Imran Khan spoke of his idealistic views about separation of the judicial branch from the executive and legislative branch. His idealistic policies are as conventional as they come. Maisha Rashid, a student at Columbia University reports on Khan's recent visit to the Institution.
An Oxford educated, World-up wining cricketer, heart-throb of millions of women from Europe to the Pacific Islands, a loyal son, a humanitarian, a friend greatly admired by Princess Diana, a politician and a protective father – this is Imran Khan, the most famous Pakistani in the world.
He came to Columbia University on the 25th of January, 2008 for a rushed event organized by his supporters to talk about Pakistan’s current political situation, his boycott the February 15th elections, his disapproval of Musharraf’s government, women’s rights and his friend and political opponent Benazir Bhutto’s assassination. Even though there was a huge turn-out from around New York, most Columbia University students complained about being left out by the organizers who did not publicize the event on campus.
Khan spoke of his idealistic views about separation of the judicial branch from the executive and legislative branch. His idealistic policies are very much “by-the-book,” as Mahwash Jaffery, grand-daughter of the Vice President of the Jamaat-i-Islami party and a guest at the event said. The question is how feasible are they when he has no seat in Parliament, in a country so disturbed by the rebellious armed militants of northern Pakistan? He advises that U.S. intervention in the tribal area would be the most ill-informed decision the U.S. may take. He said, when President Bush considers taking actions against the tribes, “he doesn’t know what he’s talking about…[even though the] tribes fight each other in peace, they are all together against a foreigner.” Furthermore, he made aware that the armed tribe population may be close to a million.
While criticizing Musharraf’s government for its abuse of the Pakistan’s Supreme Court Justice, lawyers, and others, Khan said Musharraf’s assistance in the “War on Terror has become War of Terror” that has troubled the life of innocent people “who have nothing to do with terror”. Khan also mentioned his offer of becoming Prime Minister with Musharraf, an offer he rejected when he realized he could not “fool self that change” could happen in a government under Musharraf and his officials. Khan has often said in the past that he realized too late into his alliance with Musharraf that the current President of Pakistan is not what he claimed to be for politically. Khan’s decision to boycott the election, he says, is therefore “absolutely…correct” because he does not believe a fair election will take place.
In response to a question posed by a member of the audience about his work for women’s rights, Imran Khan said that due to talk of government funding “100% of girls’ schools” in his constituency we closed down, as well as a majority of boys’ schools. He said that a “reform of the education system” overall was necessary for students who went to English-medium, Urdu-medium and the madrassas. He said that three things must happen to improve the status of the rural woman: 1) educational reform, 2) solution to overall issue of women’s rights and 3) women should be given inheritance rights. Khan said he came into politics because he wanted to make positive changes in society, his “object is to have reform, not power.” He also mentioned that he was once advised by President Musharraf to be pragmatic. Mr. Khan replied that if he was pragmatic he would not come to politics but rather spend a life of luxury by making money doing cricket commentaries.
At the end Khan spoke a little on Benazir Bhutto. He spoke with reverence about her father, Zulfikar A. Bhutto, the most popular leader in Pakistan and about Benazir Bhutto as his friend while they were at Oxford. Our media hailed her as the woman who will bring democracy to Pakistan once she returns to Pakistan from U.A.E. Her unfortunate death was labeled by some in our Western media as “the death of democracy in Pakistan,” but we forgot to ask why she was in U.A.E. if she was the Democracy of Pakistan. Upon posing this question to Imran Khan about this, I received the reply that he too thought calling it the “death of democracy” might be taking it too far.
He joked about Bhutto’s husband, Zardari. Khan said Zardari went from the Prime Minister’s house straight to jail during his wife’s first prime ministry, and then went straight from jail to the Prime Minister’s house when she was reinstalled as Prime Minister. Bhutto was in self-imposed exile to U.A.E. because of numerous corruption charges against her and her husband during the period of her two-time turbulent prime ministry. He husband, better known as the “10% Man” is Pakistan has earned his reputation for taking 10% from all governmental and business transactions he handled while his wife was the prime minister. The New York Times reported that Zardari and his wife as accused of embezzling up to $1.5 billion from the Pakistani treasury.
One would rather see an idealist with great ideas like Imran Khan and his party Tariq-e-Insaf in Parliament over a corrupt Prime Ministry run by a woman who professed to be just and democratic while looting the Pakistani treasury. Her death, though unfortunate, is not the “death of democracy.” We only think so in the West because we only hear what she said and we are unaware of the actual situation. Her death surely should not leave an inexperienced 19-year-old son as the heir of her democratic people’s party. Imran Khan’s years of experience and political science, philosophy and economics (PPE) degree from Oxford University makes him a man who is well-versed in political ideals. It makes him a more legitimate future leader for Pakistan than Bilawal Zardari (Bhutto’s son who uses her last name to be part of the Bhutto dynasty).
Maisha Rashid is a sophomore at Barnard College, Columbia University in the City of New York.
|
Show/hide comments
Show/hide comment form
