Imran Khan is not a new name in Pakistan. He has been a member of the Pakistan National Assembly since 2013 when his party won 35 seats to become the third largest party.
His entry in parliament and background in grassroots activism enabled him to become a leading opposition figure in the campaign against political corruption. It goes to his credit for transforming himself from a playboy cricketer to devout Sunni Muslim.
Thereupon, it became easy for him to build his electoral narrative on the plank of the creation of Islamic welfare State, anti-corruption and 'Naya Pakistan'. Resultantly, it captured the imagination of the people. To buttress his point, he presented an eleven point agenda for his Naya Pakistan vision which cannot be called earth shattering in any way.
afp
Consequently, his support to blasphemy laws and anti-women legislation draws its strength from the politico-religious constituency that he nurtured all these years. This agenda for change made an impact on people though ordained by the dysfunctional political culture in existence.?
His image,?however, is largely perceived as being pro-extremism. In addition, the fundamental assumption is that the aggressive policy of supporting terrorism in Kashmir and backing up secessionist groups in India is central to Pakistani politics.
With Pakistan, a Country embedded in the tenets of Muslim nationalism, which is mostly defined as anti-Indianism and anti-Americanism, his rise as Prime Minister under the shadow of a?politically powerful military, little is likely to change. The inclusion?of Kashmir in his acceptance speech while holding out an olive branch to India obviously did not go well in our Country.
reuters
Accordingly, his desire to unfreeze the conflict opened up the splits a fresh. There are a?number of basic elements and deep undercurrents that in combination shape the reality especially his off repeated centrality of Kashmir has only limited the room for manoeuvre on the India front.
Little governing space and an untested leader with no experience of governance is an additional handicap. Though the letter addressed to Pakistani PM in this regard by our Hon¡¯ble Prime Minister, is explicit about Indian readiness for a meaningful and constructive engagement in a violence-free atmosphere. India understands Pakistan¡¯s negotiating strategy to secure concessions and Indian compromises on Kashmir.
Indian policy on Kashmir in this regard is driven by Parliamentary resolution adopted unanimously by both the Houses, which states that Kashmir is an integral part of the country. It is the expression of the will of the Nation. Pakistan History in-turn bears out a deep, uninterrupted ideology of support to the anti-India constituency that emanates from its soil.
reuters
Adding a further layer to this is the ascendancy of aggressive Muslim majoritarianism in Pakistan. Providing a perspective to that end to peace between the two Countries is not only utopian but a tall order. Chances of receding the culture of conflict, therefore, appears bleak.
With the lost of Bangladesh in1971 epic battle that dismembered Pakistan, it became more aggressive and pursued a policy thereupon shaped and driven by hatred, revenge, and humiliation which was nourished in subsequent years.
This war created a military history probably first in the world when India held captive almost a lac of its soldiers as POW. This war became the biggest defining factor in Pakistan leading to reconfiguration and reshaping civil-military relations, with Army in a dominant position.
reuters
With his rise, General Zia-ul-Haq took this dominance a few notches higher up and institutionalised the role of Pak Army in almost all the conceivable areas of politics. This equation took a different direction after the introduction Article 62 and 63 in the Constitution, authorising Judiciary to disqualify politicians should they not abide by vague moral standards. Accordingly, its outcome was an amplified role for the Army in Foreign affairs, particularly towards India, Afganistan and US.
Thereafter, Anti-Indianism entered into the core of Pakistani military and terrorism directed against India especially Kashmir its state policy.
Historically, the role of Army has been central to the Pakistani politics and the country has seen direct Army rule for four times. Rooted in Zia¡¯s doctrine of bleeding India through thousand cuts, it has laid a firm political path for the politicians to follow.
reuters
When not in power, it has continued to pull the strings of political power their way. Against this background of an explosive foundation, Pakistan plays a central and dominant role in the processes unfolding in Kashmir in particular.
Several imperatives have spurred its relations with India predominantly its constant nibbling in Kashmir which has added a darker chapter to the Indo-Pak relations.
The political leadership in Pakistan has learnt this hard way that any initiative to improve relations with India with whom the Pakistani armed forces do not imagine any compromise and the politicians perceived as deviants and recalcitrants from military¡¯s proscribed unwritten script would be pushed out.
In actuality, that influences political events and developments in Pakistan without it formally being part of the political system.
It assumes significance to mention some excerpts of an Interview given by Mr Nawaz Sharief to Dawn that, ¡°Militant organisations are active. Call them non-state actors, should we allow them to cross the border and kill 150 people in Mumbai? Explain it to me. Why can¡¯t we complete the trial?¡±
reuters
Not only this but even more explosive part of the interview, which has been underplayed, ¡°You can¡¯t run a country if you have two or three parallel governments. This has to stop. There can only be one government: the constitutional one¡ We have isolated ourselves. Despite giving sacrifices, our narrative is not being accepted. Afghanistan¡¯s narrative is being accepted, but ours is not. We must look into it¡ These games have gone on for too long. Something has to change.¡±
His usage of adjectives like zameeni maqlook (people of the Country) and Khalai maqlook(aliens probably existence of a deep state) is the biggest revelation in recent times by none other than the person who was heading the country a few months back.
Viewed from it, the state of Pakistan is unlikely to tame its strategic assets nee fundamentalists and terrorists, whom it has nurtured. And now is attempting to mainstream them and their organisations. Under the new dispensation in all probability, these organisations will be free to raise funds in the name of politics ostensibly for subversive activities.
reuters
To put things in the right perspective such fanatic and religious organisations have been conditioned to be hyperactive in their agitation on Kashmir. Correspondingly, has helped Pakistan to gear up the passive public minds against India. Accordingly, it proved to be anti-politics because of powerful non-political and non democratic power centres.
It indeed was a vindication of Indian stand when a three-time Prime Minister admits the role of Pakistan in terror attacks against India. With this unpleasant reality on the ground, India considers Pakistan a negative factor.
As such, there is literally no content and substance in the relationship because of the consistently raised anti-India temperature. It introduces an element of greater unpredictability and volatility in Pakistan towards India.
reuters
The one point agenda, which is a determinant of its relations with India, begins and ends with Kashmir. To put things in the right perspective Indian Surgical strike was a big statement of intent to the impulsive megalomaniac generals who have been giving a lot of discomfort to India.
Indian policy has never been driven by pressures in this regard but by realpolitik which means that Pakistan has to give up the state policy of terror anytime soon. Viewed from this, Pakistani offer of talks is to hoodwink the world about alleged Indian persistent reluctance to discuss the outstanding issues than to pursue issues in actuality.