Fault lines in IK’s personality

Ishtiaq Ahmed

Problem with our captain is that he still thinks that he is on the cricket field with his players around him. He needs to very quickly come out of his cricketing past to the present reality of his chosen political arena.

He needs to realise that the world of politics is far removed from the game of the cricket where objectives are clear and the outcome options are limited. The consequences of winning or losing a cricket game are important but not ‘bloody. Also, he doesn’t have Javed Miandad, Wasim Akram, and Mushtaq Ahmed In his team.

At times, IK comes over as not having completely transferred from the field of cricket to the field of politics.
In politics, vision, grasp of reality and ability to make compromises without being derailed off the track are important traits for longevity in politics. A sound politician dwells on political differences putting aside personal grudges and vendettas which make him/ her stand out from his opponents and his competitors.

Here firmness, consistency and accommodation are essential traits whereas arrogance and inflexibility often lead to demise. IK experienced the latter when his allies in his government started distancing and leaving him in droves thus enabling his opponents to secure a vote of no confidence in him and his government.

One of the key reasons for his allies turning against him according to them was his dismissive and condescending treatment of them and the failure on his part to accommodate them.
The third area of concern for me and many others is IK’s political base.

I am not able to pinpoint IK’s political values or political beliefs and vision. It is laudable that he wants to encourage fresh leadership, end corruption, improve law & order and justice, tackle poverty, achieve independent foreign policy, etc but exactly where does he stand in terms of his political beliefs and values, how will he translate these into policy and practice and what system and structures he would introduce to achieve his desired objectives.

He seems to hover between theocracy and secularism, socialism and conservatism, democracy and dictatorship, and between monotheism and pluralism. I have not been able to pinpoint his philosophical and political base at all.
One example of the schistose approach is his reference to the ‘state of medina’ at the time of Hazrat Umar Farooq, something that he aspires to. Although, this has emotionally resonated with Muslims who hold Hazrat Umar and his era in high regard as the golden era of Islamic history.

What is not clear is how he would turn current Pakistan into the state of Medina. The state of Medina under the Khilafat of Hazrat Umar had a number of characteristics: piety, equality, the rule of law and justice, and the welfare of citizens

In his governance, Hazrat Umar was advised and guided by the learned pious men and women trained directly by the Rasul Allah, who were loyal to the Islamic principles out of deep love for the prophet, honest and daring and not afraid to hold him accountable.

Hazrat Umar himself, on becoming Khalifa, was a symbol of humility, righteousness, and justice. Above all, he was a listening leader.
It would be wrong to question IK’s sincerity on his ‘Riasat-e-medina’ but I do not get any sense of how he would go about achieving this in current Pakistan.

One area of concern for me is the use or abuse of religious cards by politicians for political purposes. They have done most to discredit Islam and confuse the public.
This may be a failing on my part or something IK that he has not been pressed upon to clarify. Because of his lack of apparent clarity on what he truly believes and represents, he consistently falters thus providing his opponents with ammunition to challenge his credibility.
It is only right for us to address these questions to IK, presently the most popular leader, aspiring to be the next prime minister of the country.

He should not get angry about being asked these questions but instead should try to reflect on these.