With his enormous strength, the Biblical character Samson destroyed the temple of Dagon in Gaza killing his Philistine captors and himself. Prime Minister Imran Khan, much like Samson, appears determined to bring down the house of Pakistan, dominated until now by the army. Imran is refusing to follow his many civilian predecessors, who quietly left when shown the door by the army. In Pakistan, civilian leaders who have defied the army found themselves in prison, executed or exiled. Imran has made bold to take on the army, test the boundaries of the national ideology that Rawalpindi claims to protect, and challenge the deep state by mobilising the street.
In brazenly refusing to let the National Assembly vote upon the no-confidence vote brought against him and getting the president to dissolve the assembly, Imran is not only looking the army in the eye, but also the constitution and the Supreme Court. His defiance will certainly be put down for now but he has promised the establishment that he will pose a bigger threat when he is out of power. Khan is prepared to take his chances, much like Samson, and play to his many strengths. He remains a national hero having won the cricket World Cup in 1992. He enjoys considerable political following and has an ego larger than life.
Khan has qualities that his predecessors lacked, except Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, whose charisma moved the Pakistani masses in the early 1970s. He is deeply aware of Bhutto’s defiance which ended with execution in 1979. He now invokes Bhutto’s name and the dangers he faces from the system that he has challenged.
Imran’s narrative that he is a self-made man is only partly true and does not square with the fact that he was “selected” by the army as prime minister in the 2018 elections. The army wantonly undermined the two civilian governments that came to power with popular mandates after General Pervez Musharraf’s reign ended in 2008 — one led by Asif Ali Zardari of the Pakistan People’s Party and the other by Nawaz Sharif of the Pakistan Muslim League. The army was wary of both Zardari and Nawaz who wanted to break from the army’s policy of supporting militant jihadi groups as well as improve trade and political ties with India. The army hoped that Khan would provide a “handsome and modern” face for the army rule, and help destroy older political formations. But Khan had his own ideas for Pakistan’s future and generated a new set of problems for the army.
In the past, the army chiefs were the ones who “betrayed” the civilian PMs who appointed them. Ziaul Haq turned against Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and Musharraf ousted Nawaz Sharif. This time, it is Imran Khan who is betraying the army that ensured that his opponents were defeated in the 2018 elections and stitched a majority in his favour in the National Assembly. Khan can claim credit for being the first PM to boldly subvert the constitution; until now that was a privilege of the army. He also surprised the army leadership by playing politics with the appointment of the ISI chief last October. When army chief Qamar Javed Bajwa sought to move Lt Gen Faiz Hameed from the ISI last year, Khan resisted the transfer and made it an issue. Although he had to concede eventually, it became quite apparent that the PM and army chief were no longer on the same page. To make matters worse, Khan has been incompetent in governing Pakistan, has deepened Pakistan’s economic crisis, sharpened internal conflicts, and worsened its international relations.
Khan stepped into Islamic politics, traditionally controlled by the army. He took a tolerant view of militant Islamic groups like the Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan and pandered to their extreme demands such as the expulsion of the French ambassador over questions of blasphemy. The mobilisation of Islamic sentiments has become an important part of Imran Khan’s political toolkit to strengthen his political position at home.
Beyond domestic politics, he also waded boldly into the disputes within the Islamic world. His attempt to align with Turkey and set up a new Islamic bloc angered Pakistan’s traditional friends in the Gulf — Saudi Arabia and the UAE. The army ensured that he step back.
Khan also blocked the opportunities that opened up for easing tensions with India. In February 2021, the army negotiated a ceasefire with India and Bajwa opened the door for a modest agenda of confidence-building with India, including on trade. But Khan overruled the move by citing India’s 2019 constitutional changes in Kashmir. Until now, the civilian leaders sought to improve ties with India and the army vetoed those plans. Now, it is a civilian leader who takes a more hawkish line on Kashmir and relations with India.
Although he has often viciously attacked Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the RSS, Khan has also praised India’s “independent foreign policy”. It is less a compliment to Delhi than an attack on the Pakistan army that has long nurtured a close strategic partnership with the US and the West. Well before he became the PM, Khan often criticised Rawalpindi’s alliance with Washington and its decision to “fight American wars” in the region at great cost to Pakistan. As US-China relations deteriorated, he moved closer to Beijing and apparently under Chinese pressure travelled to Moscow as Vladimir Putin ordered his troops to march into Ukraine.
Last week, Bajwa publicly distanced himself from Khan and criticised the Russian invasion of Afghanistan and underlined the traditionally close ties to the US and Europe. In the past, the army used to carefully modulate the deep anti-Western resentments in Pakistan to bargain with the US and Europe. Khan has now gone full tilt with his anti-Americanism by charging that the opposition’s call for a vote of “no confidence” is a US conspiracy to oust his government. Hostile foreign interference was the main political argument that was used to dismiss the resolution and dissolve the National Assembly.
Imran Khan has embarked on a path no civilian leader has done — to confront the army’s hegemony on a broad range of issues. In the run-up to the elections (assuming they are held soon), Khan is likely to double down on religious mobilisation and anti-Americanism. That could add to potential fissures within the army on the appropriate means to deal with Pakistan’s intensifying crises.
Based on form, Khan does not have much of a chance against the army but the pitch is uneven, the ball has been tampered with, and the weather is heavily overcast — it is not easy to bet on the outcomes. One thing though is certain: This major intra-elite conflict triggered by Imran’s Samson-like defiance is bound to have far-reaching consequences for Pakistan’s political trajectory at home and abroad.
This column first appeared in the print edition on April 5, 2022 under the title ‘The Samson option’. The writer is Senior Fellow, Asia Society Policy Institute, Delhi and contributing editor on international affairs for The Indian Express
