An Interview With Imran Khan
By Gul Jammas Hussain
23 April, 2009
Tehran Times
ISLAMABAD – Imran Khan’s Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (Movement for Justice) is the fastest growing political party in Pakistan.
Khan’s bold stance on George W. Bush’s war on terror, which he calls a war of terror, his struggle for the rule of law, justice, equality, and the eradication of corruption, and his insistence that Pakistan must finally change have endeared him to the Pakistani people.
He is currently on a whirlwind tour of Pakistan preparing for the next parliamentary election.
I caught up with him for an interview in Islamabad on March 26.
Imran Khan, who established Tehreek-e-Insaf in 1996, is usually a very calm and composed person, but talks eloquently and straightforwardly without any fear once he is on.
Following is the text of the interview:
Q: You have gone from being a sports icon to a philanthropist to the world of politics. What do you think you have achieved so far?
A: What we have achieved so far is that we have changed the discourse of Pakistani politics -- without actually coming into power. We’re the first party that talked about an independent justice system, abuse of power by the governments, corruption in the government, of accountability. All this was brought in by Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf. Until then no politician talked about these issues.
Secondly, we have been the leading voice in this war on terror, opposing it, saying from day one that this war on terror will increase radicalization, hatred against the Americans, more terrorism, more militancy. And from day one, we felt that the only way to resolve this was through political dialogue, through finding out the root causes of terrorism rather than this bombardment and killing, maiming thousands and thousands of people. And now basically everyone in Pakistan accepts that.
So, we’ve been the party that has basically talked about change, about rule of law, about eradicating corruption, and secondly, we’re the party that, as it stands today, has the greatest credibility in Pakistan.
So, in my opinion, if you ask what have we achieved… we have changed the discourse of Pakistani politics. We’re the party that has inspired the younger generation today. We have the fastest growing membership of any party in Pakistan today amongst the young. And, I think, in the next elections, this party will inshallah become a force in Pakistani politics in the parliament.
Q: Pakistan’s lawyers, civil society, and politicians like you have succeeded in getting Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry reinstated. This was a defining moment in Pakistan’s history. Does Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf view the reinstatement of the chief justice as partial fulfillment of its agenda?
A: Yes, it is. I have to say it’s only partial because, firstly, the whole fight for the reinstatement of the chief justice, this two-year struggle, was for, the reason why we wanted the chief justice restored was because he represented an independent justice system. But, unfortunately, they have managed to push an agenda of their own through, in which the present president, who has massive corruption cases and four murder cases against him, is not able to afford to have an independent chief justice. He’s filled the Supreme Court with his own hand-picked judges, which is unconstitutional, but somehow he is now going to try to not allow the chief justice to function independently. So, it’s partial because the Supreme Court will only be independent when the chief justice is not hampered, his independence is not hampered by political judges, who have been installed by the present regime, unconstitutionally.
Of course, this is an ongoing struggle because this is only the first step. Then the Supreme Court, the independence of the judiciary, has to be institutionalized. In other words, the accountability and selection of judges, that process, has to be conducted by a body that is not part of the government.
Q: How and why has Pakistan, once so tolerant a society, become a country increasingly linked to extremism and terrorism?
A: Pakistan is and has always been a very moderate tolerant society because Islam here was always of the Sufi version. And so basically people are very easygoing, you know, they are not hardliners. And it’s reflected by even the religious parties… Some of them are not extreme parties, some of them have very moderate views. But even they do not get many votes from the people. They are always marginal parties. But this current militancy is because of a direct reaction to the way the Americans have fought this war on terror, the way… in the name of the war on terror, it has become a war of terror. And the way they have indiscriminately killed people. The bombing in Afghanistan created a big reaction amongst the Pashtun population here. And then sending the Pakistan army into the tribal areas was the beginning of the radicalization and militancy within the tribal area. And what you are seeing is basically a big reaction going on.
Every society has extremists, but the majority is always moderate. Basically, this is the pattern most human societies have, the majority moderate and then on the margins you have liberals and extra-liberals and extremists and fanatics. But when you push a society towards a (crisis), when there’s a crisis in a society or when there’s a feeling in a society that there is extreme injustice, then unfortunately, the extremists get stronger and the middle ground shrinks.
