Trump: Good news on the Wall and other promises.

President Trump you cannot imagine how happy my nephew is when he told me today that he heard the Mexicans sent the check for YOUR WALL. He is elated now that his taxes will not be spent on the wall you promised. I understand there is a small technicality that the check is in pesos and conditional on your uniting the families separated at the border. This is fabulous news.

My friends in the ship building industry are also very happy that you have promised a 350 ship navy during your first term. I know there is not much time but I heard that since work stopped on some of your real estate you have ordered the workers from there to go to the shipyards. Yes we know the trade war means that the price will go up as cheap steel my not be available. My advice you should have first bought all the steel before slapping the tariffs. But then you are the Great Negotiator and I am sure will get this small matter sorted out in no time.

I am also so pleased that you have appointed a special prosecutor  to investigate Hilary Clinton and her links with the Russians to deliberately lose the election for her Party. Yes she should not have wasted the money of the donors and the tax payers if she did not want to win the election. The person you appoint must especially look into the rumors that she and her supporters disguised themselves as Donald Jr and Jared Kushner and met with Russian agents in your offices in Trump Tower. How low can the opposition get to lose an election. Very deplorable.

While you admitted after taking Oath of Office that Barack Obama was indeed born in Hawaii and thus closed the matter we know that it was really because you were carried away by the moment and wanted to be kind to the out going President. However you know since Mr Obama has made subtle remarks that could be targeted at you, I suggest Mr. President you have this matter investigated by DHS, ICE, FBI, CIA, and Supreme Court, (avoid the Congress they are flakey lot as we all know) and give them 30 days to put the proof before the people. After all if he was not born in USA then any law or executive order that Kenyan wannabe US President signed is invalid and hence Obama Care will be gone. Presto such a simple solution and please do not be so kind and soft spoken towards people.

I know you promised to drain the swamp and it was going to be one of the toughest tasks as President. I know you have had to drain your cabinet and your office of some of the dirt that somehow got in from the swamp. My humble advice is that you should award a $100 billion contract to one of your companies to drain the swamp, after all they have been dealing with dirtbags all their life. Once they have cleared the swamp you can then appoint the cabinet and the team you need. Till then I would suggest just run the government on your own with Twitter and Phone. Perhaps just keep Pence and Sarah Sanders, the rest can go back to the swamp.


Most of all Mr President I admire your sense of duty and really believe you are making massive personal sacrifices while in office. I have heard that so far you have played golf on ONLY 134 days out of the 500 odd days you have been President. I know how much you love golf and it breaks my heart to think that you are not getting to play golf at least 4 times a week. I am sure this is taking a toll on your health and this lack of exercise might be affecting your 'twitter' thumb.

On a final note, President after President have been concerned about the leadership role that our beloved United States has on world affairs. This has meant to be in a race with Russia (earlier Soviet Union) and allowed 'shit hole' countries to play one against the other. Your brilliant understanding of foreign relations and your art of negotiation has resulted in agreeing with Russia to jointly lead the world and this is beyond brilliant. Yes China will continue to pose a risk but your economic and political genius of starting a trade war with China will ensure they will have to accept Russia and US leadership; better to state facts, Putin-Trump leadership.

I hope you do not mind this sycophantic ass licking but one cannot ignore your brilliance and while you dislike people praising you I hope you will not mind it. Just to prove that you did not mind it you can send me a US passport and also appoint me to a cabinet position.

Is Imran Khan a military stooge? Myth or Reality!

Of late US media and Indian media has been flooded with articles and opinions asserting that Imran Khan, the newly elected Prime Minister of Pakistan is supported by the military and his election is a staged event. At the outset we should appreciate that this is the second election conducted in Pakistan where power transfers from one civilian government to another through a process of elections. While we may argue the legitimacy of election being fair, it is not proven that rigging was on a massive scale. Without going into massive detail on that point just the fact that the press has pointed to ballot boxes with votes discarded outside polling stations as proof of rigging, people don't stop to notice that the photos show the votes paper to be 'white' while this election national assembly votes were cast on green paper!

Perhaps Pakistan and Turkey rank as the two countries where military governments and/or influence from the military in politics has been the highest in their history. The military has, historically, nurtured political figures; Bhutto post 1970 election, Nawaz Sharif by General Zia, and many others. Sadly the performance of elected governments has been so terrible that the people have generally looked to the military as the only institution that can provide stability. Yet after the two long reigns of General Zia and General Musharraff, subsequent heads of the military have taken pains to encourage the political process to gain roots and is borne out by the 2013 and 2018 elections.

