Imran Khan and the Political Scene in Pakistan

 When Imran Khan's government was ousted in a vote of non confidence in April 2022 one thing was clear that a multitude of political and vested interests aligned to thwart any political comeback. While the non confidence vote in itself was by the book there was little doubt that there was a good deal of 'nudging' by various interest sections to ensure the outcome was his ouster. To say what followed was to be a test of Imran Khan's political acumen is an understatement. Now a year an half later the highly popular Khan is incarcerated in prison under a 3 year jail term, his party has been ploughed through leaving a shell which he cannot really rebuild while inside. Yet Imran's political journey is a repeat of Pakistan's sad political journey where every elected Prime Minister since 1970 has been jailed at least once. 

In a country where opposition to the government is immediately equated with being a traitor to the country it is not surprising that patriots in the true sense are hard to recognise and much less appreciate. There is also little denying that every leading political figure has, at some time or the other, had the benevolent hand of the establishment guiding their destiny. This was true to Nawaz Sharif, Benazir Bhutto, and even Imran Khan, while one may argue as to the extent of the support and guidance that each may have received. 

There was a significant difference in the emergence of Imran Khan as a political leader because it was achieved on the back of massive political following amongst the youth of the country. While his three plus years in office were not spectacular they were not a failure either. It would seem that while his PTI government was planning for a long stay at the wicket and planning accordingly the reality was that with a coalition government the innings could not be guaranteed to be a long one. Imran's style of leadership, largely focused around his own office and persona, did not create the infrastructure of a true political party. This is much like his rival PMLN and PPP which remain movements collected around a couple of individuals. Both rival parties have never had qualms about making special deals to either remain in power or to regain power. Khan and his PTI not only lack the wheeling and dealing experience of the other two but also didn't use its time in office to galvanise the small political pressure groups into their mantra. 

Imran and his PTI forged a message of a 'Naya (New) Pakistan' where by definition they were going to change the way things happen in Pakistan. Even proclaiming such a noble objective is likely to rile up vested interests in the country who have created, nourished and benefited from the set up that has been shaped over 75 years since Independence. In hindsight Imran chose a platform where he created more enemies that he could handle and prudence may have suggested a step by step approach to remedy the system. But given his age and the lack of political depth in his party Imran Khan was in a hurry to change things, and being in a hurry one is likely to make mistakes. 

Having been removed from office Imran Khan seemed to feel he can, single handedly, rewrite the political narrative in the country and 'force' a perfect storm where the government of the PDM (an alliance of 13 parties) would be forced to call elections. While in Jan 2022 the PTI government's popularity was waning on the back of inflation and weakening currency, his ouster surged his popularity to an unprecedented level. Ironically this surge in public following was perhaps the single most deciding factor for Imran's opponents to attempt to derail his political journey.

The events of the past 18 months are not a good reflection on Imran Khan's political acumen. In similar measure it has also be a unique insight into how the 'state' can treat its political opponents. Human rights violations, disappearance of journalists, and a crack down on political dissent is the order of the day. Nearly 200 criminal cases have been filed against Imran Khan, all of which cannot be substantive, with the aim of bogging him and his supporter down into a legal quick sand long enough to dismember his political party. 

One is often asked if Imran Khan could have handled things differently. Without the benefit of being in the driving seat one can only make suppositions, and they may well be off the mark in such an analysis. After losing the majority in the parliament Imran chose to boycott the National Assembly, perhaps a move that back fired as his opponents mustered a sham opposition group and continued about their business. In cricketing terms Imran Khan forgot that you cannot win a match by sitting in the stadium. Even when the umpires are not neutral, and the pitch is doctored against you, your team still has to play the game. (After all he did that against India in the series there). 

Thereafter the strategy seemed to be to appeal to the public and political rallies, and long marches became the order of the day. The show of force was at times impressive but it created two issues. The lack of immediate gains from these rallies, and the possibility of steam running out of the political fervour all suggested this was not going to be a quick resolution on the back of street power. The government of the 13 did what they do best, locked down on the media blanking out coverage of Khan and his political message. Imran felt that the peoples support was his biggest weapon, and to a large extent he is not wrong. However he did not use this support to capitalise in any negotiations he could have had with his opponents and the establishment. On the contrary there were no substantive negotiations and till this day each side blames the other for the absence of a dialogue. 

While national media was ordered to blank out Imran Khan the one thing they could not control was the social media. Undoubtedly the passionate support for Khan in the social media grew and continues till today. It perhaps remains the single most focused voice that emerges in favour of Imran Khan. However, as much as social media is an amazing tool it is also something that is not entirely understood and therefore very difficult, if not impossible, to control. So much so that PTI position holders also got carried away in their messaging as an aggressive and at times vile campaign emerged against anyone or any section of society that did not embrace the PTI narrative. After the first short period of arrest of Imran Khan on  May 9 2023, it was no surprise that the intended peaceful protests turned violent. It is unlikely that such violence, which the nation had seen many times before in its history, was personally directed by Imran Khan, but clearly this is one of the many cases he will have to face. 

It is evident that there is a concerted effort to not only discredit Imran Khan but also to disfranchise him from politics altogether. Notwithstanding the legal challenges that he faces, Khan's role in a political sense will not simply fade away. His political survival will not only depend upon the powers that be but also on how he plays his cards in the coming months. If elections are held between November and February next year then as things stand Imran may well not be in the race for office. However PTI, if organised fast enough, could fight the election on the back of Khan's popularity and have a suitable enough showing in a high turn out election to make them a factor in the future of Pakistan politics. On the other hand a low turn out election which are prone to riggings, may result in PTI being marginalised. 

Some may argue that Imran Khan has no need to reinvent himself in a political sense, and this may well be true. However, he will need to assess not only his tactics and strategy but also focus again on the organisation of his party. Empowered by the support of the younger generation he must focus on his next generation of party leadership and build the party from the bottom up. The test will be whether he will need 'electables' who are assured election victory due to caste, creed or local politics. If the traction he has gained in the past 18 months amongst the populous can be maintained then his direct or indirect presence on the political scene cannot be set aside. Unlike the Sharif family where inspite of Nawaz Sharif being disqualified and sentenced to jail there is a plethora of family members to continue their political presence, Imran does not have the same situation. This implies that Imran has to gravitate to the young wing of his party who had not abandoned him irrespective of the pressure on them to do so. 

Imran Khan will have, nevertheless, rethink his approach in a political comeback he is likely to make. The steps he would have to consider would broadly encompass the following:

• Rebuild the party at the grass root level.
• Bring in a new empowered leadership.
• Create a non partisan 'think tank' to plan key economic, political, legal and social reforms.
• Reset his relationship with the military establishment.
•  Recognise that in Pakistan large scale change can only be done in phases.
• Build a core of highly professional individuals who would be the essence of their governance should they win the election.
• Decentralise power from himself and empower a new cadre of leadership.

Perhaps the list can be a mile long but it is essential for Pakistan that the current polarisation is not conducive to the country. Each segment, including Imran Khan, has to play their part in bringing sanity to the system. One thing is clear that things cannot continue in the manner they have been conducted over the past seven decades. Clearly the one thing that Khan's presence has done, rightly or wrongly, given a voice to the youth who were unheard in the past. His party should not see them as a tool for electoral victory but empower them to be a positive influence in the country. 

On the flip side it would be naive to think that popular political leaders can be simply dissolved into the heap of history. One may argue that some of Khan's image may well be tarnished. While Imran's popularity is perhaps his best insurance to prevent the worst, it is also the biggest threat he poses to his opponents. Imran's maturity is what is on test as to how these assets are used to not only tone down the political conflict but to project that politics in Pakistan does not need to be a zero sum game. 

Pakistan's State of Affairs.

 In the midst of firing on Imran Khan, the selection of a new army chief, a plethora of cases in the superior Courts, and the Long March it would seem a perfect storm is brewing within the country. These events are all the more tragic in the back drop of the devastation of the recent floods and the sad state of the economy and yet many in the corridors of power seem apathetic to the situation. Were these events for real some of us may assume a well scripted soap opera is unfolding before us. Sadly this is not the case; we live in a nation where tragedies can only be measured against the enormity of the previous one we faced and somehow the senses become dead to the pain, the anguish and the sense of despair. 

Agree with Imran Khan or not, he seems to have jolted the collective conscious of the masses to at least think of the state of affairs. Whether the Long March he has called remains a platform of complaints or yields the election he wants to be held remains to be seen. Giving him the credit for what is due he has got the message across that he controls, for now, the street power. To those uncomfortable with this 'show of force' perhaps the only recourse would be a bullet, and that is what happened when his convoy was attacked and he sustained injuries. The modus operandi of the attack would seem to suggest that it was a tactic to create panic and fear and some sort of veiled warning to the Khan. 

Imran Khan, it would seem, does not scare easily and if anything it galvanised his support base to a frenzy of revenge, which he was quick to calm down. He knows well that civil strife on the streets is the very excuse his opponents want to crack their whips even harder. Yet the attack on Imran was close on the heels a the tragic murder of a well respected journalist Arshad Shareef in Kenya. Between the Kenyan authorities and the Pakistan government the whole matter has been botched such a degree that any impartial investigation into the murder becomes more remote by the day. This is hardly surprising as in Pakistan since 1995 over 97 journalists have been murdered and only in one of those deaths did the investigation yield any results. 

