Imran’s narrative-building an exercise in futility

Imran failed to keep his election promise of building ‘Naya Pakistan’ and disappointed the military and the populace with his inability to handle the economic crisis. Pakistan went on a begging spree in the last three years. It would be interesting to see how Imran’s narratives would evolve in the coming months. His anti-US rhetoric is not essentially in the interest of the nation and won’t be acceptable to the military.

In a spot: With allies deserting him, Imran Khan is hard-pressed to find support. AP

Shalini Chawla

Distinguished Fellow, Centre for Air Power Studies

On April 3, the Deputy Speaker of Pakistan’s National Assembly, Qasim Khan Suri, termed the no-confidence motion against Prime Minister Imran Khan as “unconstitutional” and dismissed it, saving Imran from a highly probable political defeat. Following this, President Arif Alvi dissolved the National Assembly on the advice of the Prime Minister who had lost the support of his major allies. The Opposition has challenged the move in the Supreme Court. The developments involve multiple complexities and significant confusion has been generated regarding the legalities of the pro-Imran process which has been followed. Pakistan is likely to have fresh elections later this year, which might give Imran time to revive/rebuild his relationships with the allies and perhaps the military establishment.

Imran failed to keep his election promise of building ‘Naya Pakistan’ and disappointed the military and the populace with his inability to handle the economic crisis and control inflation. Pakistan went on a begging spree in the last three years, seeking financial assistance from all possible channels. Funding from the International Monetary Fund came with strict conditionalities which led to a rise in taxation and energy tariffs. The ruling Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) couldn’t sustain its popularity in Punjab and Imran’s proud choice of Punjab’s (former) Chief Minister, Usman Buzdar, turned out to be a disaster, ringing alarm bells in Rawalpindi, as 70 per cent of the military personnel have their roots in Punjab. Imran’s closeness with the former Director-General of the ISI, Lt Gen Faiz Hameed, and whispers about him being appointed as the next army chief, created a stir in the top brass of the military and the army decided to replace Faiz Hameed with Lt Gen Nadeem Anjum. Imran’s unprecedented delay in the official approval of the appointment of Lt Gen Anjum added to the military’s displeasure.

Imran disappointed his supporters but if there was one thing that he did dedicatedly and passionately during his tenure, it was to build narratives and pitch them on national and international forums in an attempt to reap strategic dividends.

In 2018, when Imran came to power with the military’s blessings, a narrative of a clean politician free of the corruption baggage was propagated to counter the leaders of the opposition parties who were grappling with serious graft charges. The cricketer projected himself as a selfless leader who had a successful and glamorous life as a sports star and is driven to politics solely for the welfare of the Pakistani awam. Although during his tenure, Imran couldn’t do much to address the menace of corruption, the narrative of him fighting corruption against all odds was repeated frequently, which he anticipated would compensate for his incompetence.

Imran blamed the economic crisis on Nawaz Sharif’s government and the narrative of him carrying the baggage of economic desperation from the past has been a constant strain emanating from him. Every democratic regime in Pakistan tries to pass the blame for the economic crisis to its predecessors and Imran has been no different.

For India, the narrative has been that India is going on a dangerous path and is being driven by Nazi ideology under a Hindutva regime that is intolerant towards minorities. The efforts turned aggressive after the revocation of Article 370 by the Government of India in August 2019, and the narrative which emerged was Kashmir is not only a concern for Pakistan but a global responsibility and the world needs to collectively address the issue of Kashmir. He tried to raise the ‘nuclear threat’ in his Kashmir narrative and highlighted the threat of a probable nuclear war in case the Kashmir problem persists and goes unaddressed. In his article in The New York Times, titled ‘The World Can’t Ignore Kashmir, We are all in Danger’ (August 30, 2019), Imran wrote: “If the world does nothing to stop the Indian assault on Kashmir and its people, there will be consequences for the whole world as two nuclear-armed states get ever closer to a direct military confrontation.”

His narrative of Islamophobia was pursued in all international forums and he tried to drive the point that suppression of the Muslims is the root cause of radicalisation. His annual speeches to the United Nations General Assembly had several references to Islamophobia.

Pakistan’s relationship with the United States has gone through highs and lows and it has had crucial phases of strategic alliances with Washington that brought in much needed military assistance, weaponry and strategic dividends which the military cherished. Imran Khan’s position with the US is defined by three crucial assertions that he has been making: First, Islamabad has paid a heavy price in terms of lives and money for being a US partner in the global war on terror; and, terrorism and radicalisation in Pakistan are a result of its role in the war on terror; second, a foreign power (the US) is behind the political instability in Pakistan and Washington would want him to go. He has been on the see-saw of controversial statements against the US which certainly has been discomfiting for the military; third, Pakistan wants to pursue an independent foreign policy, which implies a foreign policy choice free of the influence of the West. He slammed the Islamabad-based Western envoys who had urged Pakistan to condemn Moscow’s actions in Ukraine.

Addressing the Islamabad Security Dialogue last week, Pakistan’s Army Chief, General Bajwa, tried to repair the damage inflicted on Pakistan’s foreign relations by Imran. General Bajwa’s statements included an assertion regarding the long and excellent strategic relationship with the US. Regarding New Delhi, his remarks projected some optimism as he called for a dialogue to resolve all disputes with India.

Imran focused on a series of narratives, but they haven’t yielded the desired results for him. It would be interesting to see how his narratives would evolve in the coming months. His anti-US narrative is not essentially in the interest of the nation and would not be acceptable to the military. The bigger question is, can he come to power without the support of the military?