It would be fair to say that the military within Pakistan, while protective of their own franchise, also have little wish to be directly in power. They are aware that Generals Yayha, Zia and Musharaf, eroded the standing of the military within the country. The emergence of a stable political process is still far from there and it is amusing that one leader of a political party who could not even secure 6 seats out 272 is calling for agitation on the streets. There is a need for the parties to look beyond this and accept the results and allow a government to be formed and then work within the parliament towards their agenda. This is the hallmark of a democracy and it needs to be understood with maturity.


To insinuate that the military would have chosen Imran Khan is stretching the conspiracy theory a bit too far and basically assuming that 100 million plus voters of which 55% voted are all sheep who will do what they are told. Yes there can be no denying that the military may well prefer to see a certain political figure succeed rather than someone else, but to assume that they would rig the election to that extent is really not possible. One could argue that Nawaz Sharif, a creation of the military, especially the Zia frame of mind military, would have always been the choice even though his spate with Musharraf and his ouster by the latter might have lost him favor with the military, he would have been a more known choice than anyone new.

Imran Khan in  a sense will be a more difficult political figure for the army to control should they not see eye to eye with each other, and I am sure the military would have assessed that too. Secondly, in a country were not one political leader can come clean on the issue of their financial impropriety Khan has a clean record in this respect. His appeal to the younger generation is also a key factor that can stir them away from the politics of the militant political groups. Finally, Imran Khan seems to talk the talk in matter of foreign policy and restoring the status and economic welfare of the country.

The army from their assessment must clearly also see, like people have seen, that he is perhaps the best of the current lot of political figures to give a sense of direction to the country. Much like Nawaz Sharif's government had their tacit support any new civilian government should be seen to also have the military support. After all given the corruption cases going on in the courts if the army wished they could have taken over and not done a charade of an election to install 'their' man! After all it has happened before. Given the crisis in the last government the military, supported by the judiciary, could have imposed a national coalition government especially as it was evident that the scandals being unearthed were of a magnitude that brought into question key political figures.

Powerful institutions in democracies have a view on political affairs, this is even normal to the US and even India. General Manekshaw often expressed his views to Mrs Indira Ghandi especially on the matter of East Pakistan, now Bangladesh and some even suggest decided on the scope and timing of the action that India took. We have to recognize that two elections do not make a complete democracy and the military has to show it will support civilian governments and the political parties have to show they are mature to govern also.

Imran Khan and the military have to develop a trusting relationship and if he does hold democratic principles in high regard and runs a clean government that performs to its agenda then Pakistan as a whole will benefit. If this means he is a stooge of the military then one can argue he would be a better stooge than those who were installed by the military in the past. I personally doubt that Imran Khan, knowing him as little as I do, would so easily be malleable to pressure. I may not entirely agree with many of his political statements and while I sincerely hope for the sake of Pakistan he does well, there will be many a step he may falter on. How he handles those faltered steps will show his maturity in this political process.

There will be areas of friction between Imran Khan and the military and may well cover the issue of dealing with the militants, the role of the military intelligence, normalization of relations with India and Afghanistan and most importantly the scope and depth of relations with the United States. However, none of these issues is likely to upset the apple cart and especially if Khan can quickly and smoothly establish the rule of law and the clean functioning of government. Imran must also work with the opposition parties at a time like this and not simply go it alone, and for this a national consensus on key issues will be needed.

Pakistan-USA relations in a 'New' Pakistan.

Relations between Pakistan and USA are steeped in the history of the Cold War, the Russian invasion of Pakistan and recently through the prism of the War on Terror. Imran Khan, the newly elected Prime Minister, has promised a 'New' Pakistan and with it is the implication of a new policy framework for relations with the major powers, and especially USA. There is more than stifled anxiety in Washington over the new Pakistan and the US press, while mixed in its response of Khan's election victory has been quick to say that 'a dangerous Pakistan has suddenly got more dangerous.'

Imran Khan, while no stalwart of foreign policy affairs, is not a fool to take on the might of the US, who may well have sympathizers within the Pakistan military, but he is neither going to be a push over. As much as Islamabad will want to reframe the relationship, Washington will also have to accept that Khan would be open to redefining a relationship along new lines. Khan wants the label of Pakistan being a 'hired gun' to be removed through a new policy of engagement. To the US policy makers the strategic needs of Pakistan are secondary and something that Khan perhaps knows too well. To the US the war on terror is their number one policy objective and they see Pakistan as the destabilizing pawn in their efforts to bring stability to Afghanistan.

