Showing posts with label Pakistan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pakistan. Show all posts

Thursday, June 06, 2013

The Curious Case of Imran Khan

Years ago when Imran Khan decided to join the political fray in Pakistan, he acted and sounded like a novice. More like a starry eyed teenager eager to please everyone than a seasoned cynical politico who knows the nuances of the game. Almost two decades later now, he has barely changed. But the political contours of Pakistan have. And that is why, just days before the historic general elections in Pakistan, Imran Khan has turned relevant, and uncomfortably so.

While the jury is still out whether Imran Khan and his PTI will manage to win the election or at least do well, what is certain that he will not remain at the sidelines as he was in the previous polls. In a nation where frenzies are whipped as easily as it can be, Imran Khan indeed expanded his base after years of dedication. The so called Imran Khan Tsunami that people are talking these days started with barely registered ripples in Pakistan’s otherwise volatile political water.

So, what has made Imran Khan so relevant? The answer is, changing times and demography. Asif Ali Zardari’s PPP indeed became part of the history by becoming the only elected government in Pakistan to complete its term. However, apart from that, it has pretty little to show or talk about. Its five years tenure has been marred by an economic freefall, spate of bombings and suicide attacks, energy crisis and more. Meanwhile, a whole new lot of youngsters have blotted the electoral rolls. This new, urbane and upwardly mobile, group has decidedly different aspiration from its preceding generations. But like most of the other places in the world, this generation is also dangerously apolitical, and proud about it. For such a generation, Imran Khan came as an obvious choice.

A man with the supposed magic-wand. A man who dwells on the surface of a problem and refuse to probe deeper. A man who gives simple (or rather simpleton) solutions to complex problems. In short, suitably suited for this generation.

For example, while he is a vociferous opponent of Drone attacks in Pakistan, he is clueless about what alternative options can Pakistan choose to replace this. Or, while he is a great advocate of dialogue with Taliban, he fails to mention how previous attempts to engage them in dialogue have only given them time to regroup and strengthen their position. Every uneasy answer is buried. No surprise that he caught the fancy of this generation.

But that is not to say that Imran Khan is merely a construct of circumstances. To insinuate that would be callous. If Imran Khan has made himself relevant in the ethnicity ridden South Asian politics, it says a lot about the man’s character.

“As such, Khan is a departure from leaders who hail from political dynasties, such as the Bhuttos or the Sharifs, and boast immense rural landholdings. Since the PTI boycotted the 2008 general elections and has no representation in parliament, the party's record is also clean. Khan is thus better positioned than the PML-N to denounce the corrupt practices of "Mr. Ten Percent," as Pakistan's President and co-chairman of the ruling Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) Asif Ali Zardari is widely known,” says noted Pakistani political commentator, Huma Yusuf.

Your correspondent had a chance to see his impact in Karachi, a city that epitomises ethnic fissures in Pakistan. In a city where voters have traditionally voted either for MQM, ANP or PPP depending on whether they are ethnic Urdu speakers, Pashtuns or Sindhi, and where voting away from the ethnic line is considered even worse than betrayal, Imran Khan has attracted votes across ethnicity. Although he is still expected to bag more of Pashtun votes than those of Mohajirs, it is no surprise that he has made a mentionable dent in both ANP as well as MQM’s vote.

It is because the issues he raises are of national and international importance and affect average Pakistanis in more ways than one. Take for example his opposition to America’s involvement in Pakistan in particular and the region in general.

“Anti-American rhetoric is common among Islamist hard-liners and religious party leaders, but Khan’s urbane appeal as a former cricketer who won international acclaim means he can reach a wider, less religious audience and position himself as the acceptable face of anti-Americanism,” says Badar Alam, editor of Pakistan’s Herald Magazine. “When mullahs talk, people don't stop to listen. "But when a Western educated clean-shaven man does the same, it does suit them.”

Also, compared to both Zardari and Nawaz Sharif, Imran Khan can actually brag his selflessness. For example when Parvez Musharraf asked him to become the Prime Minister of Pakistan, he promptly refused. It was a rare gesture in a region where seasoned statesmen have been known to become Prime Minister for as less as 13 days even when it was clear to them that they will not be able to gather the requisite numbers to survive.


Source : IIPM Editorial, 2013.
An Initiative of IIPM, Malay Chaudhuri
For More IIPM Info, Visit below mentioned IIPM articles
2012 : DNA National B-School Survey 2012
Ranked 1st in International Exposure (ahead of all the IIMs)
Ranked 6th Overall

Zee Business Best B-School Survey 2012
Prof. Arindam Chaudhuri’s Session at IMA Indore
IIPM IN FINANCIAL TIMES, UK. FEATURE OF THE WEEK
IIPM strong hold on Placement : 10000 Students Placed in last 5 year
BBA Management Education

Tuesday, January 22, 2013

The clear partisan nature of Pakistan today

Obama cannot ignore the clear partisan nature of Pakistan today; but will he act?

These notorious figures were believed to be enjoying the patronage of Pakistan intelligence agencies in the past and are allegedly involved in terrorist activities in India and in Pakistan. The reaction of the US government on these arrests seems to be positive. Former US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice reportedly said that the Pakistani establishment has had historic ties with LeT although now it’s committed to fighting them. She accused that the group was not only involved in the Mumbai carnage but also moved in “the same circles” as Al Qaeda. But Condoleezza is the past; Obama is the present. And he has been mysteriously quiet on critical issues in Pakistan; and even has gone on to give a cryptic statement (post the Mumbai attacks), that if his country experiences such an attack, he would support an open attack on the perpetrating country.