Meanwhile the country's superior courts have been inundated with a variety of cases during the past four to five months. Many of these cases have references related to the Constitution of the country and others are matters of restoration or protection of rights. By and large the decisions that have come out have been fair and it is expected that not all parties would be totally satisfied. We as a nation still have to understand that the Constitution is only a thin legal fabric over the body politic of the nation and through that cloth it will always beg for the Constitution to be modified to keep up with the times. On the other hand in a nation of 220 million it puts enormous pressure on 3 or 5 justices of the Court to be the only ones to uphold the laws of the country. A testimony to many that all other institutions seem to have forgotten their oath to uphold the law and the Constitution!

After much speculation and rumour it finally emerges that at the end of the month the incumbent Chief of Army Staff shall retire. While one can argue whether the current Prime Minister, Shahbaz Shareef, has the sole right to decide upon the new army chief, given that he is the incumbent, the whole process through which the incumbent Prime Minister is approaching this is bizarre. He has made no secret of the fact that he has been consulting his elder brother, a former PM and a convicted absconder, on the choice of the new appointment. If that was not enough during these consultations a diplomatic passport was also slipped through to the former PM? These brazen acts of defiance of the laws of Pakistan by a sitting Prime Minister are a precedent that cannot sit well with those of us who have a few ounces of grey matter between our ears. 

As these lines are being penned down there is noise by some government parliamentarians to take Imran Khan to task for 'wrong[y accusing the US for his regime change' because Imran Khan recently said he has 'put the incident behind him'. It is interesting that these parliamentarians are quick to jump to the defence of the US but remain silent on castigating the Kenyan government for the murder of one of the nations most upright journalists. 

Indeed these a troubled times for Pakistan and the polarisation between the political camps is immense. As much as it is the right of Imran Khan to have a protest march, he must also be aware that the election may just happen in the middle of next year. Having shown his street muscle he may have to tack a new course of political moves to maintain his political pull within the nation. it might well be a good time to take steps to move his PTI from a movement to a true political party and to make plans for not only the elections but the reforms that are so essential in the country.

Pakistan: Stalemate or Turning point!

 Since April of this year the political turmoil in Pakistan has dominated the scene. Irrespective of the narrative of each camp there can be no denying that the country has never witnessed polarisation of the sought we see today. Entombed in different camps, bereft of any dialogue the political impasse, more often than not, is adjudicated in the courts of law. The already fragile political fabric is torn with each infringement of the process, with each interference and intrigue. There remains no honest arbitrator who can cut through this angry polarisation and bring a meaningful dialogue to the table.

The economy was already sick, a cancer of thirty years and then the devastation of the recent floods has crippled an already corpse like body of the economy. The floods as much a result of climate change as also the consequence of decades of mismanagement of water resources. The nations only response remains fund raising for the destitute and the affected poor of the country. Few ask why this could not have been prevented. 

Imran Khan, today perhaps the most popular leader of the country, faces the growing dragnet of legal challenges and and a struggle to somehow get the country to the elections. his distractors would accuse him of being decisive and diversionary, his admirers consider him principled and focused. Either way there is weight in the argument that had he and his party sat in the Opposition by now the rag tag coalition that conspired his downfall might well have been out of office themselves. After all the former cricket captain turned politician would be hard pressed to recall a cricket match he won with his entire team in the stadium!

As for the alliance glued together against Imran Khan there is little denying that a sense of fear binds them together more than any lofty aim of doing the country good. Asif Zardari, as much the architect of Imran's downfall, shrewdly sits out of government letting his former arch enemy, the PMLN of the Shareef clan take the blame of the failures of the current coalition government. For Zardari knows that avoiding an election is not possible for ever but if the only by product of these shenanigans is that the Shareef brothers will be discredited then he has achieved an important goal.   

There is much talk of the elder Shareef, (Nawaz) returning to the country even though he is a sentence criminal and all he can return for is serving the remainder of his time. Other than a Presidential Pardon (highly unlikely) or a complete re-write of the Constitution, (also impossible) any hopes of seeing Nawaz Shareef in the political forefront is wishful thinking. But then we are reminded that this is Pakistan where anything is possible; after all for a period the Constitution of Pakistan had the name of a military dictator mentioned in it! (General Zia ul Haq).

At the crux of Pakistan's political misfortunes lies that fact that all the political parties, especially the three major ones, PTI, PMLN and PPP, are in essence just political movements and not really political parties. They are led by individuals in the absence of whom the parties will seize to exist, which might well explain why so much effort is done, legally and not so legally, to get rid of the head then the body will crumble. In a broader perspective of history it might well explain why at least 46 politicians lost their lives violently, starting from Liaquat Ali Khan, and the list includes, Mr Z A Bhutto, Benazir Bhutto and Mr. Bugti to name a few. Gen Zia, the main character in the elimination of Mr Z A Bhutto, was oblivious of an Arab saying that when you kill the snake you must get rid of its children too. 

Clearly violent solutions to what are essentially political problems is neither desired nor should be advocated. Dialogue should replace strife, and a recognition that never before has Pakistan faced three challenges of the magnitude it faces today. Political, economic, and a natural calamity as descended on the country in a perfect storm. Almost as if the heavens above want the people to wake up and accept that the issues that concern them are bigger than the narrative of politics that is bandied around with indifference to the worst possible outcomes for the country. 

As much as an election would be a turning point to sort out the political instability it could well also create an entirely new challenge if the elections are in any way rigged. Yet someone has to realise that in the absence of dialogue the only way for the stalemate to be broken is for even one of the stakeholders to stand up and say 'ENOUGH' and then do something to bring about the stability the country so desperately needs. This alone will set the course to plan an economic recovery and some return to normalcy. Ignoring this need of the hour will only mean further pain and hardship for the people of Pakistan. 

Pakistan: Toxic Politics.

 Any serious inspection of Pakistan's politics would leave the observer with a distinct impression that the political fabric of the country is seriously damaged. Since the 1970's, with the emergence of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, we saw the politics of cults and political dynasties. This cultism continued to his daughter Benazir and now to her son Bilawal. Across the aisle the cultivation of the Sharif family by the dictator Zia ul Haq into a political caucus created the cult of the Sharifs through Nawaz Sharif to his brother Shahbaz and now to his son Hamza. Today it seems the cult of Imran Khan is being created on the back of a call for populous patriotism. 

The political conscience of the country has been raped so often that rapists appear as benefactors and the poor victims (the Pakistan public) embrace them with a sense of forgiveness. What political parties lack in agenda they make up in rhetoric. Their claims of national duty and national selflessness belie the carnivorous corruption that permeates through the rank and file of each political party. Accountability is politicised to the extent that the those being held accountable always have a 'get out of jail' card in the shape of political victimisation. 

In Pakistan's 75 odd years since creation the military has often played the role of the kingmaker and at times assumed the mantle of kingship itself. Interestingly at its rank and file it remains perhaps the only institution that does not have the toxicity of regional, tribal, religious and feudal divisions that plague the country. While its generals have long bet on their political favourites, often falling out with them, they still have some modicum of credibility in saying they are holding the country together.

Imran Khan in his twenty odd years of politicking has had his share of knocks that are part and parcel of the process of political maturing. Creating a new political party of the size that the PTI has become is bound to have its share of political compromises and policy missteps. While he may well have energised the political awareness of people, especially the youth, he still has to understand political rhetoric is not enough and delivery of substantive change needs a robust and highly skilled team. 

While his charisma and public appeal is the glue that binds PTI together there is a needs to translate that into ensuring that PTI does not remain a political movement but actually becomes a political party. This means using the brain power to create discourse within and to bring effective policies for change and then create the teams to bring that change. Imran's biggest capital has remained his honesty and while the accusations of some pilfering of 'state gifts' are an irritation Imran must create the transparency to keep his cleanliness intact. 

His ouster while controversial was essentially on the back of disenchantment from some back benchers in his coalition government, encouraged by horse trading by the Opposition. In the backdrop of rising prices (largely due to the global effects of COVID) the PTI economic performance was hardly stellar. Obsessed to expose the corruption of his predecessors, which seems was there, he unwound contracts for oil and gas which were favourable to Pakistan especially at a time when energy prices were rising. His economic teams was hardly one that one would call the best of breed and he could have done better in this respect.

The PTI ouster also was accompanied in the backdrop of some very undiplomatic comments from a senior official of the US State Department. While the comments cannot conclusively prove that the instigators of the non confidence vote against Imran Khan actually were guided by handlers in the US State Department they did certainly provide Imran with the smoking gun for a conspiracy. Having used this conspiracy card to galvanise the massive public support since his ouster it is not something he can not discard. This does not take away the fact Imran Khan was not exactly Washington's favourite.

For Pakistan however these events can hardly be good news. They now have a new coalition government the partners in which are only united because their hatred for Imran Khan is more than the hatred for each other. Whether such a taped up government can last till the Winter of 2023 when new elections are to be held remains to be seen. For Imran Khan the question remains if he can keep the same tempo of public support till then and hence his call for urgent elections. 

In a sense, with hindsight, one would believe that PMLN and PPP miscalculated their move as ousting Imran Khan in the manner he was removed has actually made him more popular. Surely the massive turn out in the public rallies, since his removal, must have sent some shivers down the back of the Bhuttos and Sharifs backs. While the PTI calling the opposition traitors of Pakistan is far fetched it is certainly drawing political mileage with a public that can be worked up to a frenzy. 

