GRANTED, Imran Khan has so far failed to deliver the promised ‘Naya Pakistan’. Does the failure owe to his lack of will or capacity, the moves of would-be losers in a ‘Naya Pakistan’, or his razor-thin majority? Or can the task he set for himself not be accomplished in a single five-year-term, let alone three Covid-marked years? However, people want to know what he did to put the country on the path to ‘Naya Pakistan’.

True, he hasn’t delivered on accountability. But he at least cornered close confidants like Jehangir Tareen, Aleem Khan and Zulfi Bukhari. Perhaps the former two are partly the reason why the prime minister faces a challenge today. It shows us how rocky the path to ‘Naya Pakistan’ is. Tareen and Aleem Khan were PTI stalwarts. Imagine the trouble that the non-party would-be losers have caused or have tried to cause — be it the opposition, the bureaucracy, or the establishment.

The journey was never going to be easy — especially for a prime minister who is honest (as most believe). The will to accomplish the goal is there — perhaps more than capacity. But remember that he has Shaukat Khanum, Namal and the World Cup to his credit — which would not have been possible without a vision and managerial capacity. Where capacity is concerned, do not forget that the Nawaz Sharif of 2014 was different from the Nawaz Sharif of the 1990s.

The journey was never going to be easy.

Honesty and vision should take precedence over capacity. No? Then please consider: should we hand over the keys of the national exchequer to an individual who is a doer but is accused of stealing public money? If we do that then it would be like hiring an exceptionally competent person but one who has allegedly stolen money and jewellery at his previous workplace. Would we wait for court-worthy proof of dishonesty to hire such an employee or go by his reputation?

Those who do not want change were not a threat individually, but when things began to get difficult for them, they converged on ‘one page’, and proved to be formidable enough to thwart the goal of ‘Naya Pakistan’.

Millions who believe that corruption has trivial consequences have taken issue with the prime minister’s anti-corruption mantra. But even they would be inclined to think that money played some role in the recent change of loyalties. Money often changes hands in political games. It would not be far-fetched to assume that such money itself may not have been legitimately earned. What would be the implication? That corruption-tainted money is being used to destabilise the government. Would we still be ready to believe that corruption has trivial consequences?

If ever we believe that corruption is Pakistan’s main problem, it would be time to praise Imran Khan for his anti-corruption stance. If ever we believe that those who have a reputation of being corrupt should not be elected, it would be time to acknowledge the prime minister’s approach, even if his political obituary has been written by then. If ever we believe that dynastic politics are bad for Pakistan, it will be time to credit the incumbent for having built a narrative that leaders must stand on their own merit and not rely on family credentials. If ever we believe that healthcare for all is crucial to public welfare, developing human capital and addressing poverty, then Imran Khan would be credited with making the first move in this direction. If ever people turn D-Chowk into Tahrir Square in their protest against horse-trading, the credit would go to Imran Khan.

Just as Zulfikar Ali Bhutto is remembered for saying ‘we will eat grass but make a nuclear bomb’ Imran Khan will be remembered for saying ‘absolutely not’ to America and asking the European Union, ‘are we your slaves?’ He will be remembered for alerting the world to the challenge of Islamophobia and for not doing enough to get a call from the president of the US.

No matter what the analysts say, Imran Khan himself and a small minority would not be inclined to write this government’s political obituary yet. The poignant lines of the Poet of the East stand till the last ball is bowled: “Is kheil mein taeyayeen-i-maratib hai zaroori/ Shaatir ki anayat se tu farzeen, mein piyada/ Bechara piyada to hai ek mohra-i-na-cheez/ Farzeen se bhi poshida hai shaatir ka irada.” (Translation: “Ranking is essential in this game; You are the queen and I the pawn thanks to the chess player. Let alone the pawn, which is an insignificant piece, even the queen doesn’t know what the chess player wants to do”).

Do not mistake ‘shaatir’ for the so-called umpire who was not on the scene when Iqbal penned these verses. Iqbal, it seems, is referring to the Master.

The writer is a researcher at PIDE. The views expressed are his own.

idreeskhawaja@pide.org.pk

Twitter: @khawajaidrees11

Published in Dawn, March 23rd, 2022