In an uncivilized turn of events, the chief of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, Imran Khan was manhandled at the Punjab University Campus today. He was later arrested by the police. A group of students kept him detained on the campus and later turned him over to the police. According to Dawn’s Report:
Pakistan Tehrik-i-Insaaf chairman Imran Khan was arrested from outside the Punjab University’s new campus on Wednesday after he had been manhandled and detained in the campus allegedly by activists of the Islami Jamiat Talaba. Imran Khan had gone to the university at the invitation of a joint action committee of students.
The visit had been approved by Qazi Hussain Ahmed, chief of Jamaat-i-Islami, to which the IJT is affiliated. On his arrival at the campus, the PTI chief was confronted reportedly by a group of IJT activists who kicked him around and punched him. They took him to a room in the Centre for High Energy Physics and detained him there for about 45 minutes.
This is an interesting (and sad) turn of events. Imran Khan‘s party and the mother party of IJT are both partners in APDM. Imran and Qazi have been seen together in many media photo shoots for the past year or so. Will today’s action by IJT guys will cause long term bad-blood between the two parties? It is left to be seen.
We strongly believe that inspite of political differences, no person deserves physical bashing and humiliation as was met out to Imran. Political differences should never be taken to such extreme where people use force to get their point across. It is wrong. Shame on those who manhandled him. I was recently reading an article on political bashing in the Wall Street Journal. It had a punch line which just kept resonating with me. It read:
Our politics suffer when passions overcome reason and vitriol becomes virtue.
Details on Imran‘s manhandling can be read here, here, here and here.
I am really not a fan of a theocratic state such as Iran or Taliban Afghanistan, but thats what Iqbal had to say:
Juda hou dein siyasat sei tou reh jaati hai changeizi
Musharraf by Ann Coulter
Musharraf has declared emergency rule in Pakistan, shut down the media and sent Supreme Court justices home. What’s not to like about a guy who orders policemen to beat up lawyers? The entire history of Pakistan is this: There are lots of crazy people living there, they have nuclear weapons, and any Pakistani leader who prevents the crazies from getting the nukes is George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison all rolled into one. We didn’t hear much about Musharraf until the last few weeks. Musharraf has been a crucial ally of ours since Sept. 12, 2001. His loyal friendship to the United States while governing a country that is loyal to al-Qaida might prove dispiriting to the terrorists. So, until recently, the media mostly confined stories about Musharraf to page A-18. Weeks later, The New York Times editorial page called on “masses of Pakistanis” to participate in “peaceful demonstrations” against Musharraf, which would be like calling on masses of Pakistanis to engage in daily bathing (The New York Times editorial page being the most effective way to communicate with the Pakistani masses). Most of the editorial was a mash note to that troublesome woman Benazir Bhutto for demanding democracy in the land of the deranged. Media darling Bhutto returned to Pakistan after fleeing the country following her conviction for corruption as prime minister. Her conviction was later overturned by the corrupt Pakistani Supreme Court, leaving me to ponder, which is worse: being convicted of corruption in a Pakistani court or being exonerated of corruption in a Pakistani court? She was again convicted in a Swiss court of money laundering. The media adore Bhutto because she went to Harvard and Oxford, which I consider two more strikes against her. A degree from Harvard is prima facie evidence that she’s on the side of the terrorists. I note that Bhutto demonstrates her own deep commitment to democracy by giving herself the title “chairperson for life” of the Pakistan Peoples Party. You wouldn’t know it to read the headlines, but Musharraf has not staged a military coup. In fact, he was re-elected easily just weeks ago under Pakistan’s own parliamentary system. But the Pakistani Supreme Court, like our own Supreme Court, believes it is above the president and refused to acknowledge Musharraf’s election on the grounds that he is disqualified because he is still wearing a military uniform. That’s when Musharraf sent them home. How might popular rule turn out in Pakistan? As Saul Bellow rhetorically said of multiculturalism, “Who is the Tolstoy of the Zulus?” Pakistan is a country where local Islamic courts order women to be raped as punishment for the crimes of their male relatives. Among the Islamists’ bill of particulars against Musharraf is the fact that he has promoted the Women’s Protection Bill, which would punish rape, rather than using it as a device for social control. Pakistan doesn’t need Adlai Stevenson right now. It needs Mustafa Kemal Ataturk to impose military rule and drag a country of Islamic savages into the 19th century, as Ataturk did in Turkey. Pakistan’s Ataturk is Gen. Musharraf.
Somebody mentioned Islamic democracy without separation of religion and state we will have neither.
really sad…
I wonder when people say that something won’t be good for the civil society, what do they mean? Has “stability” in Egypt over the last 26 years of absolute rule by Mubarak helped the civil society? Or has Burmese military dictatorship been able over the last 45 years for the civil society to be abolished? If it were, Egypt would now be a democracy and Burma wouldn’t have witnessed 100,000 people marching on the streets.