u-turn’ is the right to choose a life partner, Mr Khan has neither done a great disservice to humanity nor the tenets of religion. If revolutions are only the prerogative of morally impeccable characters, Mr Khan has always conceded his human weaknesses. Strictly from a legal perspective, Mr Khan was never convicted in any court of the United States.
Mr Imran Khan need not become a cricket patron to show his patriotism to critics like Ms Khan. By admiring Imran Khan for ‘philanthropy’, is Ms Khan suggesting that a politician’s character should not constitute that? If Mr Imran Khan’s human weaknesses reduce his political stature, should not his ‘philanthropic acts’ elevate it? How many politicians in this country have raised Rs2 billion for flood relief?
The writer accuses Imran Khan of “refusing to unequivocally condemn the Taliban” and remaining silent when Asif Zardari was elected president of Pakistan. Is there an implication in that accusation, that Mr Imran Khan supports the Taliban and Mr Asif Zardari? Conversely, the ‘unequivocal’ condemnation of the Taliban is an explicit acceptance of America’s hegemony in Pakistan. Furthermore, Khan’s knowledge of international relations lends him enough insight to reiterate that the Taliban issue cannot be seen in isolation from the US intervention in Pakistan’s territory.
This country awaits a person who can challenge hegemonic neo-imperial powers. And the challenge to this day has only been coming from the direction of Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf.
Omar S Cheema
Central Information Secretary
Pakistan Tehreek-i- Insaf
Published in The Express Tribune, November 4th, 2010.