For Imran Khan while the public support garners well there is concern that some of the stigmatisation of his opponents by him as traitors of Pakistan and equating loyalty to him with loyalty to the country stinks of a nationalist fascism that cannot be good for Pakistan in the long term. One has to embrace duplicity of politics where politicians change sides (many of his ardent party members were in other parties before) and there will always be crossing of the aisle. This is what makes it vital that a party not only delivers on its agenda but also carries its members along. 

Pakistan stands at the crossroads where the roadsigns visible to neutral observers spell of toxic politics. Lines are getting drawn ever harder, compromise is all the more difficult and it would seem 75 years of political mismanagement is reaching a watershed moment. Four years ago many felt that Imran was a breath of fresh air, who while lacking political intellect at least had the mileage of honesty to make a difference. The two major political parties while experienced in the walking the portals of power have a great deal to answer for this misdeeds. Yet one hears people frighteningly  say that would would prefer the 'technocratic thieves over incompetent honesty'.

Yet this crossroad is not only about political choices, it's about making the right choices to move from a nation to proper nationhood. It's about examining the soul of the nation to bring maturity to political dissent, substance to governance, and values and ethics to our social fabric. Political divides are good and healthy, provided the discourse we engage in remains respectful and decent. One does not need to shout our opponent down or stand in front of their homes and hurl vulgar abuse, or drown their social media presence with the most vile and uncouth trolling. 

We know that the stakes are high as a political loss always means courts and scrutiny into corruption and mismanagement. Political witch hunts armed with a tainted judiciary only makes heroes out of people. We has to believe that the pillars of democracy rest upon a fair judiciary, a free and responsible press and an educated population. As Pakistanis we need to see how strong are these pillars. The judiciary should examine the corruption and politicians, both in power and out of power should remain silent on matters being adjudicated before the courts. The press should be impartial and fair rather than partisan because then only can it truly hold people in power accountable. Educating the population on their political and civic duties is of paramount importance. However, since the 1970s successive governments have interfered in the educational system with the aim of not only rewriting history but in some cases removing civic studies from the curriculum in schools. It is almost as if the governments in power want an uneducated population so they can manipulate their political conscience yet again.

Imran Khan's Gambit: A defining moment of incompetence.

 A week ago the deputy speaker of the National Assembly disallowed the non confidence motion and a jubilant Imran asked for the assembly to be dissolved as it seemed he has side stepped the no confidence motion. The Supreme Court of Pakistan reversed the move and restored the assembly and today in a few hours the assembly is presumably going to vote on the future of Imran Khan. Jurists will argue whether the Supreme Court has violated the separation of powers and indeed the legal saga may well continue. Imran Khan while saying he accepts the decision of the Supreme Court has kept his cards close to his chest and whatever his next move he will no doubt rely on his supporters to continue 'the struggle' on the streets. 

While I have always admired and believed in Imran's honesty and patriotism his political views have always come across as an over simplification. Prone to accept advice that suits his own view of the world creates a filter that breeds a cultish following that cannot be the recipe for good advice. The use of Article 5 as the basis for countering the no confidence motion was seriously faulted. Indeed the tone of the communication from the US diplomat was very harsh and undiplomatic, but it is not unusual for countries to express their displeasure to embassy officials. How such a communication proves that there was a conspiracy with members of the opposition in Pakistan needs substantially more evidence than what we have seen thus far. 

The Supreme Court may well be the forum to decide whether the actions of the deputy speaker were procedurally correct. Where the judges have over stepped their mandate is in directing the time and date and agenda of the first session of the restored National Assembly. This may well be the point of order on which the judgement may be challenged. The fact remains that in a democracy a no confidence motion is commonly used and it is a fact that members from the Treasury benches can and do cross over to the opposition. In Pakistan it is also the norm that from the day a new government is formed the opposition starts to plan its downfall. This is a zero sum game and indeed with Imran Khan in the opposition we are likely to see him also make every effort to dislodge the government that takes control now. 

While Imran Khan may well wield street power and will use it as best as he can, he needs to also reflect on the past few years and learn from the mistakes. As the noise for a non confidence motion was gaining momentum some three months back Imran Khan felt his hold on his own party and its allies was strong enough to thwart any attempt to remove him from office. Yes there was and is unprecedented price inflation and the economy has continued to under perform. A major impact of this is the global inflation and price instability but since the start of the PTI government they could not give any direction to the economy. 

Imran's promises of forcing the corrupt politicians to return the 'billions' they stole within a year, and to change the course of Pakistan's economy within 90 days were also election rhetoric and while some administrative reforms were made, not enough was done to change the situation on the ground. Imran suffers from the same syndrome that plagued the likes of Zulfikar Bhutto, who came to power with a promise of change, but never could transform things with good advice or break the mould of personality cult. For long the party that Bhutto formed, the PPP, remained a Bhutto family cult, and that continues to this day. The same is true of the PMLN, which is the domain of the Sharif family. Imran slipped into the same mould of surrounding himself with 'yes' men and party machinery aims to further his cult.

In this sense PTI remains a movement and not a political party where a core of political figures have a say. This is true of the other political parties too, but over three decades the likes of Sharifs and Bhuttos have realised they have to carry some of their party members with them. Imran must also understand that his own clean image is not enough to carry a nation with him. He needs to build a first class team around him and to also carry the team with him by giving them credit and praise. A criticism of Imran remains that its all about him and no one else.

For Pakistan while some will hail these developments as a victory for the Constitution but it brings with it the very people who has heavily tainted with corruption back to power. While an election may well be on the one year horizon where the decision by Pakistanis will have to be made whether they prefer incompetence (Imran's PTI) over corruption (PPP and PMLN). Neutral Pakistanis will woe the fact that in Imran Khan's government there was a chance to turn the corner with better governance and economic performance. 

The 220 million people of Pakistan can only hope that Imran Khan and his PTI will have learned an important and vital lesson and will earnestly begin to reform into a party of substance rather than resort to street power as the only option of change. The opposition government that may come to power now will at best be a patch work of  different agendas and will struggle to make any difference. To capitalise on this Imran himself will have to do some soul searching and start with a change in his style of leadership. Pakistan politics needs to mature from rhetoric to substance and this implies changes in not only the style of leadership but also the faces that come forward. 

Pakistan Focus: The Khan and the Opposition

 Imran Khan and his government face a non confidence motion that could end the Khan's first stint in power in a country where the complexions of politics defy common sense. Most likely, it would seem at the point of this writing, that his government will not survive the no confidence motion largely because of the desertions of his allies. When he first assumed power I did write him an open letter, more in the spirit of a friendship rather than a political lecture, and though I doubt he ever read it, one cannot help wonder where did he lose the plot. 

Imran always has been upfront about his views, and you get pretty much how he sees it, sometimes naive, (on economic affairs) and too blunt (on international politics) but you do not get corruption. While be brought a freshness to the political scene his optimism to 'fix' things within a year or so was perhaps overstated. How can thirty years of mismanagement of a country be fixed in even two years. While he had bucket fulls of belief in his mission it was not enough to shed the politicians who had joined his bandwagon; interestingly some of them are the ones deserting him now. 

Saddled with historical inefficiencies was further exacerbated by the effects of the COVID pandemic and the effect on the global economy. Some important resets were done, mainly bringing in a broader social welfare program and trying to move the country towards an independent foreign policy. While there were murmurs of corruption within some quarters of his political allies (the sugar mafia etc) the Khan was not visibly happy with such reports but he did fail to pursue the accused allies with the same vigour he showed in going after his political opponents. 

 One has to believe that at times of crisis the metal of a human being is tested. Imran Khan has showed no serious signs of panic and knows that other than losing the post of Prime Minister he does not have a plethora of business interests to protect or worry about. His closing gambit about foreign intervention is a bit surprising and needs some examination.

In foreign policy it is normal for bigger powers to express their displeasure to diplomats of the country they are unhappy with. Short of a formal position the informal words exchanged between governments and diplomats of other countries serve to get the not so subtle messages across. While this is interference and there is no doubt that this happens every day ignoring the messages that one does not like is more the norm. Imran Khan linking the 'message' from an unnamed government to a conspiracy with the opposition in Pakistan is setting a precedent. Because the desire of a foreign government in removing him is similar to that of the opposition does not mean there is collusion and does not make the Opposition traitors. 

Imran Khan has much more credible charges against the opposition, which are before the courts and government agencies and point to the massive looting of wealth that has taken place in the country for the past 30 odd years. There is no doubt that the opposition is united only through the common dislike of Imran Khan and his policies. The fact that some horse trading has taken place in putting together the required number of parliamentary votes to oust Imran from office cannot be denied. Whether such trading involved money, promises of ministerial posts or whatever remains to be seen. One this is certain that with elections due in 2023 the new government will eventually find its allies falling out.

Strategically speaking one wonders why didn't Imran Khan dissolve the Parliament and seek a new general election? In the broad mass of Pakistani's he remains popular and it would have been very difficult for the opposition to beat him at the ballot. Without the burden of the dissidents the Khan could have brought in new faces and perhaps a bigger majority in the National Assembly. What remains encouraging is that he has stated repeatedly that he accepts the process of parliamentary democracy and if it means he loses power so be it.

The Opposition agenda is absent beyond the removal of The Khan. The alliance is badly patched up with political parties who were at each others throat through most of Pakistan's political history. The PML-N's former leader is in self imposed exile in the face of corruption charges and after being disqualified by the courts from politics. The PPP while led by an energetic young leader has been losing its grass roots support in successive elections. The ethnically positioned MQM while not a national party has always held its role as a deal maker in any coalition government and lacks any appeal for a national position. The religious party JUI, is led by a politician who could not win his own electoral seat and carries the pretension of national leadership on the basis of a religious complexion that has been repeatedly milked for electoral votes and a say in national politics. 