From Khan's perspective the wanton usurpation of Pakistan's sovereignty through drone strikes, which have caused large number of civilian casualties, need to stop. In an interview in 2012 Khan, then just a hopeful for leadership, spelled out some of his thoughts on this subject. His main view was the use of Pakistan army as a hired gun within Pakistan had resulted in a degree of alienation of the people from the government within Pakistan. He did not say it but implied that fight the problem of terrorism cooperation was needed and based on proof against the suspects it should be left to Pakistan to deal with the problem. However, it was also felt that the encouragement of the Pakistan Taliban by Afghan elements across the border also needed to be reined in.

The US has always been suspicious of the ties between Pakistan military and some of the suspected terrorist groups. While the policy of the military has been to eradicate the problem of terrorism, especially after the attack on school in Pakistan, there has always been an element within Pakistan, born from the Zia era, who supported the terrorist elements. Since the terrorists turned on the Pakistan population and with the passage of time such elements within the military have either been purged or have no conclusive influence in policy. The US needs to have an open and closer dialogue on this subject with the new government.

Imran Khan has in the past advocated a dialogue with the militant Islamist groups and something that has labelled him as an active supporter of such elements. Khan will need to spell his position on this subject more clearly, while one would agree with him that the fight is not for land but for the minds and hearts of the young generation. He argues that drone strikes drive the mind and hearts of young people into the lap of the militants. On a broad front one cannot not dispute this argument, but by the same token Imran Khan has to frame a clear and cohesive policy on dealing with the militant elements within Pakistan.

Khan, if reports are to be believed, has the support within the military to carry his agenda forward. He can also use this influence within the military to draw up a policy on dealing with militants. It will then arm Pakistan with a stronger moral argument to press Washington to influence Kabul to stop their support for the Taliban elements from Pakistan who are based on Afghan soil. If the US wants stability within Afghanistan then recognizing that Pakistan also has a role, however small, to play in this that strategy.

On the broader front the two countries will need to look at relations through a new perspective. Khan has been on record that he is against the proliferation of nuclear weapons, he wants an economic agenda to be the forefront of his foreign relations as he and his advisors realize that being an economically weak nuclear power is counter productive to the country. The US policy makers have a chance to reset their relations with Pakistan if they are willing to see that aside from the rhetoric from Imran Khan, he sees a mutually respectful relationship with Pakistan is possible.  Washington will need to learn that rather than tell Pakistan what to do, they will need to learn to discuss what needs to be done and then develop a consensus through discussion.

The flip side is that US policy, especially under President Trump, may just decide they can ignore Pakistan's role in the region and draw harder lines in dealing with Islamabad. While one would reason that sane minds within the State department in the US would argue such a policy would hurt US interests in the region, it is a possibility that Trump would ignore them. In such a scenario US policy would gravitate towards India, and Pakistan would continue to rely on its historical ally China. Thus Pakistan could well be the policy battleground between Washington and Beijing.

 In the coming months the roadmap on Pakistan-US relations will become more visible, and no matter how it may have been in the past there will have to be a fresh approach from both sides. Imran Khan would do well to ponder upon this and set out his road map and then leave it for Washington to respond. There will need to be an acceptance within US stakeholders that Imran Khan's priority will be economic development of his country and side by side the reining in of the terror groups because economic development in the backdrop of bomb blasts and domestic violence would erode public confidence in his government.

To move forward stereo types will have to be washed aside, the stakeholders on each side will need to discuss the new format of relations in depth and agree to disagree on some elements and agree to agree on others. Pakistanis also need to accept that the US has high stakes in the future of Pakistan, the trick is to make sure that the vision of that future is not too divergent.

Letter to Imran Khan.

Dear Imran,


In the next few days, even in the face of accusations of poll rigging, you will be installed as the Prime Minister of Pakistan. If your 22 years in politics thus far was a difficult journey, the years ahead as head of the government will test you in ways beyond one's imagination. Your character as a human being will be put to test, and your values and morality will be challenged and more importantly you will learn that some situations will need an out of box thinking and a resolve that makes the difference between leadership and failure.

You will be surrounded by sycophants, people who will feed your ego and while the small favor for someone may seem small it will be the mark of your government; will you bend the rules or break them? While we as families go back a generation or more, my few meetings with you left some impressions which need to be shared today. I admire your resolve and your honesty in financial matters, however, what I have always felt is that their is a self centered aura around you, which is not uncommon with famous people. This results in the use of the "I" more than the "We", the team then seems a means to the goals you have for yourself rather than the team. Successful leaders rarely use the world "I" and this might be a small but important change forward.

