Imran Khan and the Taliban
This obviously does not conform to Mr Khan’s analysis of himself. He has described himself as a practising Muslim and has come under criticism from many in the country for being ‘too soft’ on the Taliban. In a 2008 interview, he astonishingly announced — despite all evidence to the contrary — that the Taliban were not blowing up girls schools, but that, in fact, it was the government which was making false allegations against them. We wonder if Mr Khan still sticks to this point of view or if the threats made against him will bring about any change in his opinions on the Taliban and their agenda in Pakistan.
The Taliban have now denied reports that stated that they will kill Mr Khan if he went to the tribal areas, with their spokesperson declaring that he had been misquoted. What he did, in fact, say was that an attack will be made on any political leader planning to contest elections who visited the tribal areas as polling was part of the ‘secular’ system in his view and did not conform to the Taliban vision of an Islamic state.
With elections now only months away, Mr Khan needs to make it clear which side he stands on. He cannot teeter on the fence any longer. People wish to know whether he opposes or approves of the Taliban and exactly how he intends to deal with them. The Taliban have made their intentions quite clear and declared Mr Khan a foe and it is obvious that they are not willing to tolerate any view other than their own at any cost.
Published in The Express Tribune, August 10th, 2012.
COMMENTS (35)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
1725702509-0/anna-(1)1725702509-0-405x300.webp "article")
1725700774-0/kamala-(1)1725700774-0-165x106.webp "article")
1725696248-0/kidman-(1)1725696248-0-165x106.webp "article")
1724268870-0/Supreme-Court-of-Pakistan-(2)1724268870-0-270x192.webp "supreme court reinstates nab amendments reverses earlier decision")
@sabi :) Dear,
Why did IK celebrated taliban’s imposition of sharia in swat? --- He did not.
Why did he opposed military action against taliban in swat? --- PTI has simply been against military operations from the start and wanted dialogue to be given full chance and if there were military operations to be part of a larger political process. Instead what we had was a full scale military operation (at the wrong time) which did not really resolve anything. The army is still holding areas there and the civilians not ready to take responsibility.
Why does he justify every barbarism of taliban ? ---He does not. He has been condemning suicide bombings even blowing up of schools etc. (as I showed you in the video). But he also wants you to understand that most of this is a "reaction" to what we've been doing in way of military operations in the tribal areas.
Why he has people of JI siting on his right and left? (B team of establishments) ---Last time I checked, he had a former foreign minister (SMQ) ex-PPP and a former member of PML-N (Hashmi) who has been very anti-establishment at his side.
Why he lying about resolution of Pakistan and and favouring Objective Resolution? ---Have never heard of him talking about this.
Why his secretary general participting in banned organistions meeting? ---PTI likes to engage with everyone in the hope of bringing them into the mainstream. There is an idea called re-integration of such outfits into society and nation building. The government has the responsibility to do this as it was the establishment who CREATED them.
Why he calls his critics as American stoogs or liberal fascists or scum? ---Because they have been calling him "Taliban Khan" for simply keeping a different but consistent stand on the war on terror (which now even the world has come round to).
Why he never criticise army interfernce in politics or agencies meddling in politics? ---Look up his speeches during Musharraf era. Why should he criticize the army now and absolve the political leadership when they are the ones constitutionally responsible? If they are helpless, they should resign.
And Finaly How Sure You Are About His Future Promises Given His Record Of U-Turns? ---IK has had this consistent stand on the war on terror for about 8 years now while all others around him have changed their opinions (including this government and military). So I'm afraid I don't see much of a U-turn :)
ET: Why did you withhold the following? Ideas contained in it have been expressed by others in the past. I The rest of the world views Pakistan as a classic example of an old saying which says that if you tell a lie loudly enough and often enough then some people shall start believing you after some time. Another relevant saying is: throw enough mud some of it will stick. Pakistan has been undergoing the phenomenon of Islamization since Ziaul Haq’s time (1977-88). Zia was so emphatic and insistent in his conviction and action that he went so far as to execute a liberal-minded prime minister ZAB, who was widely respected in Pakistan and highly regarded outside. The process of Islamization has now become known as Talibanization which has been taken in hand by the Pakistani Taliban and others of their way of thinking. In fact, it may be in order to say that in Pakistan today there are various shades of Islamization and Talibanization of Pakistan’s society and polity at all levels — to an extent that there is now no constituency for a liberal attitude. To be continued.
