Some Thoughts on Imran Khan's Dharna

I have been greatly amused by some of the speculation around the reasons for our blog being untended for the past couple of weeks. Unfortunately none of the speculation centred on us being part of OBL's support staff who could not update the blog because we were currently on the run. That would have really made my day. Sadly, the truth is not only out there, it is decidedly prosaic. Anyhow...

A view of the PTI dharna in Karachi (Photo: Nefer Sehgal / Express Tribune)

Today marked the first day of Imran Khan's grand show of farce force in Karachi. He had vowed a two-day dharna (sit-in) to block NATO supply routes from the Karachi port in protest against continuing American drone strikes in the tribal areas and, by God, he kept his word. Or at least that's what his party faithful will have you believe. Here's what I have been thinking after making a quick round of his dharna site:

1. This must be the first dharna in the world where chairs were provided for the angry revolutionaries. Under shamianas, erected no doubt to protect the angry revolutionaries from the scorching sun. You know, so that the Pakistan Tehrik-e-Imran Insaf (PTI) supporters 'garmi mein kharaab na ho jaayein.'

2. This also must be the first populist gathering where the awaam were divided into three sections, ostensibly in order of their importance. Or as a wag put it, into VIPs, IPs, and Ps.

3. It's rather convenient that the dharna is taking place over the weekend, in order to cause the least amount of inconvenience to not only the PTI's weekend warriors but also to the actual businesses operating from the port, most of which shut down on Sunday anyway. The transporters who actually run the supply trailers that carry the NATO containers announced their support for Immy bhai's mission by proclaiming a two-day suspension of their work over... you guessed it, the weekend.

4. It's also rather convenient that the organizers were able to negotiate with the city administration to stage their sit-in on a side road so as to not actually block any of the main thoroughfares or the Native Jetty bridge that actually are used to transport the goods.

5. In his delayed speech to the thronging seated crowds (estimates vary between a couple of thousand to around 7,000, including the Sunni Tehreek workers who had joined in, once the sun had set on Saturday), Immy bhai pleaded with the gathered faithful to not forget to "return again" on Sunday. Which of course adds another layer of uniqueness to this 'sit-in': the protestors can go home, sleep in their comfy beds (preferably with their ACs on), have a nice leisurely brunch and come back to resume their 'blockage.'

6. In his speech, Immy bhai - who was constantly being fed lines in his ear, in plain sight, by the PTI Secretary General Arif Alvi - once again castigated the President and Prime Minister for following a hypocritical policy on the American drone strikes. He called their private support for drone strikes - as detailed in WikiLeaks revelations from last year - while publicly condemning them, as evidence of their "match-fixing" (oh! those cricket metaphors never stop do they?) and "noora kushti" in connivance with the Americans. Fair enough. I don't know about anyone else but I think he could have said a word or two about some recent WikiLeaks revelations too. We know that he's read them since he was kind of forced to acknowledge them in a press conference a day ago. Oh, but wait, that would be just so inconvenient now, wouldn't it? Especially when you want to remain on the 'right side' in more ways than one.

7. I don't want to get into the question of who exactly the casualties of the drone strikes are but suffice it to say there is plenty of contradictory information / opinion on this point. Immy bhai may also want to back up his claims of "overwhelming" civilian casualties with some real facts, especially since his claims contradict what even Pakistan army generals believe. Of course it is easy to whip up emotionalism on this issue - and Heaven knows that's about the only thing that has happened so far - but if you're out to run a campaign based on claims of civilian casualties and not legality, one would hope you have the hard data to back it up.

As a final thought, you might want to read this recent piece by Herald editor Badar Alam on Immy bhai's politics. It's probably the best piece you will read about the man and what ails him.

Afghanistan: Back To The Future?

One of the most thoughtful pieces about the recently held London Conference on Afghanistan has come from BBC Urdu's Wusatullah Khan, published on January 31.

Here is a translation of the piece, done by yours truly. Worth reading.

Create A New Problem!

Wusatullah Khan

BBCUrdu.com Islamabad

 

For the last few days, I have been remembering slain Afghan President Najeebullah intensely.

 

In 1989, when the last Soviet troops had crossed the River Amo, to save Afghanistan from further destruction, Najeebullah’s national reconciliation plan was on the table. Under it, the Mujahideen groups had been appealed to think only as Afghans, now that the Red Army that they had been fighting against was gone. Najeebullah’s government said ‘We will not take up arms, you too should lay down your guns. Let us call a Loya Jirga [Grand Meeting], sit across from each other and instead of indulging in a destructive blame game, let us make a government that represents all segments of Afghans. This government can then make a constitution and conduct elections as well.’

 

But Najeebullah’s plan was scornfully rejected by the United States, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the Mujahideen groups. Najeebullah was taunted, saying ‘you yourself are a remainder of the Soviet occupation, how can there be any reconciliation with you?’ The result was that the destruction that had occurred in Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation, much worse was visited upon the country after it, and has continued since.

 

The reconciliation strategy that 60 countries have endorsed as practical at the London Conference is almost a photocopy of Najeebullah’s national reconciliation plan. If there is any difference between the two, it is that 20 years ago the same plan was considered impractical because it was put forward by a Soviet puppet Afghan president. Now the same plan is considered kosher because the US and NATO are behind it. And because Hamid Karzai is touted as an elected leader rather than a Western puppet.

 

Najeebullah was accused of many things. But he was never accused of financial corruption, of encouraging warlordism or of overseeing drug trafficking. Hamid Karzai’s reputation is entirely different and these allegations against him have come – and continue to come – not from his enemies but, in fact, from circles within the US, NATO and the United Nations. According to Transparency International, Afghanistan is the second-most corrupt country in the world. And the level of misgiving is such that even the Afghan parliament itself has twice rejected most of the nominees put forward for the cabinet.

 

In such a scenario, to expect the Hamid Karzai administration to honestly oversee disbursement of the promised US$500 million fund set up to bring the Taliban into the mainstream of Afghan social life, is like putting a cat in charge of protecting milk.

 

Whatever else the London plan may have accomplished, it is certainly reinforcing the perception that within a year or year-and-a-half, Afghanistan will once again be left at its own mercy. But when the US and NATO take their leave, their place will once again be taken by militants backed by Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia and India.

 

They say one way of addressing a complicated and complex problem is to create a bigger problem. It looks like this is exactly what is in store for Afghanistan.