On the broader front I ask you to reader Qaid i Azam Mohammed Ali Jinnah's speech of Aug 11, 1947. You will notice the whole speech not once mentions the world Islam, but it talks of the guiding principles of governance that our founder wanted for the country. I recall you once saying to me that "Pakistani Muslims have an identity crisis". Yes they do because we are Arabizing society, we are using the words Muslim and Islam more often than is necessary as if we have to remind ourselves who we are. The problem with our country is that we have misused our religion to the extent that we have created differences amongst ourselves and perhaps you are the only leader today who can fix this!

I would like to see a more tolerant Pakistan, a rule of law, a respect for freedom of the press, the upholding of the judicial process and most of all to bring all the stakeholders in the country, including the defeated opposition to a consensus that the politics of revenge must end. Your stubborn nature may stand in the way of negotiating the way forward but as much as politics is about compromise the trick is to know what you can compromise on?

I do feel the Jinnah speech of Aug 11,1947 should be something you embrace and set it as the key to governance. This will mean protecting the minorities, and to immediately put a stop to the politics of division and end to the intolerance that the Mullahs have imposed on our social structure forgetting we belong to a faith which preached tolerance.

Your biggest two challenges will be the economy and foreign policy.

The economy is crippled and even though ending corruption will slow the bleeding the patient can only return to health with a careful review of the economy and to expand the economic base with an export driven economy. Manufacturing and industry not only need power but also the rule of law and the creation of an economic environment where foreign companies will want to set up production in Pakistan. Imagine if Chinese industries set up their factories in Pakistan, nearer the ports, closer access to markets and a large work force that can be trained. This means investment in vocational skills colleges, we need more technical people in the work force and less political science degrees. Incentives over a tax breaks and ease of investment all will help. But underlying this the politics of violence will have to end for this the militants will have to find havens in other countries.

On foreign policy Pakistan's failures have resulted in Pakistan's foreign policy akin to a blind man walking in an empty corridor calling out if anyone is there to help him. Can you imagine we are a nuclear power and we are the ones asking for attention; surely it should be the other way around. It is vital that dialogue with both Afghanistan and India commence on a new footing. With Afghanistan the politics of interference by both sides has to stop and stakeholders within the military in Pakistan have to be convinced that we should not worry about the complexion of the government in Kabul and mind our own business just as Kabul must be told that influencing the militants within Pakistan is a no-go-zone. With India the history is more complex but both sides must accept that the issue of Kashmir cannot be rolled back to 1947 as too much water has flowed down the Ganges and the Indus. Kashmiri's perhaps want an independent country and it might be worth while considering that the status quo remain and Azad Kashmir be given a provincial status within Pakistan. After all India considers their part of Kashmir as one of the states of their federal structure.


Relations with the big powers will be more difficult and while cementing the already strong relationship with China should continue Pakistan must reset it relationship with the United States and Russia. Given the fractured landscape of international politics an effort to make the EU more pivotal in Pakistan's foreign policy should be considered. The most important element of foreign relations has to be improving the image of the country. This does not happen over night and will need you to ensure career diplomats re of a better calibre and the ambassadors you choose have an interest not only in just meeting their own kith and kin but also developing solid links within the countries they are posted to.


Imran, you have been considered as a candidate upon whom the hope of the people rests. This includes the women of the country who have been down trodden and marginalized for too long. In addition you have to take cognizance of the minorities and protect them more fiercely than just speeches on their status. Your slogan of a new Pakistan implies you have to redefine many aspects within society and this may mean breaking down the perceptions of the many intolerant souls within our society.

I wish you the best and while my blog may be critical of you and your government at times, remember that this is the time not to seek praise only but to take criticism in the spirit that people like me do not want to see you fail, because your failure will be the death knell of our country.

DId Jinnah want a secular Pakistan?

We are the proverbial 'moments away' from the 2018 elections in Pakistan, an election charged with emotion, accusations, and bomb blasts. An election in a nuclear weapon state which picks up a mere footnote on the international newswires. Yet, believe it or not, its an election that will perhaps define the future for the country. Imran Khan's promise of a new Pakistan carries with it the loaded responsibility that should he fail to deliver if he wins the election, then the only definition we as a nation will edge towards is 'failed state'.

This election gave me a chance to examine the manifesto of each of the major political parties and it was in a sense sad to see that the protection of the rights of the minorities and the women of the country was mentioned almost as an after thought. While some may have looked at the Islamist parties posters and giggled at the erased faces of their women candidates it did make one wonder about how far we have steered away from the legacy of the founder of the nation, Mohammed Ali Jinnah.