Q: The lawyers’ movement and the general public in Pakistan rallied around the issue of the chief justice. Why is there no such effort or protest against the U.S. drone attacks? People around the world are wondering why Pakistan, a nuclear power, is tolerating this flagrant violation of its sovereignty.
A: Well, the main reason is that the Americans first had a puppet in the shape of General Musharraf… He became really a slave of the Americans, a total puppet, and allowed not just the drone attacks but the handing over of Pakistanis to the Americans, without due process of law, who were sent to Guantanamo.
Then sending Pakistan’s army against its own people, this was the biggest travesty. It’s unheard of, it’s unprecedented that your own army kills your own people and gets a salary, a monthly salary from a foreign country. This is not known in human history. So, this is what General Musharraf did, and unfortunately, Asif Zardari has become even more of a puppet, an American puppet, simply because he has had massive corruption cases against him. The amnesty in these corruption cases was given by a deal brokered by the Americans, between Musharraf and Benazir Bhutto and Zardari. So he is completely beholden to the Americans. All his money is lying in American banks. Most of his property is lying either in America or in England. So he has become the most pliable puppet in the hands of the Americans.
But there’s deep resentment among the people of Pakistan. And it’s only a matter of time until there will be a reaction against it, because a lot of people would have reacted had it not been for the elections last year. When the elections came people expected a democratic government not to allow this infringement of Pakistan’s sovereignty. But unfortunately, the elections did not bring democracy. We only have basically Musharraf Mark 2 in the shape of Zardari.
Q: If the people of Pakistan give you the opportunity to make executive decisions, how long will you take to address the most pressing issues, like law and order, education, unemployment, corruption, and, above all, security?
A: I think the moment you have a government that is perceived by the people to be representing their interests, representing the people of Pakistan, I think this militancy will die down very quickly because the Pakistan army has to be pulled back from the tribal areas, and through negotiation and dialogue with the tribes this militancy can be settled very quickly.
The internal security in Pakistan, the law and order, can also be settled if you have a government which follows the rule of law itself, which does not break the law and then expect other people to follow it. Like, for instance, the NRO, the National Reconciliation Ordinance, gives amnesty in thousands of murder cases and billions and billions of dollars to a special class of politicians, and then it expects other people to follow the law, so it cannot happen. A government must put itself under the rule of law, and very quickly you will have the governance system improved in Pakistan.
The other issue is education, which is a big crisis. This is where we will have to declare an education emergency because successive governments have completely cut off funds to the education system, and it has very poor management, very poor governance in education. So this is an emergency, and it will take a real struggle because the majority of our population is young. So it will be a real struggle.
The main challenge also will be revenue collection in Pakistan. And that also, I believe, is more possible with a government in which the ministers themselves and the leadership itself pay taxes. Where they lead by example, they pay taxes. No one should be allowed to contest elections in Pakistan who does not declare his income, who does not declare the amount of taxes he has paid and his source of income -- the assets, the source of income, and taxes. And if you lead by example and then utilize the people’s taxes for the people’s benefit, rather than the lavish lifestyle of the ruling elite, I think tax collection can be doubled in Pakistan very quickly.
Q: The Obama administration has pledged to counter extremism in Afghanistan but acknowledged that this is dependent on the way Pakistan plays its role. What position should Pakistan adopt vis-à-vis U.S. policy on Afghanistan?
A: Well, firstly this Obama administration was a great opportunity for Pakistan to have a proactive foreign policy with the Americans and actually convince them that the problem is not Pakistan, the problem is Afghanistan.
Obama… is the first… head of state (who) has talked about an exit strategy from Afghanistan, which is the only way, eventually, peace will return to this area. As long as NATO troops are there, there is not going to be (peace). This area will remain destabilized. And Pakistan will suffer most of all. But, in the case of Obama, at least he has talked about an exit strategy, but when he says that Afghanistan’s stability will depend on Pakistan’s stability, he has got it the wrong way around. Pakistan was stable. It was Afghanistan that was destabilized by George Bush’s senseless policy in Afghanistan that destabilized Pakistan. So Pakistan’s stability will depend on Afghanistan’s stability. And Afghanistan’s stability will depend on the Americans actually having an exit strategy, and through dialogue forming a government of consensus. That’s the only way. The moment NATO troops leave, this country will become stable very quickly.