The two main parties, PMLN and PPP will have to think long and hard of a fresh approach to national politics and perhaps consider a 'clean politics, clean government' agenda for the future. The rank and file of people in Pakistan will tell you after the economic challenges to the country they consider corruption as the major problem in Pakistan. If Imran Khan can be credited with something is that for once the office of the Prime Minister cannot be accused of being corrupt. 

However, it would be foolish to think that this is the end of The Khan. He carries enormous appeal to the masses and should be reform some of his party and come to the polls with a cogent economic and social policy with the right people to implement the agenda then the Opposition, united or not, will find it difficult to defeat him at the polls. 

Imran's Challenge of Governance.

Imran Khan, the Pakistan Prime Minister's,  integrity and sincerity towards making his country a better place economically, socially and in the eyes of the world is never in dispute. He has a clean record in terms of financial ethics and indeed what appeals to his many supporters, especially the younger generation is this sense of values and mission. Countries, however, cannot be run alone on intentions. Intentions have been be backed by actions and a sense of implementation which requires many aspect of the process and people to come together to give a result oriented system.

Imran, in my opinion has, in his zeal, taken on too much on his agenda of change, and this ever expanding menu creates its own challenges on delivery. Added to that has been a regional political scenario, especially Kashmir, which has created its own priority. In fairness Pakistan has never been an easy country to govern and added to years of economic mismanagement the task on the shoulders of Imran is far to heavy to carry in the current package of things he wants to tackle.

Yes education, health, social order, and ending corruption are all vital parts of the Imran agenda and need to be tackled. However, into this melee has been the ongoing investigations into corruption by former political leaders, most of who happen to be from the opposition parties, give a nasty twist to the perception of the process. Yes the accountability process is carried out by a supposedly independent government body and the higher courts in Pakistan have shown a remarkable independence from the government yet one would like to see government ministers and Imran himself not commenting on the cases against his political foes. The moment he or his ministers make a statement about the cases against former President Zardari or former Prime Minister Sharif, it erodes the independence of the accountability process.

Pakistan's democracy, which has had a stunted growth with interruptions of military rule, is far from mature. When a right wing religious party (JUI F) which fared abysmally in not only the last election but ever election in Pakistan, suddenly calls for a march on Islamabad and demands Imran Khan resign it harkens to the 1970's when street power was considered a means of political change. Indeed Imran Khan himself also employed the same tactics against the Sharif government, though in fairness he did not get the resignation he may have wanted, it did elevate him in political stature within the country. The JUIF ascertain that Imran is a 'selected' prime minister rather than elected one is a silly street slogan considering that while some merit will always be in the allegation of rigging in Pakistan elections, few would accept that the election that brought Imran to power was rigged to the point of him being considered 'selected'.

So what is the governance that should be expected of Imran Khan's government. My sincere opinion is that his first and foremost priority has to be the economy. He needs some seriously bright people to be heading up the economic policy formulation and implementation team. At the same time seeing things from abroad the oversight that some government agencies have been given into scrutinizing financial transactions even for foreign investments (individuals) needs to be toned down. Potential investors from abroad, including overseas Pakistanis are prone to ask that even if no more than normal questions are asked on their investments today, some years down the road who knows if the scrutiny will be more broad based and perhaps political too.

Creating an investment atmosphere is more than just announcing projects. In involves crucial confidence building steps, and for Pakistan shifting the economy towards and export oriented economy is a necessity given that it would boost foreign exchange reserves. Export orientation has to be towards value added goods, and for this base industrial sector incentives have to be put in place. Aligning the financial sector to boost not only exports but provide important financial support to export based industries is the need of the hour.

Imran's government has taken steps to tighten its spending and rationalize the government workforce. However these steps are just the beginning and to create a lighter more efficient government machinery also require higher levels of competence and expertise. Job creation has somehow been projected in Pakistan as the job of the government in power. In reality the government must create the conditions for job creation in the private sector and this means a rethink of the stimulus package that is needed for the private sector.

Pakistan has been plagued by what is known as 'circular debt' and its concerns years of mismanagement of the electricity sector in the country. Power theft and non payment of bills by a large segment of the population has meant that an endemic crisis in financing the power sector has resulted in circular debt which is simply rolled over with interest each year. There has to be reform of this sector and something bold has to be done about it. It weighs down the financial sector and also creates a very inefficient power supply system that cannot sustain itself in the long run.

Imran Khan's government must clearly understand that all the posturing in the public eye has its own place in terms of garnering support of their agenda. However, if they do not deliver on the economy then at the end of the day everything else is a wasted effort. I do believe that the agenda of reform has to be pared down to manageable levels and the priority on the economy should be foremost. Then within the economic plan various measures need to be taken to reform the system. Some contentious issues like sales tax and broadening the tax base, while very laudable, need to be implemented through a dialogue with the business community and to consider them the long term stakeholders of the benefits from reforms. Increasing taxes on the people who already pay the tax is not a solution as much as the IMF would prefer it, the solution is to broaden the tax base and for this the business community who pay taxes would certainly not object.

The passion for reform and transforming Pakistan has to be spearheaded by economic change and the social welfare that flows of this economic change is what would benefit the population at large. The government has to also seek to work in partnership with the business community rather than have a adversarial posture towards them. Once the economy starts to head in the right direction then the broader social agenda of the Khan government can be seen and will be more palatable to the people on the back of economic well being. The slogan has to be 'economy first'.

Kashmir: Slow painful steps towards conflict.

Recent events on the Indian side of Kashmir have suddenly propelled this half forgotten conflict between India and Pakistan back to the forefront in what is one of the most militarized regions of the world. Sadly the narrative on the situation in Kashmir is mired in propaganda and rhetoric which is all to familiar to the omniscient observer. India's insistence that all is peaceful in Jammu and Kashmir is in sharp contradiction to their own statements that there are curfews, and a virtual lockdown with no cable television, internet or phone services in the area. Pakistan on its side has been trying to step up the war of words and PM Imran Khan's recent address, while trying to draw attention to the emerging conflict between two nuclear armed countries has been seen more as a threat in India rather than a stark warning for both sides to calm things down.

In the war of words, India's voice has been the louder one, while Pakistan's media strategy has always been rather pathetic at the best of times. None of its major TV channels has even one current affairs program aired in English, preferring to use Urdu as the medium of its media voice, almost as if the information effort is only for its own people. India, on the other hand, has a number of channels where neo nationalist anchors spill out the narrative New Delhi embraces to the extent that Indians who simply question if there is peace in the Kashmir valley are suddenly painted as traitors and accused of towing the Pakistan line.

Independent sources, like the New York Times, the Guardian and others have clearly said all is not well in Jammu and Kashmir. India's media answer has been to say its time to talk about Pakistan controlled Kashmir. Few have pointed out that in Pakistan controlled Kashmir there aren't a million army men and para military forces, in Pakistan side of Kashmir there are no curfews and information blackouts, and in general the majority of Kashmiris on the Pakistan side are more concerned about Indian army presence across the border than anything else.

Aside from the jockeying for better narrative, there is a haunting possibility of armed conflict between India and Pakistan. Pakistan with 653,000 active members of its armed forces compared to India's 1.44 million active personnel would unlikely to take on the role of the aggressor for an all out war. Yet a limited war is highly likely in an environment where both sides ability to engage in a dialogue is rapidly being reduced with the current posturing that is going on. India's insistence that it is an internal affair and also agreeing with major powers that matters on Kashmir need to be discussed only in bilateral talks between India and Pakistan suggests that India will argue which ever side of that argument when its wishes.

The possibilities of conflict are embedded in the mentality of the Indian decision makers who have consistently refused to believe that there is an element of Indian Kashmiris who disagree with the Indian central government and would not hesitate to carry out militant actions against the 1 million strong Indian army in Kashmir who these people see as an occupying force. India's belief remains that they are at best miscreants aided and supported by Pakistan. Indeed in the past there have been Pakistan based militant organizations who have either directly carried out attacks or have assisted Indian Kashmiris to attack Indian forces within Indian Kashmir and even though in the past few years these organizations have been reined in, India's argument that all anti Indian acts in Kashmir are not home grown continues.

Herein lie the seeds of a possible conflict between Indian and Pakistan. The current curfew and lockdown in Jammu and Kashmir will stretch into the coming winter months. While there may be pockets where such measures will be relaxed and total return to normalcy will not happen till the winter. With the winter months the harsh climate does make it more difficult for protests and rallies to be organized. As the frustration of Indian Kashmiri's will grow, given that over 2000 have already been arrested in the past two weeks, the more militant elements within Indian Kashmir will realize that violence then is the only language of the unheard.

The result of any violence against Indian forces will immediately result in Delhi blaming Pakistan for such violence. What steps India would then take would depend upon the size and scale of the attack itself, but one thing is clear without bilateral channels of communication open the chances are India would more likely retaliate more to prove to its own people that it has evidence of Pakistan's involvement and hence has done a 'surgical strike'. One has to commend the Indian media machine on the spin they can make out; like insisting till even today that a Pakistan F16 was shot down in the February 2019 air action between the two countries (when US officials have clearly said they have accounted for all of Pakistan's F16 inventory).

