Right now, Imran Khan is Pakistan’s moral sovereign. This status is more powerful and influential than any other position or institution and not held by any political leader in the country’s 75-year history. Here is how I think it has happened and what it means for PK’s future:
The Pakistani political system’s default setting is One Unit-ism sustained through rule by fear supervised by the military as an overdeveloped institution.
Whenever anyone has come close to dismantling this structure (like Mujib) or establishing parallel modes of populist authoritarianism (like Bhutto), the military has moved in to 'fix' the problem. They do it reagedless of the consequences of their actions on PK's federal unity.
There is no political force that can effectively keep Imran Khan in check. It is then only through violence and further derailment of democracy that the military thinks it can take its power back. PDM’s connivance in this enterprise is criminal as they effectively act as puppets.
Decimated by the military, judges, and media, PDM parties are in no position to resist. The situation will remain so for the foreseeable future, and PDM’s unconstitutional actions will only worsen things. They are enabling indirect military rule.
We would not have been in this mess if the Zardari-Sharif interregnum from 2008-2018 had continued as it allowed representative democratic polity to take root in the country gradually. The Imran Khan project was meant to take back the space the military had to cede after 2007.
The military’s calculus was that Khan’s tainted past provided enough ammunition against him to use appropriately to embarrass and blackmail him. However, they underestimated his populist charisma &ability to touch upon religious sensibilities of masses through dramatic gestures.
After the military had effectively neutralized political forces in the country, it was only a matter of time before Khan planned a counter-coup and took ownership of the Pakistani nationaliam project (Urdu, Muslim, Islam, Empire) that the military had been nurturing since the 50s
Imran Khan is not doing it for democracy either. He sees the opportunity for a one-party system and will go for it. He plays upon a paranoid nationalist sense of besiegement to keep the temperature simmering, invoking religious rhetoric to project his struggle as supra political.
Ultimately, it is the logical conclusion of Pakistan’s ideational basis and political structure as constructed by the Pakistani military. What is incredibly dangerous for the future of this country, and should worry us as Pakistani citizens, is the end of democratic politics.
We need to fill the ideological void left by discredited political parties & counter the threat of one-party rule. HKP, PTM, AWP & like-minded groups and individuals must unite for a radical democratic alternative to prevent civil war or emergence of a new Reich.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Ilyas Chattha and I have co-authored a research paper about a largely unknown revolutionary group: The Society of Red Assassins. Their message: "If you can stab one bourgeois a day or set fire to his home or other property you have done a lot. Begin doing from to-day."
Between July and November 1936, this little-known group carried out an extended campaign of incendiarism in the affluent areas of colonial Lahore, burning cars and property and leaving messages protesting unemployment and poverty in the city.
In total, twenty-one incidents of car burning incidents, five cases of setting fire to bungalows, and three scorching warehouses were reported to the Lahore police. These incidents took place in the localities of Civil Lines, Nisbet Road, Gowalmandi, Muzang, Anarkali, and Mall.
Some thoughts on the term Riyasat-i-Madina (the State of Madina), its historical genesis in the twentieth century Muslim political thought, and how Imran Khan has brought it to the center of political discourse in contemporary Pakistan.
Imran frequently used this term after he became Pakistan's PM to describe his vision for Pakistan as an Islamic welfare state. The term refers to an idealized form of ethical polity and welfare state that Prophet Muhammad is supposed to have established in the 7th century.
The term itself is anachronistic, especially how Imran Khan explains it. For example, in one of his speeches, Khan referred to 'merit-based appointments' and 'promotions' in the State of Medina!
My two cents on Islamic content in Urdu textbooks:
One must question the inclusion of material on Islamic faith/history in textbooks not because it is 'religious content' but because it has been added as part of an agenda for ideological indoctrination, at least since the 1970s.
No Urdu textbook can be complete without Mir Anis and his Marsiyas. But this is for the literary merit of Marsiya and its rootedness in the broader cultural milieu and not because it is about 'Islamic' faith/history. There is nothing inherently Islamic about Urdu.
Naat is as much part of Urdu literature as Iqbal's ode to Guru Nanak or his translation of Gayatri Mantar. Why not choose from Nazir Akbarabadi's poems on Dussehra, Hasrat Mohani's bhajans on Krishna, or songs praising the deity written by Tilok Chand Mehrum.
The School of Humanities and Social Sciences,LUMS, in collaboration with the National Institute of Pakistan Studies (NIPS),Quaid-i-Azam University, is organizing an online conference to commemorate the fiftieth anniversary of the Bangladesh War of Liberation. Here's the schedule:
Tuesday 23 March, 17:00-19:00 (Lahore time)
Keynote address by Professor Bina D' Costa
Discussant: Profesor Kamran Asdar Ali
The project takes us back to the time when the Hindus of Lahore were a vibrant part of city's social, religious, and political landscape. The city was central to various intra-Hindu polemics, religious reform movements, and nationalist politics.
They set up rival religious organizations, colleges, and discussion forums. We introduce you to figures like Agnihotri of Dev Samaj, Ruchi Ram Sahni - a devout Brahmo and professor of science at Government College, and Lala Lajpat Rai- an ardent Arya Samaji and Indian nationalist
India is doing what a nation state does- erasure of difference, enforcing majoritarian ethos,asserting authority in the name of establishing sovereign control over territory. For what? a singular idea of nationhood,a homogenized political authority?
and as part of larger clear communal agenda in the name of undoing 'injustices' of both recent and distant past. What Nehruvian democracy conceded as symbolic gesture of accommodation is replaced by oppressive social reality of lynching/RSS dictated logic of national integration
Indian middle classes, as in any other fascist project, are part of the problem. They blamed the victim in case of cow vigilantism, hailed criminalizing of triple talaq as an act of emancipation (its complicated),and now cheering abolition of article 370.