General Zia Ul Haq systematically installed the tools of intolerance in a nation, after his predecessor, Mr Zulfikar Ali Bhutto embraced the Islamist demand to outlaw Ahmadi Muslims as declare them non muslims when he faced agitation by the right wing in response to election rigging. It was Gen Zia who had Mr Jinnah's August 11, 1947 speech to the Constituent Assembly expunged from the social history books and state media in the next publication of Jinnah's speeches excluded the entire speech.

Why is this speech important?

It was the definitive political and social guide that the founder of the nation laid before the lawmakers who were entrusted to frame the constitution of the State of Pakistan. He laid out some guiding principles for the lawmakers, and I would assume that they were in agreement with his vision. At the expense of making this a long winded blog, I shall quote some of these from this very special speech.

His first principle he enunciated was 'The first observation that I would like to make is this: You will no doubt agree with me that the first duty of a government is to maintain law and order, so that the life, property and religious beliefs of its subjects are fully protected by the State. '

Today we cannot debate his second guiding principle 'The second thing that occurs to me is this: One of the biggest curses from which India is suffering - I do not say that other countries are free from it, but, I think our condition is much worse - is bribery and corruption. That really is a poison. We must put that down with an iron hand and I hope that you will take adequate measures as soon as it is possible for this Assembly to do so.'

His third principle was relevant to those times and even today; 'Black-marketing is another curse. Well, I know that blackmarketeers are frequently caught and punished. Judicial sentences are passed or sometimes fines only are imposed. Now you have to tackle this monster, which today is a colossal crime against society, in our distressed conditions, when we constantly face shortage of food and other essential commodities of life. A citizen who does black-marketing commits, I think, a greater crime than the biggest and most grievous of crimes. '

Surely even today many in Pakistan will recognize his fourth guiding principle; 'The next thing that strikes me is this: Here again it is a legacy which has been passed on to us. Along with many other things, good and bad, has arrived this great evil, the evil of nepotism and jobbery. I want to make it quite clear that I shall never tolerate any kind of jobbery, nepotism or any any influence directly of indirectly brought to bear upon me. Whenever I will find that such a practice is in vogue or is continuing anywhere, low or high, I shall certainly not countenance it.'

His final point was about the minorities and the role of the state in defining the relationship between the different segments in society. I must quote the entire section for it to have a contextual sense. 

'I know there are people who do not quite agree with the division of India and the partition of the Punjab and Bengal. Much has been said against it, but now that it has been accepted, it is the duty of everyone of us to loyally abide by it and honourably act according to the agreement which is now final and binding on all. But you must remember, as I have said, that this mighty revolution that has taken place is unprecedented. One can quite understand the feeling that exists between the two communities wherever one community is in majority and the other is in minority. But the question is, whether it was possible or practicable to act otherwise than what has been done, A division had to take place. On both sides, in Hindustan and Pakistan, there are sections of people who may not agree with it, who may not like it, but in my judgement there was no other solution and I am sure future history will record is verdict in favour of it. And what is more, it will be proved by actual experience as we go on that was the only solution of India's constitutional problem. Any idea of a united India could never have worked and in my judgement it would have led us to terrific disaster. Maybe that view is correct; maybe it is not; that remains to be seen. All the same, in this division it was impossible to avoid the question of minorities being in one Dominion or the other. Now that was unavoidable. There is no other solution. Now what shall we do? Now, if we want to make this great State of Pakistan happy and prosperous, we should wholly and solely concentrate on the well-being of the people, and especially of the masses and the poor. If you will work in co-operation, forgetting the past, burying the hatchet, you are bound to succeed. If you change your past and work together in a spirit that everyone of you, no matter to what community he belongs, no matter what relations he had with you in the past, no matter what is his colour, caste or creed, is first, second and last a citizen of this State with equal rights, privileges, and obligations, there will be on end to the progress you will make.