Pakistan will retaliate to any 'surgical strike' that is done on its soil, all the more reason now with the way the Kashmir situation has been propelled into the forefront no government in Islamabad can remain quiet to any military strike. Will there be an all out war?

While some would argue that India would like an all out war and it has the numerical numbers to overwhelm Pakistan forces in a classical military conflict. Pakistan on the other hand would prefer a limited conflict, more contained to air skirmishes, with the usual shelling across the border. It cannot take on the role of the aggressor and it is something its military brass know well. However, India's main fear has been that Pakistan's possession of tactical nuclear weapons (where they are way ahead of India) and any large scale attack on Pakistan would result in the use of these weapons. (perhaps this is what Imran Khan was hinting at in his recent speech). India has developed what it calls its 'Cold Start' strategy which aims to neutralize these tactical nuclear weapons within days of the start of a conflict. However, such a strategy assumes a total air superiority over Pakistan, somewhat to the extent that the Coalition forces had over Iraq during the two Gulf wars. India simply does not possess such a superiority in the air at the moment.

Another scenario could well develop from the situation in Kashmir. Assume there are no attacks by Indian Kashmiri militants on Indian forces, but instead there are mass street protests and a public anger over India's moves on Jammu and Kashmir. This is a situation that is more difficult for India to face. It can blame Pakistan for a dozen militant Kashmiri's attacking Indian forces, but it cannot blame Pakistan it say 200,000 people come out on the streets of Srinagar. Such such protests break out and are able to sustain the momentum, as we have seen in many countries in the past, then it presents and awkward situation for the Modi government. In such a situation one cannot rule out a military adventure by the Indian armed forces with the sole aim of distracting the attention from such protests within Jammu and Kashmir.

For the moment one can only hope that some sense of sanity prevails and armed conflict is not an option. In a sense this means that if Pakistan wishes to get some traction to get world powers to focus on the situation then they need to get their public relations act together fast. The narrative that needs to come out more from Islamabad needs to more direct and less jingoistic. Side by side it must open the dialogue with India to avert any armed conflict, and this projection of leaning towards peace is a posture that would work best in the current environment. However, we all know that one cannot clap with only one hand, (unless once is slapping the other person) and it would seem that till the curfews and clamp down in Indian Kashmir is not lifted the situation will remain tense between India and Pakistan.

Modi's Legal pitfalls on Art 370

Beyond the politics and passionate pleadings of each side of the Kashmir issue, and the abrogation of Article 370 of the Indian constitution, there is a need to understand the legal position that PM Modi's government has taken. Watching the pro Modi media in India, there is a narrative that the change to Kashmir's special status (accorded under Art 370) has been done in a constitutional manner and 'integration' into India was long over due. Little or no effort has been made to understand why the article was there in the first place and how, if at all, it could be changed.

When the Hindu Maharajah of Kashmir (a Muslim dominant princely state) decided to accede to India it was recognized that Kashmir would have its own Constituent Assembly and its own constitution. The problem remained for India that the Instrument of Accession alone did not address the issue of the British (who ruled India till 1947) wanting a plebiscite in Jammu and Kashmir to determine the will of the people on whether they wished to join India or Pakistan. The constituent assembly in a sense gave India the legal standing to argue that by ratifying the instrument of accession the Jammu and Kashmir Constituent Assembly had removed the need for a plebiscite. So far so good; however, the Hindu Maharajah knew of the prevalent view amongst the majority Muslim population of Kashmir that the resulting accession would result in a massive migration of Indian based Hindus into Kashmir.

Thus a form of protection was sought from India to give Kashmir a special status (perhaps more so that it would be the only 'state' in India with a Muslim majority). In consequence Article 370 was enacted which gave India full authority on defense and foreign affairs, but in return recognized that Jammu and Kashmir could have its own constitution and, most importantly, guaranteed special status to Kashmir which would prevent Indians (not only Hindus) who were not domiciled Kashmiris from buying land and property in Jammu and Kashmir.

Now lets deal with the provisions of the now infamous Article 370 itself.

Indeed the Article as a whole was intended to be a temporary measure and hence was included in the section of Temporary provisions of the Indian constitution as it was envisaged that at sometime in the future the Article would be amended or removed. However, the abrogation or removal of the article in its entirety could only be done on recommendation of the Jammu and Kashmir Constituent Assembly (Article 370 (1) (d).

The Article in 370 (1)(d) states that other provisions of the Indian constitution can be made applicable to J&K with such modifications being made by a presidential order. However, such an order must have the concurrence of the J&K government and is limited to the extent of an applicability of a provision of the Indian constitution. However, to completely make Article 370 inoperative the President of India must have the recommendation of the J&K Constituent Assembly (Art 370 (1) (d).

Indeed since the Article was incorporated into the Indian constitution many modifications have been implemented with the consent of the J&K government of the time, the most notable being in 1957 and 1964. Because Kashmir was the only princely state that chose to have its own constituent assembly (all other Princely states accepted the Indian Constitution) the understanding of having this special status and right was the genesis of the Article 370.

The Constituent Assembly of J&K in 1957 dissolved itself without making any recommendation for an amendment or abrogation to Article 370. In a legal sense what the Constituent Assembly was saying that by dissolving itself it carves out a permanence to Article 370 as once dissolved there is no Assembly to recommend the abrogation of Article 370. It is interesting to note that the Indian Supreme Court has ruled numerous times that Article 370 is now a permanent part of the Indian Constitution as the only assembly that could recommend its abrogation dissolved itself without recommending its abrogation or offering an alternate mechanism.

How does the Presidential order of the Modi government violate the legal principles of the Article and the process laid out.

1. While Article 370(1)(d) allows Presidential orders to be issued to modify Article 370 (not scrap it) such modification must be recommended by the Jammu and Kashmir state government. Since J&K is currently under Presidential rule (and therefore no state elected government) the Modi government did not think it necessary to seek such a recommendation for modification.

2. Since there is a major problem that the Constituent Assembly of J&K does not exist, having dissolved itself in 1957, the Modi government has amended Article 367 of the Indian Constitution. This article refers to interpretations and definitions and a new sub clause 367(4)(d) has been inserted which says that words such as "Constituent Assembly" in Article 370(3) must 'read as Legislative Assembly of the State". Since the Presidential power does not exist to change Article 370(3) which defines the Constituent Assembly (not the government of J&K) only to recommend abrogation of Article 370, by changing the definition of the assembly the Modi government paves the way at sometime in the future to have the Legislative Assembly of J&K recommend the abrogation of Article 370.

3.Since there is no legislative assembly in J&K and the state is under Presidential rule the newly amended Article 367 applied to Article 370(3) cannot be used. Thus the Modi government decided to take the matter to the Indian Parliament and recommend the changes through the bill the majority BJP party got passed through both houses of Parliament. While political supporters of Modi and the BJP will argue in the absence of the legislative assembly of J&K and the state being under Presidential rule the Indian Parliament has the authority to pass such a bill. However, legally this is walking on thin ice as there is no provision in the Indian constitution to do this even with a Union State fully integrated into India.


The legal pitfalls of this political chicanery are plentiful, but the question remains if this matter will yet again end up in the Indian Supreme Court. Below are some glaring issues that will be put to test.


A. By modifying Article 367 and redefining Constituent Assembly as "Legislative State Assembly" there is a contradiction now in the Indian Constitution as Article 370(3) remains with the words Constituent Assembly, while Article 367 (4) (the new sub clause) calls it the Legislative State Assembly. Why has this happened? Because the President does not have the power to modify Article 370(3) and it would be clear that the change to Article 367 has been done to let the President do something indirectly which he could not do directly.

The basic structure of the Constitution does not allow the President to use his constitutional powers accorded to him to do an act which the constitution never intended for him to do.  The Supreme Court in India has ruled on this doctrine a number of times and specifically on the issue of Article 370.

B. The amendment to Article 367 with inserting a sub clause violates a basic principle of constitutional law. An interpretational provision of a constitution cannot over ride the effect of an article of the constitution. In other words by simply defining a word differently does not mean that effect of the provision of the articles of the constitution have changed.

C. The fact that since 1957, when the Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir dissolved itself no subsequent Legislative State Assembly of J&K ever raised the issue of enacting new laws within J&K allowing it the power to recommend the abrogation of Article 370 clearly shows much like its predecessor there was always the intent of the J&K legislative personalities to make Article 370 a permanent feature of their legal link with India.


On an international level there is a larger argument that in having different accords over Kashmir with Pakistan, India recognizes that its a disputed territory. However insofar as the internal legal position of the Modi move is concerned there is little doubt that the political agenda of integration has ignored the legal reality related to Jammu and Kashmir. Eventually this might well end up in the Supreme Court of India, however it remains to be seen if the lands highest court can reverse the decision of the Modi government.

India's Kashmir Move.

Indian Prime Ministers move to change the status of Indian Kashmir was no surprise. He prodded and poked on the subject through the recent elections, each prod, each poke, stoking the fires of Hindu nationalist sentiment. The abrogation of Art 370 of the Indian constitution, which gave special status of Kashmir as a semi autonomous region, and, more importantly, ensured that Hindus would not flood the disputed state to claim a majority in Kashmir, protected the Kashmir's from allowing resettlement of Hindus from elsewhere in India, raises some important issues. The impact within India and India's handling of a delicate matter concerning Kashmir will resonate across the whole of India. Further the move brings into question the argument where Mr Modi is embracing a nationalist Hindu agenda, which sits at the core of the BJP philosophy, or can the secular India still speak for whole of India. Finally there is the more volatile situation with Pakistan, who control part of Kashmir and have seen the resolution of the Kashmir issue as fundamental to better ties with India.


