.jpg)
Courtesy: Daily "The News" (13 May 2012)
The PTI argument
By Adiah Afraz
My interest in the PTI is academic in nature. Well sort of. Actually as a PTI supporting columnist I often find myself in a strange position of being answerable for many PTI actions.
“Your Imran Khan has sent a letter to a JD rally?” I would be accused.
“Your Imran Khan has refused to share roof with Salman Rushdie in India” I would be smirked at.
“Your Imran Khan is calling us liberal scum...” long whine.
From Jamat-ud-Dawa to Sita White, and the philosophy of hair colour to the possibility of Botox, I am increasingly held accountable for a variety of things Imran Khan does or says. And frankly, being a layman of sorts especially when it comes to making polite conversation in the social sciences jargon, it is not always easy to avert the IK hating onslaught from the intellectual dragons.
I either make an emotional argument about Imran Khan’s honesty and philanthropy, or rephrase his theory of ‘engage the marginalised’, or simply just maintain a stubborn mulish stance that Imran Khan is good for Pakistan simply because he is. Period.
Thus begins a regimen of watching re-runs of Imran Khan interviews, tediously going through print sources, and randomly going to PTI events, quietly sitting in dark corners, and taking notes.
In order to inform, I need to stay informed.
Now no matter how much I want to make use of my notes from the PTI gatherings and write a ground breaking piece about how the PTI is a party of the liberal, by the liberal for the liberal; yet this one is not about the PTI as much as it is about my genuine inability to understand why there is so much scepticism about Imran Khan among certain intellectuals despite his spotless credentials.
The argument against Khan has three categories. The basic argument, the before and after argument, and the more ridiculous argument.