@Truth Detector: PLEASE do a Google search for "Imran Khan says Taliban not burning schools" and you will find a YouTube video of a Pakistani TV interview where he says just that!
@Truth Detector: Please do a Google search for "Imran Khan says Taliban are not burning schools" and you will find a YouTube video of his TV interview where he says that! Biased "truth detector" stands Exposed!
Since the civilian govt has nothing to say about military operations it really doesn't matter whether IK is for or against the Taliban. I would also add that the Taliban have their own agenda and doesn't give a hoot whether IK approves of it's activities or not.
Stumbling block put in the way the same was kicked out by him. Secrecy was paramount only a tiny group of insider being hatched conspiracy.
A party,having concerned with unacceptable,out fit elements busy in character assassination campaign,would face historical defeat in the forthcoming general election.
So, Anti-IK(PTI) group is quiet, I think they have lost the argument. No proof of IK statement that "Taliban are not burning schools" etc.
Biased ET editorail stands exposed !! Anit-PTI ( IK) group looses.
PTI/IK is the winner !!!
@zia. Good question. Why no one talks about once aspiring "Ameer-ul-Momineen", Nawaz Sharif? What are his views on the issue?
@Mard-e-Haq: @Ejaaz He already gave his reply dummies this is what he tweeted yesterday and he already gave his position in various statements yesterday. (1) Imran Khan @ImranKhanPTI A man of faith doesn't fear death & a march for peace against drones that have destroyed millions of lives of FATA ppl is worth dying for. (2)Imran Khan @ImranKhanPTI Everyone needs to know that our Peace March is against the drones killing the ppl of FATA & against a debilitating war imposed on Pakistan.
Why no one asks pmln stance on issues?
Who says he is infidel? wrong absolutely wrong,he is a true Muslim and getting out for support of helpless Muslims living in the remote area to whom being targeted by brutal predator drone attacks by unleashed super power.
He is going to the remote area forested,ridges and valleys also called key base of Taliban freedom fighters. He want to protest against American aggressive ,brutal activities still going on by drones attacks.His protest goes directly in favor of the local people innocently being targeted by brutal USA air strikes.
Not understandable being threatened by TTP. He is liberal not infidel,He true Muslim and want safety of Muslims living in Waziristan and Shawal bordering Afghanistan.
Sorry to say, but very amateurish editorial by ET on this. Quoting one statement (which is not even categorical) out of 2008 to say that Imran Khan supports the Taliban or does not believe they are blowing up schools makes you look like you WANT to prove him such. I can show you many others where he has condemned them:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_Q0iLVOY2s
@Ferroz
World can do whatever they want. for most pakistanis they don't really care. the only question should be what Pakisatni wants. Simply put most pakisatni don't give a damn what world think of , they will either vote or not vote for Imran Khan base solely on what they like, last I checked world has no voting rights in pakistani elections.
@Ejaaz,
That's a brilliant summation. But I wonder what is taking the handler too long? Maybe, Kaptaan is a little too thick to process instructions speedily.
If Imran Khan has a political manifesto he must clearly spell out how he will tackle issues of Fundamentalism, extremism, violence and his views on the role of non state actors as well as the doctrine of strategic depth. Based on these views the World will decide to support him or quarantine the country through containment.
Dear ET editors,
It shocks me at how Manichean your worldview really is. Not everything can locked into a binary, black and white world view. Nuances are the essence of life itself. Mr. khan has consistently made the case that a maddening campaign of deploying troops & artillery in the tribal areas causing collateral damage along with the drone wars have severely radicalized the people there. It is abundantly clear to anybody with a quarter percentile of a functioning cranium that Mr Khan is not an "extremist". In fact as Steve Coll's New Yorker piece this week narrates Mr. Khan's introduction to religion was by a gentleman who was inspired by what is commonly called Sufism (a tradition of Islam wantonly flouted by pseudo-liberals in Pakistan as the true religion of the land). This newspaper has a very real and serious bias against Mr. Khan alongside a very orientalist worldview. Imran quite clearly is against the Taliban, but realizes that mere bellicose rhetoric will not gain us much. Let there be a just government that rolls back these wars of collateral damage and then the ball will be in the court of the tribes. It is once ample leeway has been given to these people and if their battle against the state does not cease and desist that a much more clear cut battle lines can be drawn. Any student of history can predict with reasonableness that the movement known as the TTP will without a doubt splinter and fracture when it does not have the disquiet of the people to feed on. In such a situation the unpardonably fiendish elements of the odious militant apparatuses in the FATA can be fought with and hopefully routed!