While supporters of PM Modi tout the fact that both houses of the Indian parliament overwhelmingly voted to remove the autonomous status of Kashmir, the fact remains that the vote was accompanied by a virtual lock down in Kashmir itself. With internet, mobile phone services suspended and selective curfews and arrests of key Muslim political figures within Kashmir  clearly suggests that barring the Hindu nationalists, like the RSS, (Modi himself having risen through their ranks) the majority Muslims within Kashmir have not welcomed the decision with open arms.

Herein lies the problem because with a huge military presence within Kashmir the language of street protest may not be possible. Various international human rights organizations have been warning in the past few years that Indian military and police behavior in Indian Kashmir has been brutal and inhumane. With the avenue of street protests closed to the people of Kashmir the more likely form of protest will be selective arson attacks on Indian forces within Kashmir. This plays into the hands of  the Muslim Kashmiris who have always argued that Indian forces in Kashmir must be expelled from Kashmir and forward their agenda of a free Kashmir.

One would therefore argue that should attacks on Indian forces increase, which given this decision by the Modi government will happen, India will be quick to blame Pakistan for sponsoring those attacks and cross border tensions between India and Pakistan will increase. Realistically I do not think given the way things are moving in Indian Kashmir the militants do not need encouragement from Pakistan or anyone to carry out their attacks. I would even doubt that with the abolition of Kashmir's autonomous status even the Pakistanis can persuade the militants to show restraint. In that sense the Modi government has created the conditions for more turmoil within Indian Kashmir rather than solve anything.

On a broader front a majority of the leadership of the ruling BJP embrace the RSS ideology of a Hindustan (India) for Hindus. To them Indian Kashmir was the only Indian state where there is a non Hindu majority and thus a non Hindu (Muslim) local government. This was for decades unacceptable to the RSS who argue that the protection to Indian Kashmiris (mostly Muslims) under Article 370 was always seen as a temporary solution which Mr Nehru had agreed to in the early 1950's to appease the pro Indian Muslims in Kashmir and to take the sting out of the United Nations insistence of a plebiscite in all of Kashmir (both Indian and Pakistani) to allow the people to determine their own fate.

Indeed for decades the UN stalemate has continued and even as the vote on abrogating Artile 370 was taking place let us not forget that in Jammu and Kashmir (Indian Kashmir) there were and are United Nations observers monitoring the situation. If the region was not a disputed territory why then have the UN presence? PM Modi basically has thrown out 70 years of UN resolutions and bilateral agreements with Pakistan with this move. The voices in India who want the slogan of India for Hindus may call Modi bold and brave, those who see the slow death of India's secular democracy and want regional peace would call Modi's move foolish and idiotic.

There is no doubt after this move settlements will crop up in Indian Kashmir for the settlement of Hindus, (much like Israel did with Palestinian lands) and with each settlement, each new home the Kashmiris will be driven into a corner. Modi's bet, along with the RSS is that the demographic balance should be titled to the BJP Hindu majority quickly enough to make an impact in the next general elections. However, as the Muslim Kashmiris get driven into a corner the actions will become more violent and desperate. Overall Indian Kashmir will move from having been an autonomous state to an Indian occupied state and herein lies the seeds for instability within the region.

India's only option then will be to blame Pakistan and the tit for tat limited military activity between India and Pakistan will  increase. While there seem to be enough sensible people to avoid an all out conflict given both have nuclear weapons, be assured that limited battles will be the order of the day.

India's bigger problem could well be that Indian Muslims, who are about 172 million (15% of the population) may  become the recruiting ground for the more militant organizations like the Taliban and perhaps new home grown movements. There is not doubt that during the Modi government hate crimes against Muslims have been increasing and given the Kashmir move the reaction from militant groups will become more acute and sharper. Indeed these groups could well be supported from overseas but in essence this is a risk that India must be aware of.

Modi government has had a reasonably good public relations presence on the world scene to not be criticized too severely what it will call and 'internal matter'. Muslim governments have not been briefed enough by say Pakistan and the Kashmiris enough to know the implications of this move, which essentially does to the Kashmiris what the Israelis did to the Palestinians. Therefore one cannot be certain of how most of the Muslim countries will react to this move, which most likely will be muted criticism at best.


In conclusion it would seem that while the move of the Modi government is not reversible, more for political reasons, it does present itself as the single more defining moment of modern India. Does this end the secular nature of India? Does this imply that Modi will appease the nationalist Hindu caucus irrespective of the consequences to India and the region? Does the Modi government understand that changing the status of Indian Kashmir creates the seeds for more violence and unrest?

Imran Khan & PTI: A need to reset the agenda.

Over twenty years back Imran Khan, two of his friends and myself were engrossed in a discussion on the future of Pakistan in my hotel room in Dubai. Imran was dropping hints that in a couple of days he would announce entering the political arena. I recall telling him then that would it not be better than become the 'Ralph Nader' of Pakistan, like a non political force bringing the government of the time to task of its performance or the lack of it. Late that night he took the flight to Pakistan and within days announced his entry into politics.

I have always said that if one attribute that stood out with Imran it has been his honesty, knowing full well that he accounted for every penny raised for his cancer hospital. I also felt that he was good at inspiring people in his team and yet the challenge would be running a country is radically different from running a country. The past two decades have evolved Imran Khan, from the start up political party to now a party in power in Pakistan. His policies and stance on some issues have warmed my heart, and on others I have had to stop and think about the sagacity of his words.

Today he is heading the government of a very difficult country, which does have enormous potential, and in my first blog after his election I imparted some advice to him (https://aqsher.blogspot.com/2018/07/letter-to-imran-khan.html) highlighting that tackling the economy and setting the foreign policy course are the two most important tasks before him. His successes so have on both fronts have been marginal. While his recent handling of the face off with India has been very good, his faux pas on Afghanistan, the recent press conference in Tehran, and his governments lack of economic direction are disturbing to say the least.

While one can go into specifics here, the fundamental problem lies in the way the PTI governance is being carried out. Though social media may well not be the only way to gauge the mind set of the governing party and its supporters, there is no doubt that Imran's cavalier style effects the proper framing of policy. On foreign policy alone you see the Foreign Office, the Prime Ministers office and the Prime Minister himself issuing statements that clearly indicate a lack of coordination and internal discussion between them.

A large part of me had hoped that Imran Khan would be a cohesive force after becoming Prime Minister. In this sense he has failed as the narrative from the PTI camp seems to suggest an intolerance to criticism. I, even though a well wisher of Imran, run the risk of being attacked on social media for criticizing him here. Imran and the PTI would argue that being inclusive towards political figures of the past who, in their eyes, robbed the nation of its wealth is next to impossible. My simple retort would be by all means accountability should be there and any one who has stolen money or misused public office should be brought to justice. However, this should be through the due process of the law. The national accountability machinery should be used to investigate and then the courts of law should be the ones to determine the fate of such people. Much like predecessor governments NAB seems to be a weapon against those who happen to be opponents and may well have ill gotten wealth.

The atmosphere is becoming toxic in a sense. Exit control lists, assuming all investments are from ill gotten wealth and in a sense short circuiting the due process of law in the aim to bring people to justice who allegedly stole money does have its ramifications on the business environment. Yes Imran Khan wants to clean up things, and that is a laudable task, but there are courts to do that and the effort should not look like its just a witch hunt for certain people. Legitimate investors will obviously be worried if arbitrary actions will come to haunt them for making investments into the country.

Indeed with an external debt of $99 billion and economic numbers across the board looking dismal, there will be a tendency to lean towards the blame game. Economic management in Pakistan has over decades been unhinged. While even the current debt level is around the same level as a percentage of GDP over the past two decades (ranges from 24% to 31% debt to GDP) there is no doubt that there has been a propensity to borrow even when GDP growth has been good. Part of the reason is the tax revenue has been abysmally low. In a country with a workforce of 58 million people the official tax payers who filed returns in 2018 was only 1.4 million!

Clearly what I would have expected Imran Khan to do is to work with the two other major parties on forming a consensus on economic policy and to legislatively overhaul the economic structure. In an environment where PTI feels anyone who is not supporting them is a traitor to the country there will not be any hope of a unified approach to economic reforms. It is time for the rhetorical slandering to be scaled down and for the PTI and its leadership to understand that just as the country united to face the recent threat from India, the same cooperation and mentality is needed to deal with the economic crisis the country faces.

Yes there are differences between the main leadership of the PMLN and PPP with PTI but there is still a possibility for a broad consensus with the rank and file members of both parties to consider a multi-partisan approach to handling issues of national importance. To me resetting the economic agenda is a priority and its great that Imran sees what is good about other countries and wants to learn from China and Iran and others, he must also realize the solutions are well within the intellectual capital available within the country.

Indian Elections: Divisions being put to test.

India is undoubtedly the worlds largest democracy with over 900 million going to the polls this election. So gigantic is the task that voting spans seven phases and a six week period, all in the backdrop of electioneering that continues till the last vote is dropped in the ballot box. This election, however, pitches not only the traditional rivals; Modi's BJP against Rahul Gandhi's Congress, but also, almost in keeping with elections the world over since Mr Trumps election, pitting divergences like never before. Modi's rallying point has been a heightened appeal towards a 'New India' based on a nationalist appeal, and playing the terrorism card to the extent that promising an end to the special status if Indian Kashmir. Gandhi's party appeals to the broader base of Indian secular integration and reform that having been its hallmarks.