Is that philosophy of his supposed to be promulgated by India now that Obama has come to power (given the fact that Bush has strong-armed India into muting their protests to diplomatic circles only)? Obama’s camp fails to clarify the same. “Pakistan is a different place now with a civilian government and an army leadership that is working in concert to try to bring an end to extremism within Pakistan,” Rice has been quoted as saying. But it must be kept in mind by Obama that what we are witnessing today in this part of the world is the logical outcome of decades of brainwashing of Pakistani youth through formal and informal education and it’s a lofty task to eradicate irrationalism from the minds of a considerable chunk of the people. According to The Subtle Subversion: The State of Curricula and Textbooks in Pakistan, a research study published in 2004 by Sustainable Development Policy Institute, an independent think tank based in Islamabad, “[Many say that] the classical religious education mixed with militancy is supposed to be the deadly mix giving rise to the narrow vision that breeds hate and irrationality resulting in the international jihad. This however is not entirely true. Madrassas are not the only institutions breeding hate, intolerance, a distorted world view, et al. The educational material in the government run schools do much more than madrassas. The textbooks tell lies, create hate, incite jihad and shahadat, and much more.” It further comments: “Over the years, it became apparent that it was in the interest of both the military and the theocrat to promote militarism in the society. This now gets reflected in the educational material.”


Source : IIPM Editorial, 2012.
An Initiative of IIPMMalay Chaudhuri
and Arindam Chaudhuri (Renowned Management Guru and Economist).

For More IIPM Info, Visit below mentioned IIPM articles.

Monday, December 10, 2012

MILITARY: AFGHANISTAN

Iran may be involved if the US opted for drone attacks in Balochistan and this is bad news for Pakistan

Balochistan, the largest province of Pakistan with sparse population, is already in a state of war. Discontent is rife there against the federation and hundreds of Baloch activists have gone 'missing'. “The drone attacks in Balochistan will further strengthen Taliban and they will gain sympathy. It will further intensify hatred against the US,” says Tahir Bizenjo, ex-Senator and General Secretary, National Party. “Balochistan Assembly has already passed a resolution against drone attacks,” he further adds. Dr. Syed Jaffar Ahmed, leading Political Analyst and Director, Pakistan Study Centre, University of Karachi asserts, “I think the drone attack in Balochistan will have far reaching consequences, which one may not comprehend at the moment. In the first place I would say this adventure would involve Iran, since the Iranian Balochistan will also feel the heat. Within Pakistan too, this will further heighten the resistance against Americans and will escalate extremism. Moreover, the control of Pakistani federal centre over Balochistan will further weaken.”

During Bush administration, the Americans provided military aide worth $5.6 billion to Pakistan and now it is expected to increase. One is not sure to what extent this would help to eradicate Al-Qaeda and Taliban, but one thing is certain that the democratic movement of Pakistan would be at great risk.


Source : IIPM Editorial, 2012.
An Initiative of IIPMMalay Chaudhuri

For More IIPM Info, Visit below mentioned IIPM articles.

Monday, August 20, 2012

Why India must humiliate Pakistan!

Pakistan openly continues sponsoring terrorist activities against India. Why should India even talk with Pakistan then?

“The P word!” TIME magazine’s Bobby Ghosh quotes a top counterterrorism official, “When I hear of a terrorist plot, I can count back from 10, and before I get to zero, someone will bring up the P word.” P stands for Pakistan, a country, as Fareed Zakaria confirms, is “terrorism’s supermarket” – 70% of terror plots identified by the UK government have been “traced back” to Pakistan. Yet, US advises India to resume its diplomatic talks with Pakistan. How more churlish could that be?

The acrimony between India and Pakistan is decades old, and it doesn’t require a rote numbskull Jane’s defence analyst (or the sophomore upstart Ms. Clinton, if you please) to understand that Pakistan is no Castro loving Trotskyite bent on ensuring India’s social betterment. Pakistan is what Pakistan has been for the past many years – an incendiary anarchist nation, which unfortunately has a like-minded arsonist government establishment that promotes, funds and implements well-planned terrorist and extremist activities against India, and of late, the West too. While India for ages had pleaded with the international community to recognise Pakistan as a terrorist state, the West had daftly rejected the proposition time and again – and more because they were not the addressed recipients of Pakistan’s loving infatuation communiqués. They are now.

Given that, it is extremely wrong that India can be forced by the US to resume talks with Pakistan. In fact, this should have been the moment when India – and the international community – should have openly humiliated the Pakistani establishment, bringing them to task in the same manner as has been done in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan.

India has received a spate of betrayals and hollow promises from Pakistan. After nearly every other attack within India by Pakistan-backed terror groups, the Pakistani government has come up with highly promising compendiums of support, with a specific objective of buying time for the next attack. Some nuggets:

February 1999: Pakistan signs the ‘historic’ Lahore Declaration, promising to work towards a peaceful and bilateral solution to the Kashmir issue.
May 1999: Pakistan army clandestinely attacks and takes over Kargil. India retaliates and takes back lost territory.
July 2001: Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf (considered the Kargil mastermind) comes to India for the Agra Summit, peddled by Pakistan as peace talks.
December 2001: The Indian Parliament is attacked by a well trained set of terrorists, funded by agencies within Pakistan. Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf promises to crack down on terrorist groups. It is found that Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence agency (ISI) was the one funding the attack.
January 2002: Musharraf promises again that “no organisation will be allowed to indulge in terrorism in the name of Kashmir.” This is immediately followed by several terror attacks, topped in May 2002 by a terrorist attack on an army camp in Kashmir, which kills at least 30 people.