Refuting the schizophrenia named Imran Khan

Imran Khan has been in Pakistani politics for good 16 years now. He, however, has never been scrutinized for his policies, his understanding of issues and his ideology. Probably the prime reason of this absence of scrutiny is the fact the he and his party never came with their position on key issues except for jargons and political rhetoric. Recently, however, for the first time, he was grilled on his views vis-à-vis War on Terror and Af-Pak situation in an interview in “Sirf Sach”. His views were also reproduced in an article on Afghan War by Jemima Goldsmith in Daily Independent. An in depth analysis of his understanding of the issue highlights serious flaws and contradictions in comprehension and reasoning.
The key reasoning behind Imran’s regional view stems for an assertion that Afghans can never be ruled by a foreign power and the region somehow is a graveyard of empires. This narrative was promoted by Brits after their failure to conquer Afghanistan, probably to hide embarrassment and was subsequently adopted by radical Islamists for the reasons obvious. For someone whose only self-stated credential in foreign policy is the fact that he deals with British aristocracy on equal footing, it is not surprising to buy this narrative as is. A review of history, however, suggests otherwise. Afghanistan has, for most part of its existence, been ruled by foreigners. Be it the Persian Empire, whose rule over Afghanistan has extended many periods throughout the known history of the region, or the Delhi Sultanate which has controlled much of Pashtun Afghanistan for almost 400 years, the Afghanistan has been part of the foreign sovereign. Had it not been for American assistance, Soviet invasion of Afghanistan could not have been overturned by Afghans themselves. For most part of last 20 years, the most dominating entity in Afghanistan has been ISI (dominated by Punjabis), which has controlled Afghan polity throughout 1990s. So, it is merely a myth that Afghans cannot be conquered.
Two key lessons from Afghan history that Mr. Khan conveniently ignores are however of more significance to the Afghan solution. First, Afghanistan has rarely been a united country throughout its history. And two, the foreign sovereigns had wielded their influence in Afghanistan through powerful proxies in a society that is still tribal in nature. These two assertions call for active international and regional engagement in Afghanistan to bring Afghans to a common national charter (constitution) which safeguards the interests of diverse communities who had rarely been unified under one state. This is the only hope for unified and stable Afghanistan and this requires weakened Taliban and stronger international and regional engagement. It is a fact worth mentioning that even the most sympathetic surveys put Taliban support in Afghanistan 26%-35% and thus Afghanistan should not be left for them to rule through the barrel of the gun.
In proposing a solution, one line of argument that Mr. Khan takes is that if Americans are talking to Taliban why cannot Govt. of Pakistan do the same. This reasoning again is flawed because Afghanistan is in the process of state building and so talks with offshoots make perfect sense. Secondly the purpose of the talks is not to surrender to Taliban but to bring them into the fold of the political process in Afghanistan. Pakistan, on the other hand is an established state with a near consensus constitution. More so, in Pakistan, Taliban demand is to ask the state surrender itself to them. Last I checked, in statecraft, states consider this option only when they are defeated.  Govt. of Pakistan has time and again offered to talk to Taliban factions who lay arms and are willing to find solutions within the ambit of constitutional framework.
Imran’s views on terrorism also need retrospection. He believes that terrorism is the result of American invasion of Afghanistan and will go away if Americans leave the region. What he conveniently ignores is that the Jihad machinery in this region has a clear global agenda and nation states do not fit in it. So whether 9/11 or not and whether Americans had come to the region or not, they would have challenged the State of Pakistan anyways. In fact, when Sufi Muhammad revolted in Malakand in 1994, there were no American troops present in the region. Even the terrorism has been rampant in Pakistan in 80s and 90s as well despite no US boots in Afghanistan. Pointing to American presence in the region as the root cause of terrorism is a delusion that obstacles dealing with the problem.
Needless to say that his assertion that terrorists are those whose relatives get killed by US attacks is factually incorrect. Not even once has it been proven that the suicide bomber had any relative killed in drone or any other strike. On the contrary, there has been extensive evidence that teenagers from South Punjab and FATA, with no direct link to those killed in strikes, had been either brainwashed or forced to wear suicide vests and blow themselves. The people whose relatives (themselves terrorist ring leaders) get killed in drone strikes do not wear the vests themselves. They brainwash others to do their dirty work.
Imran’s opposition to drones is another example of naivety of his policies. He completely ignores the fact that these are drones that have led to elimination of key terrorists threatening Pakistan and Afghanistan. More so, even the Army believes that drone strikes have helped them consolidate control over FATA. As for the reaction of FATA residents to drones is concerned, I have found highly favorable view of drone among most. Mr. Khan points that locals are outraged by this. We both could be wrong. However, if the indifference of IDPs in camps near his Peshawar Dharna is an indicator, FATA residents at least did not bother much about joining Anti-Drone demonstrations.
If his views and beliefs on WoT stand on flimsy foundation, his political beliefs seem inspired by strong personal biases. For instance, when he says that PPP and Pakistan cannot coexist, he assumes the moral high ground where he assumes the mantle of deciding what is right for the state. More so, this rhetoric of his is a reminisance of 90s Nawaz Sharif (when he too was under the influence of Gen. Hamid Gul and spirituals like Prof. Rafique Akhtar). Nawaz Sharif’s assertion then and Imran’s now suggests that even if people of Pakistan vote for PPP, because PPP does not fit into their ideological mold, it should be crushed and denied any opportunity to breath in Pakistan, despite any amount of public support for it. Mr. Khan fully knows that the radical ideology he propagates day in day out does not sell even with his core constituents. For this reason, allegedly, in private meetings he tells his DHA, Model Town supporters that we will use molvis to get into power and once in we will reform the system. He too  conveniently ignores that in the game he is playing, the hand on trigger ultimately calls the shots.
He also says that if next elections do not bring change (read people do not vote for him), there will be bloody revolution. Unfortunately, no matter whichever way you read it, it reads that if you, ordinary masses, do not elect me and approve of the the ideology of urban elite that I represent, we have the power to destroy it all. To me Mr. Khan’s banking on another Nizam-e-Mustafa is misplaced and is another reflection of his political delusions.