In a country so large and diverse polling would be either ridiculously flawed or totally biased to rely upon to make any predictions. Modi's use of and support from a smattering of Indian TV channels and personalities is reminiscent of a nation almost ready to go to war. The recent confrontation with Pakistan where India lost one jet fighter and claiming to have shot down an Pakistani F 16 seems to initially have been the jingoism that Modi needed. This seems to have backfired badly as Imran Khan, the Pakistani PM, quickly returned the down pilot and then waited for the Indian media spin to continue till evidence came from none other that the US itself that Pakistan did not lose a F 16.

Indeed Modi's pitch has been that if you hate Modi then you hate India! A message that may have an appeal within the hard core of the BJP ranks but in a diverse country like India where many of the states and people from different segments feel disfranchised by the Modi camp it might be a slogan that would not hold voter attention. Additionally almost 80 million new, and mostly young, voters have been added to the list. These voters may well hold the card to some main polling battles.

Living in UAE one has a large number of Indian friends and their feedback, while not indicative of 900 million people who vote, does give an insight into the issues. A well placed Muslim engineer from Hyderabad in India made an interesting comment that the Muslim voters along with the voters in the Southern States could well tilt the balance away from Modi. Then he added yet to the Muslims it will make little difference because they will continue to me marginal and treated accordingly. A couple of workers from Kerala who I often bump into were adamant that Modi was himself causing these 'terror' attacks and is more corrupt than all of the others put together.

Modi does have one thing going for him. A robust social media presence, (which matters with young voters) and the ability to deflect controversy with ease. To him the spin matters, and rest is just noise. Rahul Gandhi and the Congress will certainly be tested and for the progressive Indians the Congress has always been a better bet. Yet they have to climb the proverbial mountain since in 2014 they won only 44 seats, down from 206 in the 2009 election. While alliances will help the Congress this perhaps will be its biggest test to turn around its fortunes.

The fact in the recent regional elections the BJP lost some key states, which in fact had been instrumental in helping BJP win the 2014 election, will be a matter of concern to Modi and co. In states like Tamil Nadu Modi has struggled, especially with the younger voters. Modi has been playing the patriotism card over the recent spate with Pakistan, and even though it is evident that the Indian Air Force did not fair well, his spin doctors continue to deny that and hail Modi as patriot who you favor and if you don't then you are anti Indian.

None of this implies that Modi and the BJP would not have a decent showing in the elections, but it might well be so that they will not have a simple majority on their own to form a government. If Congress and its potential allies can have a good enough showing then forming a coalition government is open to either camp.

Beyond electioneering what I find disturbing is this nationalist born again fervor which can be a dangerous card to play. Anyone who talks of moderation and peace in regional affairs is dubbed a 'peacenik' and 'anti Indian'. Modi and co are playing out a message of scare mongering which may well help them in the short term but in a country where emotions run high and a reconciliation towards a strong central government in New Delhi is not something that the population of Tamil Nadu and other southern states have quite yet embraced. Certainly they want a united India and perhaps a strong India, but they want their voice to be a part of that message not on the fringes of Indian politics.

In terms of India's neighbors I doubt it will make any difference whether the Congress or the BJP are in power. Certainly the BJP may wish to continue its niggling with Pakistan but they may well have learned that in the recent round of exchanges Imran Khan of Pakistan seems to have outwitted the accomplished and seasoned Narendra Modi. It would be interesting if Modi went ahead and changed the status of Indian Kashmir the backlash may well be something he then cannot blame Pakistan off. Either way these elections, barring Modi's attempt to play the 'war with Pakistan' card, regional and international issues have been totally absent from the political speeches.

In sense rising unemployment, and managing an economy that has become enormous with its own challenges, and finally a need to define India's economic partnerships in a broader context are imperatives that who ever is elected will need to address.

Imran stay the course.

When you were elected I published here an open letter to you, and celebrated the fresh breath of air you could bring to Pakistan politics. I also mentioned, as a friend, I would criticize you when you, in my opinion, are not on course. The Atif Mian removal from the Economic Advisory Council is the first grave mistake being made. Bowing to pressure from the ultra religious groups you have agreed to remove him because he is an Ahmadi. First of all he is a Pakistani and a loyal Pakistani, secondly I was concerned you have not talked of protection of minorities and here is an example where you have abandoned the most competent person on the team just because some Mullahs think Pakistan is only for their brand of Islam. Next they will want the Christians to be removed from government then the Hindus and then the Shia, and then the many different branches of Sunni till they can stamp their narrow narrative on the country.

Imran let me give you the example of cricket. Would you have removed Musthaq Ahmed, or Wasim Akram or Javaid Miandad from the team just because someone said none of them had a bread, or were not as good a muslim as they thought. Should you do that it would be considered a gutless surrender of the team and tantamount to treason to the team. This is not different than the case of Atif Mian, he is not being asked to give advice of Islamic Affairs, he is asked to help with the economy. What shade of faith or any faith the man has is not relevant. I would expect you to reverse this decision and show us that you can make brace decisions. If not remember you give these mullahs an inch they will take the whole minaret.

Another matter that is a bit strange. The hike of the gas tariff, perhaps needed, should have not been done on the recommendation of the civil administration when you have announced an economic advisory council it should have had the input from them. Gas is a major input into the economic modeling for the country and such a decision should have waited for the EAC, otherwise why have such an assembly of talent, not minus Atif Mian?

One of the things you should carefully manage is the civil service of the country. They have a massive vested interest in the status quo they have lived off for years. They can paralyze your government and get it caught up in red tape till infinity. I would be careful of their advice and meanwhile take steps to over haul this monster that can undermine any development effort. They were compliant if not gutless bystanders to the looting of the country and it is something that should not be forgotten.

This is a time to be resolute and if you want to imbibe the vision of Jinnah then you cannot cherry pick what you like and what you do not. This appeasement of the mullahs is not a good sign. We who live abroad as overseas Pakistanis do so not only because of the economic opportunities but also because many of us could not accept the intolerance of the Zia ul Haq era. You have to speak for all Pakistanis including the minorities and so long as they are dedicated to a strong Pakistan then embrace them. Do not forget that Jinnah's first foreign minister was an Ahmadi, and two of the greatest judges of the Supreme Court were a Christian and a Hindu; Justice Cornelius and Judge Dorab Patel.

Imran's Government and Tolerance.

When Imran Khan gave his speech, which comprehensively covered many subjects of national interest, I mentioned two aspects were visibly missing in his speech. The protection of minorities and upholding the freedom of the press. In any democracy worth its salt these two aspects of society form the litmus test against which the sincerity of the democratic process will be measured. I have followed the social media and recent events within Pakistan with a slight sense of unease. While attacks against a free press have not emerged there has been an upsurge of violence against the Ahmadi community of Pakistan.

On the social media side I find PTI supporters seem to be aggressively rude to anyone who criticizes the PTI government and particularly Imran himself. I do feel social media played a role in marshalling the young voters to the PTI camp, and kudos for Imran and his team to do that, but it is time they make a sincere effort to educate their followers that dissent and disagreement are the pillars upon which democracies are built. Trolling someone who disagrees with you is really creating an elected oligarchy and the first steps towards elected fascism.

I am sure a number of tweets are ready to be targeted at me right now, so let it be said that Imran Khan's knows I am a friend of his and a well wisher of his, but he also knows I would be the first to tell him and his party members when I feel he is wrong. What is said is to benefit him and he would know that sycophants for friends are really the enemy within who do not advise one when one is making mistakes. So for what it is worth here is my say.

Minorities.

I have always taken inspiration from Mr Jinnah the father of our nation, who was adamant in his speech to the Constituent Assembly in 1947 what in framing the constitution they must consider Pakistan as the country for people of all faiths. I also believe that Mr Bhutto embattled by street protests in 1976 declared the Ahmadis as 'non muslims' to appease the religious right who were stone throwing against him in growing numbers. I am not an Ahmadi and yet as a Muslim I do not believe that Mr Bhutto or even the National Assembly has the right to declare anyone a non-Muslim. This is a dangerous trend and in the end everyone can decide who is a Muslim and who is not.

That aside, its an event of history and one has lived with it. But what one cannot live with is militant attacks against a community based on hatred or petty disputes that are then given a religious color. IN the same token it is not for the Mullahs or any one to tell a community if they can celebrate a religious event or not. This is against the teachings of our Prophet and contrary to the tolerance He showed towards the other faiths. In the end whether someone is a good human being or a good Muslim or Christian, or Hindu or Ahmadi will be only in the hands of Allah and not decided from the pulpit of a Mullah with a narrow view of not only the world but the very religion he claims to speak for.

I believe the Minister of Human Rights and the Prime Minister himself should take a clear and forceful stand on such intolerance and ensure that minorities are protected. It is not about restoring any image of Pakistan, it is about doing the right thing and the decent thing. A mere promise of investigating matters is one small step in the right direction, but something bigger, bolder and noble has to be done. The militant Mullahs must know that the laws of the land do not allow such discrimination and certainly not such violence and they should be dealt with accordingly.


Free Press and Social Media.