I cannot emphasize it too much. We should begin to work in that spirit and in course of time all these angularities of the majority and minority communities, the Hindu community and the Muslim community, because even as regards Muslims you have Pathans, Punjabis, Shias, Sunnis and so on, and among the Hindus you have Brahmins, Vashnavas, Khatris, also Bengalis, Madrasis and so on, will vanish. Indeed if you ask me, this has been the biggest hindrance in the way of India to attain the freedom and independence and but for this we would have been free people long long ago. No power can hold another nation, and specially a nation of 400 million souls in subjection; nobody could have conquered you, and even if it had happened, nobody could have continued its hold on you for any length of time, but for this. Therefore, we must learn a lesson from this. You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place or worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed that has nothing to do with the business of the State. As you know, history shows that in England, conditions, some time ago, were much worse than those prevailing in India today. The Roman Catholics and the Protestants persecuted each other. Even now there are some States in existence where there are discriminations made and bars imposed against a particular class. Thank God, we are not starting in those days. We are starting in the days where there is no discrimination, no distinction between one community and another, no discrimination between one caste or creed and another. We are starting with this fundamental principle that we are all citizens and equal citizens of one State. The people of England in course of time had to face the realities of the situation and had to discharge the responsibilities and burdens placed upon them by the government of their country and they went through that fire step by step. Today, you might say with justice that Roman Catholics and Protestants do not exist; what exists now is that every man is a citizen, an equal citizen of Great Britain and they are all members of the Nation.

Now I think we should keep that in front of us as our ideal and you will find that in course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State.'

It is worth noting in the entire speech he never once used the word Islam. For him it was a homeland for the Muslims of India, but more than that it was also a homeland for the minorities and even all the sects of Muslims. Without using the word 'secular' Jinnah was defining a country that would in practice be secular. 

Today not one political leader contesting the elections has embraced these vital guiding principles of the founding father and instead fuel hatred and discord between not only the majority and the minorities but also between sects within the Muslims. In the United States over 200 years after the founding fathers framed the constitution even today reference is made to their guiding principles knowing they are the pillars of statehood. 

Lets hope the likes of Imran Khan, Shahbaz Shareef, Bilawal Bhutto, and the Mullahs of the other parties can dig out this speech of the founding father, read it, reflect on it, and measure themselves against its advice. More importantly lets hope they can be brave enough to espouse this message in a progressively intolerant Pakistan that they have allowed to be created.

Pakistan Elections: Is it the turning point for Imran Khan?

In a few days time a nation of 193 million people will go to the polls, and if predictions are to be believed we could see a major shift in the direction of Pakistani politics. Between military governments, failed democratic processes, and managed democracy the losers have always been the people of Pakistan. Almost five decades ago, in a highly charged election they were promised a 'new Pakistan'. A year later, and after a bloody civil war, they got a cut up Pakistan and the beginning of a process of elected oligarchies, which having failed ushered in military rule. Another round of return to civilian rule and then the military stepped in again. The third time we expected something better and while still promised a new Pakistan we got an elected government ousted from power by the Supreme Court, its leaders in jail for corruption and yet again another election.

This election promises to be different because of a younger voter base and perhaps a more charged political process. Imran Khan, if the pundits are to be believed, might just be the man to win enough seats for his PTI to form a government. Imran Khan too promises a 'Naia' (new) Pakistan, where he believes democratic process, inclusive policies, rule of law and a crack down on corruption will be the hallmarks of his government. Some believe he holds the inside track because the military see in him a better option than the others.

Yet Imran Khan has patched together alliances with some political figures of other parties and welcomed them into his ranks which makes one wonder how much horse trading will be needed by him to secure victory and if so will it erode his populist agenda for a new Pakistan. To the liberal forward thinking Muslims his flirtations with the ultra conservative and even militant elements of the right wing Muslim groups is troublesome; something the military might not also take much favor with. To the nationalist amongst us his stance of not allowing drone strikes by foreign powers will ring positive to our ears. To the pragmatist the single most important thought will be if he can walk the talk.

I believe what Imran Khan has going for him in large measure is the fact that in financial matters he is considered basically honest. This is singularly the most important thing for many in Pakistan where they hear of the billions that has been stolen from the country. Whether Imran Khan can fight corruption and maintain the rule of law and courts side by side is to be seen. Some of his statements regarding opponents gives one the uneasy feeling that some old scores might be picked at the cost of a judicial process.


At  the end of the day if Imran Khan wins his ability to deliver will depend on the quality of the team he puts together. While at times he has shown, at least with his hospital project, that he can do that, one has to wonder if at the national stage he can find the right people. With a tendency to put himself in the limelight more as a focal point he will have to learn to be humble and bring to the front the depth of the leadership within his party and act more as the watchful eye to keep the focus on his promise for a new Pakistan.

His challenge will be an economy that is riddled with inefficiencies and corruption and to nourish the key drivers for economic performance. Over hauling a government machine which served its own ends rather than the people and to find a balance with the military that ensures it from keeping away from the political process will be an enormous challenge for the Khan. On the foreign relations side the task of not only improving the image of the country but also to find a cohesive direction to a foreign policy which for the past few decades has done nothing other than to be reactive.

