Home > Archives (2006 on) > 2018 > On Whose Side Is Imran?

Mainstream, VOL LVI No 33 New Delhi August 4, 2018

On Whose Side Is Imran?

Tuesday 7 August 2018, by Kuldip Nayar

The Army in Pakistan seems to have devised a way where a particular person is elected even without a valid cause. Imran Khan is a product of such a phenomenon. Long before the elections, his name was tossed around. One can now assume that probably nobody else fitted into the scheme of things which the Army wanted. Nawaz Sharif had been elected in the past but was found wanting in the eyes of the Army. Even the military regime of General Pervez Musharraf was not up to the mark.

Why then has the Army come into the picture and destroyed the process of elections? It seems to have realised that it should rule directly with a person who takes pride in being a stalking horse of the Army. The cricketer-turned-politician, Imran Khan, has been there in politics for a long time but never made the grade.

General Zia-ul Haq and General Musharraf were through and through the Army’s men. They ruled like martial law dictators and alienated the public. All the way the Army was visible and its chief was seen sitting in the Cabinet meetings apparently to guide the affairs according to its needs when Nawaz Sharif was the Prime Minister. The experiment which is now being made is to have such a civilian at the head who is the Army’s man in thinking and action. This, obviously, lessens the chance of the Army’s direct rule.

The democratic countries have said openly that Pakistan was under the Army rule. Will Imran Khan’s credentials be acceptable to the West? The next few months of Khan’s rule will show this. It would depend on Imran Khan whether he can please both rulers—the Army and the people.

As far as India is concerned, its role is that of a spectator. It can have surgical operations like the ones it had done. Anything more can start a regular war. Imran has said, during his victory speech soon after his party, Tehreek-e-Insaf, emerged as the single largest outfit, that he would have good relations with India. “If India takes one step, I would take two to further the relationship,” he said. Yet, Imran reiterated that Kashmir remained the core issue.

He is unmindful of the fact that the Kashmiris now want their own Islamic sovereign republic. In other words, the Kashmiris are not looking up to Pakistan for support. Even people like Yasin Malik and Shabbir Shah have become irrelevant. Not long ago when I was in Srinagar to talk to the students, I was astonished to find that they were no more pro-Pakistan. For them, both New Delhi and Islamabad were at par in forcing their own rule. How would Imran now change their thinking when, in his view, there were only two parties—India and Pakistan—which are privy to the issue?

For the Pakistan Prime Minister, the Kashmiri youth do not seem to be a party because instead of two now the three will have to sit across the table to solve the problem. The Indians would not talk to Pakistan, as Foreign Minister Sushma Swaraj had indicated, until the country stopped giving shelter to the militants. If and when Imran Khan picks up the thread, would he be able to give that kind of assurance?

He is on such a weak wicket that even if he wants to give such an assurance, it would not be taken seriously until the Army Chief openly supports his stand. At least, no such signs are visible at present. These are early days before Imran Khan settles down in his saddle. But there is no doubt that Khan will want peace in the region to prevail.

Indeed, by extending a hand of friendship to India, Imran has proved to be politically correct and has even managed to score diplomatic points. However, the real test for him would be how much freedom the Army would give him to build an equation with India. This has been the Army’s preserve so far. Delinking the Army would mean another overhaul in the state administration because at present its rule goes deep down up to the village level.

A veteran South Asia analyst has taken a dim view of the election results in Pakistan saying that the most dangerous country in the world has now got considerably more dangerous. According to the analyst, Imran Khan is an outspoken defender of the Army and is closely aligned with the Islamist movement patronised by ISI. This has ominous overtones. Understandably, the US State Department has offered a cautious welcome to the change of guards in Pakistan, a process that remains incomplete.

This may be because Imran has been a vociferous critic of America which, according to him, treated Pakistan like a “doormat”. The former CIA analyst and White House official, however, indicated that the Imran Khan-Army dalliance could be a short-lived one. The analyst feels that Khan has a reputation for independence and volatility and his political movement is almost a cult of personality. The Army may find this as the real stumbling block when it comes to dealing with Imran.

A secular India may find Imran Khan giving more help to militants in Kashmir. One, because he thinks that Kashmir should be a part of Pakistan; and, two, he has to prove to the Army commanders that he would be fulfilling their tasks. India will have to face a situation where there is no war and no peace either. In that atmosphere, Imran’s tilt towards Islam adds another dimension. It is too confusing a situation. Any tinkering can lead to disastrous results.

Imran Khan would have to do something more than a miracle to prove that he is with the people and when the chips are down he would be on their side. At present, in their minds, he is the Army’s man. This is an impression that he cannot easily efface.

The author is a veteran journalist renowned not only in this country but also in our neighbouring states of Pakistan and Bangladesh where his columns are widely read. His website is

Notice: The print edition of Mainstream Weekly is now discontinued & only an online edition is appearing. No subscriptions are being accepted