As said before the social media was a critical part if the PTI strategy, and they certainly knew how it use it effectively and good for them. However, this social media following should not be used to educate their followers to show tolerance, respect and dignity towards all who may disagree with them. Sadly this technology of a nano second can also create a hysteria where violence can erupt. After all just recently in India a Muslim man was killed because someone spread a false news about him slaughtering a cow and lo and behold he was lynched. The incident of the attack on the Ahmadi community was also instigated in part by a social media false narrative that the Ahmadi's had attacked some Sunni Muslims, a news that the Mullahs caught on to, did not verify and launched their die hard supporters to take revenge.

These things should not happen in the Naya (New) Pakistan and while these incidents are isolated they do not abode well for the country if not checked now. Imran you have the charisma to tell your followers that you do not want them to behave in this way, you have the ability to tell them to be decent and dignified in the New Pakistan and to accept criticism and praise in the same manner. This is the best education you can impart upon the nation.


We have to learn only from how in the US social media has been used by none other than the country's President to create divisions and hatred of a level never seen before. I would argue that the fissures that Mr Trump has created in American society will take generations to heal. I believe Imran you are way different and better than Mr Trump and you can set the example of decency and respect and tolerance for minorities like never before. This was also the hallmark of our Prophet's governance.

Pakistan PM speech: A breath of fresh air.

Imran Khan's first speech as Prime Minister was less a speech than a sincere talk across the table. No pre-written speech, just a few pages of notes and a delivery that would make even his skeptics applaud him for being long on ambition and sincerity. If there was anything lacking in the speech it was little reference to Balochistan, the protection of women, the protecting of minorities and upholding the tenants of a free press. But then in a speech which dealt with issues of malnutrition in children to economics there was much to chew on for the observer.

If one was to chart the social impact of political leaders of Pakistan then one can clearly say Imran set the tone for a social economic agenda than simply a political agenda. Mr Jinnah. the founder of the nation, on August 1947 spoke of a vision of Pakistan, a speech much forgotten in the shrouds of intolerance (covered in my previous blogs), and now Imran has touched a nerve with the people of Pakistan and his words have to be seen as a sincere demand for change, and change to which he and his government will be held accountable. In 1968, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto in his 'roti, kapra, makkan', (food, clothing and housing) for all speech for the first time spoke of the down trodden and the unheard majority of the country. His attempt at democratic socialism and nationalism was at best a failure, but give him the credit for an inclusive social agenda that set the stage to which now Imran Khan has stepped up.

The take away from the speech is positive, asking for change in education, governance, judicial responsibility, accountability, and most of all creating a paradigm shift in not one aspect of Pakistani society but pretty much across the board. The key question is how his agenda of change will be funded as he inherits a State Treasury which is bare, a debt burden that every month sinks the nation further down the tube. It would seem his initial internal economic emphasis is on broadening the tax base through better collection, routing out corruption which has been rampant, and bringing economic changes at the grass root level all coupled with an austerity drive that is indeed praise worthy.

Converting the Prime Ministers house to a university of excellence indicate more than anything that the lavishness of 524 staff is what he does not need. Though I would have suggested that converting it into an All suites 6 star hotel would be more profitable for the nation. I do believe that in respect of life style he has always been pretty down to earth, and is not one who loves money for himself. The biggest challenge will be taming the bureaucracy which has always been the worm inside the government to weakens its agenda. Apart from the curse of nepotism it is a machine which is slow to change and some hard decisions will be needed in reorganizing the civil service.

With provincial governments in two provinces the PTI agenda of change will be limited in its enforcement in both Sindh and Balochistan. While he has indicated he would work with the leadership of those provinces on reforms to the police and local civil service it will have its share of frustrations. I would like to believe improvements in the provinces they control will bring about some urgency in the other two provinces to follow suit. I was particularly pleased that while he took a broad swipe at corruption and corrupt political leaders his speech was tame in terms of attacks on the opposition.

We can sit back and cynically dismiss his ambitious agenda as nothing short of what General Musharraf promised, but then there is an essential difference, the general did not have a peoples mandate to live up to. There has been criticism also about his choice of the cabinet as some of the ministers had served under the general; however I do feel this is a start and I would not be surprised that there would be changes mid way in his tenure. His team building skills are well known as indeed his impatience with under performing members usually results in a change.

The way I see it, if Imran Khan and his new government can deliver even 30-40% of his agenda he would have done more for the country than the 21 Prime Ministers before him. He will have to learn to be open to accepting his failures, however small they may be, as challenges that failed and acknowledge them and move to a new path to achieve the same aims. However, the ground swell of expectations he has created is also accompanied by the enthusiasm of people willing to change and be facilitators of change. Many who voted for him actually did so with the view that the two other parties have been given five chances between them to change things and perhaps its time to try something new. This speech seemed to suggest to them that at least in terms of the talk he has done his bit, now people will want to see him walk the talk. The first steps he has taken within the first two days as Prime Minister its clear that he will walk the talk and that too more boldly than many would be prepared for. But then this snowball of change will continue to roll with its momentum and Imran's first task of getting it rolling has started.

Imran Khan: Prime Minister with an economic mountain to climb.

Imran has finally done it, and congratulations to him, and it reminds me of the long discussion he and one of his close banker friends from New York and myself had in my hotel room in Dubai back in 1996 before he took a flight back to announce his entry into politics. I remember arguing that he should not join politics but become the 'Ralph Nader' of Pakistan; to be a socially prominent Pakistani questioning the governance of the country from the outside. I told him our politics is dirty and jumping into it will drown good people into the filth. He said then, 'sometimes one has to step into the gutter to clean it'.

Imran Khan, kudos to him, not only jumped into the gutter to clean it, but also aroused the passion of a nation that the only way forward is a new Pakistan. Yes we as people always reinvent ourselves, its the one wave of emotions that instils the hope that things will not only change but will be new. His social agenda aside, the biggest obstacle, and one that can derail the promise of a new Pakistan, is going to be the horrible state of the economy in the country.

Nawaz Shareef's government has left the coffers of the country empty, a mountain of debt that needs restructuring and emergency financing to keep things going. Yes Pakistan will have to knock on the doors of the IMF yet again, and bilateral assistance from friendly countries may reduce the size of the begging bowl it will not eliminate it. The critical issue will be the long term fix that is needed in the country, and yes educating the work force to become more productive and investment in science and a better industrial base are sound policies but they will bear fruit over the longer term. Some measures have to be taken immediately for the country to get back on its feet. While insurmountable its not impossible. Here are a few suggestions.

1. Revenue Improvement.

Tax evasion and leakage of government revenues are one of the most chronic issues facing the economy. A few years ago it was estimated that 35% of the total electric power produced in the country was stolen by consumers or important political figures just did not pay the bills. In addition the tax collection, while improving, was still inefficient and in some areas even corrupt.Immediate reform of the tax system and the revenue collection improvement should be done within the first 100 days. This should start from the top and all members of Parliament should set the example of settling their bills.

2. Circular Debt.

One of the most damaging legacies of the three PML(N) and two PPP governments has been that they allowed circular debt to increase to astronomical levels. The primary reasons for this circular debt are the miss pricing of the power rates between suppliers and consumers (in addition to the subsidies) and the non collection of the revenue from key large consumers of power. The miss pricing adds about 12% of the total power bill to the circular debt and there is in general a 30% short collection from consumers. This huge gap is then financed from commercial banks against state guarantees thus adding to the national debt and weakens the financial system.

My suggestion would be to create a new power utility company, all miss priced utility supply contracts where private power providers were given 20-30% return on equity through favorable pricing should be renegotiated and/or phased out. No power company in the world has such guaranteed returns. The circular debt should then be restructured along new arrangements and a portion of the revenue collection improvement to be allocated to pay this debt off. As of now say the 30% leakage of revenue is totally plugged then 10% of this revenue is used to pay off the circular debt.

3. Boosting Exports.

A national strategy for boosting exports should be put into place. Economic zones, with tax holidays and incentives be created and seek to bring in companies from China, Japan and other areas who wish to create export based industries. This coupled with improvements in the work force, bringing law and order into the country would be a positive step. Value added exports should be seen as a priority rather than simply exporting minerals and agricultural produce.

4. Expenditure control and Enterprise Philosophy.

While Imran Khan seems to suggest a drive towards austerity, there has to be broad acceptance of this philosophy through the rank and file of the government. A more proactive foreign policy and a normalization of relations with India and Afghanistan might also augur in an era of reducing defense expenditures. While unions are preventing a major over all of large organizations like PIA and the Railway, there has to be either a dogged determination to make these companies efficient, or to simply allow new companies to be created which are lean in operating costs and more enterprise oriented.


While this is a broad brush approach to what is fundamentally a major and chronic problem for Pakistan, what needs to be understood is that for the PTI government to achieve this there has to be a clear focus between short term and urgent measures and long term systemic changes. Education and health care and job creation have to be considered fundamental to the longer changes needed but without addressing the urgent short term actions needed a long term strategy will be doomed to failure.

A key corner stone of the policy has to be accountability and for this there has to be stronger regulation and more powers to the State Bank of Pakistan. PTI is runs the risk that PPP had in the 1970s when they over promised the people and to meet those promises printing money was seen as a necessary evil resulting in inflation and with industries nationalized a weak economic performance. The electorate who so passionately rallied to the call of a New Pakistan also have to be patient that a New Pakistan cannot be created in a microwave in seconds. There are going to be serious challenges ahead of this government on the economic side and clarity of policy and purpose will be a useful tool to have.