At a societal level perhaps Imran Khan could be the only leader who can bring about a national consensus on the question of minorities within the country. A country where the divisions along religious and sectarian lines have reached dangerous proportions. We need someone to stop the rifts between the Sunni and the Shia, between the Muslims and the non Muslims and we need to emphasize and speak out against the wanton violence that some of the extremist elements within the country have brought to the streets of Pakistan.

If this is the Naia (new) Pakistan that can emerge from these elections and Imran Khan feels he has the best chance to deliver it then there cannot be a mincing of words on this matter. Not only a respect for the institutions of democracy has to be nourished but in many cases the rebuilding of these institutions has to take place. An investment into education and the eradication of intolerant views through education has to start. The role of women and their protection has to be at the forefront of this New Pakistan. The list is exhaustive as indeed is the task. But we must also realize that if like the promise of almost 50 years ago this descends into an oligarchy of political favoritism and misguided politics then the country will descend into a state of disrepair from which many decades of pain will emerge.

Trump: Why is he weak with the Russians?

For the ardent students of history, especially in my age bracket, we have seen since the Cold War meetings between former Soviet and now Russian leaders with regular frequency. From the  spirit of detente to establishing a new World Order, the mood of these meetings ranged from the icy cold to the cordial and warm; yet the language of the dialogue and the public exposition of the content of the meetings was carefully picked. Each word, each gesture was carefully put in place to ensure that each side, especially the US was asserting its position.

President Donald Trump always has asserted that he has been more 'hard' on Russia than any of the recent Presidents before him. Talking the talk has been easy for this President, but when it came to walking the talk this week in Helsinki, President Trump not only stumbled but fell flat on his face at the feet of a gloating President Putin. One must assume that the diplomats and national security staff around this President would have briefed him in detail. Then we have to remember President Trump fancies himself as the most intelligent human on the planet and without a sense of history he failed miserably.

One has to then wonder why a President who has been tough on his allies, ripped up agreements, ridiculed opponents and anyone who has had the gall to criticize him suddenly is played by the Russians in plain view of millions of viewers. If he had come back from Helsinki after a bout of being tongue tied one could have asked why he didn't say this or that. On the contrary in one sweeping stroke he said he speaks for Russia, implied he believed in the Russian President more than his own intelligence experts and asked about the DNC servers, almost forgetting that he was in Helsinki and not on some right wing Trumpette political rally. So what is it that makes Trumps knees go shaky and his temperament become so submissive when it comes to a man called Putin?

Speculation is that the Russians have some smut on the man who sits in the Oval office from his raunchy (alleged) nights when he was in Moscow years ago. Personally I think this is not something that would bother Trump enough to sell out his country over; after all his loyal supporters, including the evangelists, forgave him for grabbing women by their........So what is the Russian Achilles heel that prompts this out of character submissiveness.

Here is my theory, and I insist it is a theory but it merits a thought.

Perhaps prior to 2015 Trump had borrowed money from Russian banks and oligarchs to build his golf course in Scotland. This could well be around $400 million. We know that a Chinese bank leant Trump companies $500m related to an Indonesian project. So it is likely that with US banks unwilling to lend to him given his past defaults, he often did turn to foreign banks. It is possible that before he announced his bid for the Presidency he could have transferred these loans to either his sons names or his daughter's in laws companies. However it is possible that the underlying assets did not change hands and the loans were simply taken over. 

Now imagine that these loans are in default or chronic delays in payments! Given that Trump never disclosed his tax returns for this period because doing so would show the changes on the liability side of the balance sheet. This puts the Trump Presidency at huge risk because it violates election laws and thus keeping all this silent is what the Russians have on him. 

To me the leverage on Trump has to be more than sex, and this can only be a money connection hence my theory.

Trump: Visited again.

My friends joke that I seem to have a vendetta against a certain Donald J Trump, even though I admit I am at times infuriated by his words, and actions and the persona of the man who has debased the office of the President of United States and conned millions of people into believing he is the real deal. Yes he has done a few good things, the initiative with North Korea (still a long way to go) and reduced taxes but most of all the only good he has done is made us realize how gullible we can all be.

D J Trump, the ultimate opportunist, was clever to notice the cracks in American society and in the American mind set and no matter how ugly the consequences of prying open that crack he felt it was the one ace he could play that might just work. This crack revealed the fears of the disfranchised Americans, the blue collar,mostly white workers, the ultra conservatives who in their hearts never liked the 'others', the many who privately felt their jobs had been stolen by not only the immigrants, both legal and illegal, but also the worker in China, Indonesia or where ever he may be. Opening this crack wider would be flirting with the likes of the KKK and their many cousins, calling a ban on 'all Muslims' from entering the United States of America, and even picking an ugly fight with a gold star parent.