III This can only spell doom for non-Islamic people even in those Islamic States, including Pakistan. In Pakistan no one wants to remember that while non-Muslims were as much as 20% of Pakistan’s population in 1947, they are now no more than 2%. Clearly, minorities feel menaced and threatened in the atmosphere of intolerance all around. Whether we consider Pakistani Taliban or a so-called liberal like Imran Khan, there is wide acceptance of Islam as the basis of Pakistan’s State and polity and society. There is no room here for anything or anyone non-Islamic. Concluded. V. C. Bhutani, Delhi, India, 10 Aug 2012, 0655 IST
II For a State that is avowedly based on Islamic principles it is difficult to oppose anyone who sets out to victimize women and minorities in the name of Islam, although no one accused the Islamists or the ulema in general of any very close understanding of Islam, Quran, Shariat, or Hadith. For the ‘faithful’, however, it is enough that someone is speaking in the name of Islam etc, regardless of whether he has an understanding of Islam or not. The result is an attitude of fanaticism and intolerance towards anything and anyone that Islamists regard as opposed to their perception of Islam. Apart from the basic principle that a State cannot be based on and for any one religion – any religion, it is hopeless when we see the spectacle of 58 States in the world that remain tied professedly to Islam as the be all and end all of human existence. To be concluded.
Stop trying to look at him through a leftist or a rightist lens and stop trying to categorise him as either one. Is is Pakistan's first true national politician after Z.A. Bhutto. Deal with it.
@Faisal: Having them fend for themselves? What a leader.
Sohaib, "When did he say he approves of Taliban. You editors at Tribune have pea sized brains" . Do you need an affidevat from IK for his stand on taliban? You wouldn't get it. you have to rely on your's bigger than pea size brain.Use it.
Pick a side.... fight fight fight... kill kill kill.... what an ending to an editorial!
Imran has said many times he will let the Pashtuns take out these terrorists within themselves once we stop bombing the common Pashtuns in their homes. Just because he prays on stage doesn't make him a fundo. He is the kind of Muslim we should all be - liberal Muslim who follows and practices his faith and yet accepts that other people have the right to follow and believe or not believe in something else.
Pakistan is stuck in a war that was not originally ours and we shouldn't embrace it as many are suggesting. The US and allies are trying to get out of the mess. We should also get our way out of it. By drones we are giving moral reason to Taliban to fight us.
I remember in Musharaf era government announced that drones were not flaying from Pakistan but land in Pakistan. Zardari has adopted this fully. We need to get out of this folly otherwise we will be fighting proxy war for the US for ever. I support Imran for talking against drones as others are completely silent as they don't care about killing of innocents. (every one who comes under indiscriminate firing is not Taliban)
I find it bizarre that question being asked is whether 'Imran Khan is with or against Taliban" - It reflects the ill information and false reporting rife in our media, as no where ever has Imran Khan has ever suggested he is with Taliban. Showing willingness to hold a dialogue with Taliban does not equate to being "with" Taliban. By that notion US must be with Taliban too considering they are having a dialogue with them?
When did he say he approves of Taliban. You editors at Tribune have pea sized brains.
ET It is easy to understand why taliban or oppsing IK.Their statement came after a news item in press that some westerner will be joining IK in his march to tribal areas against drones.Talibans fear that the western might get to the depth of the matter which can unveil their true face and eventually lose IK's sympathys.Truth is that locals are not against drone attack. Rgards.
Mind blowing...Is it editorial from ET? It seems that ET re-quoted bush "You are with us or against us".
For God sake, Sanity should prevail.
He is a practicing Muslim and a true muslim can't kill innocent people nor he could support such killing! and Imran has stated this several times that he is against any extremism.
Secondly yes he is a bit softer but only to this extend to find a solution to this war on terror because it is creating hatred and loss to this very own land of Imran , Yours and mine.
Mr. Khan will get back to you as soon as his handler in the back office decides what Mr. Khans position should be regarding the Taliban.
we are with u Ik.