Truths and half-truths

Jumping on the bandwagon of Imran Khan is the latest fad in Pakistani politics. On his part, the erstwhile skipper is willing to admit to his “XI” anyone who matters. Until quite recently, a common criticism of Imran Khan was that his party, the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), was a one-man show and that it didn’t boast of a single political heavyweight other than the leader himself. In order to become a significant force, the argument went, a political party must have a critical mass, and since the PTI was well short on that account it remained a non-entity in national politics. Whether Mr Khan himself had been selective in choosing his team or frontline politicians just shunned him is open to debate. But the criticism held water. However, now the pendulum has swung to the other extreme. Notable political leaders are making a beeline for the PTI and the former speedster, to borrow idioms from his own dictionary, is claiming one prized scalp after another after his fiery spells in Lahore and Karachi. Thanks to him, erstwhile rivals from Multan as well as Kasur have sunk their differences and become friends, at least on the face of it. And it seems more surprises are in store. The PPP and the PML-N, watch out! One can hardly find fault with Imran Khan’s swelling the size and muscles of his party. In a democratic dispensation, if a political party is to capture power, it must win the electoral race; and in order to do so, it needs to field candidates who have a sizeable vote bank. The PTI fought electoral battles in 1997 and 2002 and on each occasion was routed. The reason: the party didn’t have winning horses. But now it has several, whose number is on the increase. The novelist E M Foster classifies characters in a work of fiction into flat and round. The former remain what they are, while the latter change in the course of the story. Mr Khan has also matured as the plot of the Pakistani political drama unfolded itself during the last few years. Kudos to him. Imran Khan is running the gauntlet of criticism of his adversaries for being the new political face of the establishment-a charge that he denies vehemently. The validity or otherwise of this allegation aside, the same charge is being levelled by those who themselves owe their rise to power and glory in the past to the backing and blessings of the establishment. If selling one’s soul to the power behind the throne in Pakistan’s political system is a sin, easily the majority of notable politicians, including some of the celebrated icons of democracy, are sinners. The PTI leader is also under fire for welcoming turncoats from other political parties to his fold. But, again, change of loyalties has been a common practice in Pakistani politics and parties not only keep their doors open to defectors but also encourage defections. Most of the men and women who have thrived on the political scene, past and present, were turncoats. Several persons who grace the present federal cabinet were important members of the Musharraf government. And, but for the turncoats, the PML-N government in Punjab would have fallen apart. That said, one may point out some contradictions in Imran Khan’s avowed programme. To start with, he talks about bringing about a revolution in Pakistan. Nice. But revolution is not mere regime change. It’s complete overthrow of the existing social and political order. Electoral politics has seldom, if ever, ushered in a revolution. Elections, at best, are a means of reforming the socio-political order; they are not meant to replace it. Worse, Imran Khan has joined hands with those who have the highest stakes in the preservation of the status quo. These people are opposed even to political reforms, to say nothing of revolution. The skipper’s claims of effecting a revolution with the help of such people is as ridiculous as MQM leader Altaf Hussain’s call on the generals sometime back to lead a revolution. Imran Khan wants to make Pakistan an Islamic welfare state. Again, a nice promise to make. But the devil lies in the details. The welfare state is essentially a Western concept born after the Second World War in response to the challenge posed by the growing threat of communism then. Assuming that the notion of an Islamic welfare state, like that of Islamic socialism, is not self-contradictory, some questions need to be answered. What type of Islamic state does the PTI leader want to construct? Would he follow in the footsteps of Gen Ziaul Haq and inject another heavy dose of religion into politics? In a multiethnic society like ours, religionisation of politics is a dangerous game to play, in that it enthrones one creed over the rest, which leads to the latter’s alienation. In case of Pakistan, which is already facing the menace of religious militancy on a horrendous scale, marriage of religion and politics will spell only disaster. As for the welfare state, it is on the eclipse, if it has not already passed away. The fundamental problem in creating and sustaining a welfare state is how to finance its expenses growing out of its multifarious role. At a time when governments across the globe are struggling to contain the burgeoning budget deficits, a promise of establishing a welfare state seems to be a very bold one-to say the least-even bolder in case of Pakistan with a persistently narrow fiscal space. Thus, though a welfare state is a goal worth pursuing, its creation will require both a quantum leap in public revenue and a drastic cut in non-productive public expenditure. If it comes into power, would the PTI be able to achieve that? Would the party, for example, cut back significantly on defence spending or introduce agriculture income tax, given that many of its frontline leaders come from the feudal class? Come on, skipper, you need to be more honest with the people. Imran Khan is a staunch critic of drone strikes, because they are a violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty and kill innocent people. Hardly anyone will question this. But what about the activities of foreign militants in Pakistan? Don’t their clandestine activities violate our sovereignty? By the same reasoning, what about the death of soldiers and civilians at the hands of the militants? Don’t these deserve to be condemned with as much force as the predatory raids? But the PTI leader seldom, if ever, speaks against the activities of alien militants and suicide attacks. All he does is to attribute these to Islamabad’s alliance with Washington. Bewailing at drone strikes and winking at suicide terrorism is at best speaking only half the truth.