Politicians bend the truth rather habitually, Mr Trump, as candidate Trump, went one step further, he habitually told lies, even privately gloated about how he told a lie to the Canadian Prime Minister. Till last count he had crossed 2,149 misleading statements, and he is by no stretch of the imagination finished this ploy. He talked of a wall that Mexico would pay for, and then when that was not going to happen he brought the immigration issue including the DACA regulations to the forefront and deflected from his promise of Mexico paying by suddenly asking Congress to approve the cost.

The Democrats, led by Hilary Clinton and her clan, played into the game, running a reactive campaign, over confident that Trumps gaffs, including his boast of grabbing women by their private parts would sink him. So much so Hilary and Co lost sight of the fact that their vote bank of blue collared workers was slipping away and she did not even bother to go and bolster support amongst the very people who normally would have voted Democrat, but Trump somehow spoke to their fears better than she ever could. Tinged with over confidence Hilary Clinton faded, even though one may argue that the email scandal so near the election eroded her vote bank even more drastically in the key states. While the popular vote remained in her camp she just did not have a strategy for the electoral college.

I assumed after the election Donald J Trump would somehow become Presidential in his demeanor, somehow the Oval Office does that, we saw that with Bush Jr, and others before. The resonance of the oath taking ceremony had not yet left our ears and the first of the many lies came from the White House over the size of the crowd at the inauguration ceremony. This time it was not President Trump but his press secretary lying for him. But the undertone was even more sinister, it was like President Trump and his cronies want the world to somehow accept that he is more popular, more smarter and better loved than his predecessor, Barrack Obama. In the months that followed everything that President Obama did had to be unscrambled and attacked. It was almost like some White Supremacist had drawn up a list of things that need to be attacked that were done by the first black President of the United States.

On a global level President Trump has embarked on an even more bizarre journey. Hugging the adversaries of the US, ridiculing its allies, and in the midst of it all launching a trade war which no one, not even the mighty United States can win on its own. The Russian President Putin could not have asked for a more likable ally in the world than Donald J Trump; after all he is dismantling or at least undermining NATO, imposing tariffs on the best trading partners of the US, and in a sinister sense working to Kremlin's agenda and perhaps the slogan of Making America Great Again is working to Making Kremlin Great Again.


I then stop to think of this is a more societal context. Perhaps Donald J Trump is right that the soul of America does not want immigrants, that the average American does not want a Muslim living in his neighborhood, that the US farmer wants America Great Again even if he has to burn his crops because the trade war means he cannot sell his grain to China! Perhaps in the past two decades the average American I met in my many visits to that lovely land has changed from the curious, warm hearted welcoming American, to a NRA sticker branding white supremacist who this time around would not welcome me for the BBQ in his back yard. Perhaps the US is going to become isolationist leaving the world for the Chinese and Russians to carve up between them, and withdraw itself into closed borders (as opposed to controlled borders), nagging problems with neighbors and torn up alliances and abandoned allies.

The impact of this is far reaching as social media exaggerates the platform of debate. Indeed people do not discuss issues they argue them now and even blatantly fight over them, throwing in the good measure of fake news to skew the battle lines in their favor. Political tolerance has been washed aside to the extent that even social tolerance is now not visible on the edges of this divided society. Discussion even with facts does not work because of perception of facts have been bent out of shape on both sides of the divide. One has to now define our friendships with those of differing political views with the adage 'lets remain friends but not discuss politics!'

Whether Trump caused this societal paradigm shift or merely saw it as a useful tool to exploit is debatable. The fact he fueled the fires of hate was enough and when he had that one historical moment to change the tempo and tenor of his message to one of tolerance he let it go after his inauguration.  Instead he embraced the division, fed the fire with more lies and hate, creating a sense of the victim remedying the flaws of many Presidencies before him. The appeal of the evangelists who see him as some Christian savior resonated in his sense of self importance and perhaps he truly sees himself in the only possible way he can; as the greatest of all times!

If this is a societal shift then the politics of hate and division that President Trump started as an election ploy have now seeped into the grain of the US national psyche; something that cannot be washed away with soap and water. Yes poison does leave the body of the victim, before it kills him, but this will not go away on its own. His base, as he calls it, will forgive him for his fornication, for his hatred, for his lies and hell even if he steals, but then is his base larger than the values that have always held the United States of America as the land to which the hopeful aspire for freedom and liberty?