NEW YEAR 2012

Hundreds of thousands of people crammed into New York's Times Square to bid farewell to the old year and watch Lady Gaga trigger the famous drop of a crystal ball marking the start of 2012. A raucous crowd that New York police said was expected to reach up to a million people enjoyed unusually warm weather, screaming and cheering in front of a top-drawer line-up of entertainers including Lady Gaga and Justin Beiber before midnight Saturday. The crowd spilled from the "Crossroads of the World" into adjacent avenues in the biggest US public celebration of New Year's, which climaxed with the slow slide of a huge crystal-encrusted ball. Gaga, dressed in a huge silver mask and matching dress, and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg pressed the switch to send the glittering ball on its descent. Confetti poured over Times Square and elaborate fireworks lit up the sky over Manhattan. Times Square has hosted the Big Apple's biggest party since 1904, with the ball drop starting in 1907. The fact that New Year's Day fell on a Sunday and relatively balmy temperatures for winter helped boost this year's turnout. Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said there'd be huge security for what he expected to be a record crowd. Backpacks and alcohol were banned and many revelers were forced to wait for hours behind penned-off areas. Thousands of police officers, including 1,550 newly minted graduates of the police academy, were deployed, along with bomb sniffing dogs, sharp-shooters and anti-terrorism units. "Our helicopters will be up in the air and checking the 200-block area around Times Square," Kelly told the CNN television network on Friday. "We have heavy weapons response teams that are in, you know, appropriate locations," Kelly said. "On New Year's Eve if you see something suspicious, there should be a police officer pretty much within arm's reach." In addition to pop diva Gaga and teen sensation Beiber, New York saw rock veteran Chuck Berry perform at a club, and opera great Placido Domingo, 70, sing at The Metropolitan Opera. The celebrations were also an excuse for some innovative spin-offs and marketing gimmicks, not least the "Bytox Hangover Prevention Remedy" promising to stop the new year's headache.

The Jewish question

Uri Avnery Right from its founding, the state of Israel became the Holocaust-state. But we are not a helpless ghetto anymore – we have powerful armed forces, we can indeed do unto others as others have done unto us. The old existential fears, mistrusts, suspicions, hatreds, prejudices, stereotypes, sense of victimhood, dreams of revenge, that were born in the Diaspora, have superimposed themselves on the state, creating a very dangerous mixture of power and victimhood, brutality and masochism, militarism and the conviction that the whole world is against us. Can such a state survive and flourish in the modern world? European nation-states have fought many wars. But they never forgot that after a war comes peace, that today’s enemy may well be tomorrow’s ally. Nation-states remain, but they are becoming more and more interdependent, joining regional structures, giving up huge chunks of their sovereignty. Israel cannot do that. The vast majority of Israelis believe that there will never be peace. They are convinced that “the Arabs” are out to throw us into the sea. They see mighty Israel as the victim surrounded by enemies, while our “friends” are liable to stick a knife in our back any time. They see the eternal occupation of Palestinian territories and the setting up of belligerent settlements all over Palestine as a result of Arab intransigence, not as its cause. They insist that Israel be recognised as the “nation-state of the Jewish people”. This means that Israel does not belong to the Israelis (the very concept of an “Israeli nation” is officially rejected by our government) but to the worldwide ethnic-religious Jewish Diaspora, who have never been asked whether they agree to Israel representing them. It is the very negation of a real nation-state that can live in peace with its neighbours and join a regional union. I have never laboured under any illusions about the magnitude of the task my friends and I set ourselves decades ago. It is not to change this or that aspect of Israel, but to change the fundamental nature of the state itself. It is far more than a matter of politics, to substitute one party for another. It is even far more than making peace with the Palestinian people, ending the occupation, evacuating the settlements. It is to effect a basic change of [or “in”] the national consciousness, the consciousness of every Israeli man and woman. It has been said that “you can get the Jews out of the ghetto, but you can’t get the ghetto out of the Jews.” But that is exactly what needs to be done. Can it be done? I think so. I certainly hope so. Perhaps we need a shock – either a positive or a negative one. The appearance here of Anwar Sadat in 1977 can serve as an example of a positive shock: by coming to Jerusalem while a state of war was still in effect, he produced an overnight change in the consciousness of Israelis. So did the Rabin-Arafat handshake on the White House lawn in 1993. So did, in a negative way, the Yom Kippur war, exactly 38 years ago, which shook Israel to the core. But these were minor, brief shocks compared to what is needed. A Second Herzl could, perhaps, effect such a miracle, against the odds. In the words of the first Herzl: “If you want it, it is not a fairy tale.”