The Imran Khan Saga: Everything that is wrong with modern day Pakistan

Imran Khan was sentenced to 14 years in prison on 31 January 2023, just a day after the court announced Khan's imprisonment for up to 10 years. The 71-year-old cricketer-turned-politician, who was also the former prime minister of Pakistan, will not be able to take part in active politics for a long time. 

What's worse, even his party may be banned permanently if the cases regarding his involvement in the 9 May clashes last year and violation of the Secrets Act in the cypher investigation are found to be true.

Members of his party, the PTI - are being targeted, with thousands already in jail. However, despite the crackdown on his party and himself, Khan's political party still has the possibility of winning the general election even with Khan behind bars. He still has an immense support base in the country, and many of them happen to be from the current young generation.

The 'Cypher Case'

Imran Khan's downfall started from the time he visited Vladimir Putin, the president of Russia, in Moscow. This happened on 23 February 2022, and Khan was the first prime minister from Pakistan to visit Moscow in twenty-three years. 

The meeting was seen by many as 'untimely' since Putin was facing international backlash and possible isolation in the international community because he launched the invasion of Ukraine shortly before seeing Khan. 

On April 10 April 2022, a no-confidence vote was launched, which saw Khan removed from power.

But a bombshell reveal arrived earlier on 9 March in the form of a transcript by the then Pakistani ambassador to the US - Asad Majeed, from his perspective of the meeting with US Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs Donald Lu, in which he quoted Lu giving remarks on Khan's meeting with Putin. The transcript release became a scandal known as the 'Cypher Case,' but it also drew controversy over the role Lu played as a 'regime changer.' The High Court of Pakistan saw the release of state secrets as unacceptable and passed the no-confidence vote to remove Imran Khan.

In that meeting with Lu, Majeed insisted that Khan's meeting with Putin was planned years ago and that it had nothing to do with the Ukraine conflict. Instead, Khan, as Majeed tried to explain to Lu, merely went there to sign economic agreements in order to purchase agricultural products like wheat, which Pakistan at the time was facing a shortage of.

Moreover, Khan was planning to sign a gas deal with Russia, and all of these bilateral transactions between the two countries were looked at unfavourably by Lu since Washington's primary purpose back then was to isolate Moscow economically by drastically reducing its export revenues from other countries. This is why the US was (and still is) trying to influence other countries to impose sanctions on Russia to exert an overwhelming detrimental effect on the country's economy. 

But Majeed argued that Pakistan did not want to align with any bloc and instead pursue a neutral foreign policy (a reference to Pakistan's abstention from the UNGA vote to condemn Russia), outlining the reason that Pakistan had its share of paying a heavy price in the aftermath of aiding Afghanistan against the Soviets during the 80s and did not want to be dragged again into another geopolitical mess. He also pointed out India's abstention from the UNGA vote and argued that if India could pursue a neutral foreign policy, then why not Pakistan?

Lu, however, was adamant in his approach to the issue and directly quoted how the US State Department very negatively looked at Khan's visit to Moscow. He also underscored the fact that such a visit could harm not just US-Pakistan relations but the EU-Pakistan partnerships too. 

It's important to note that the US had maintained a relatively strong relationship with Pakistan during the Cold War, going on to support the latter during the 1971 Indo-Pak war as well as helping them train Afghan fighters in the aftermath of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979.

Imran Khan has said a number of times that the US orchestrated his ousting because Khan was attempting to build friendly ties with China and Russia. In the published cypher document, Lu was quoted saying to Majeed that if the no-confidence vote against Khan is implemented, then Washington would forgive the previous stances Pakistan took on the Russo-Ukrainian conflict. 

Pakistan, still a third-world country and in dire economic turmoil, relies a lot on the US and Europe as its principal export markets, even more so than China. Russia doesn't even rank among the top twelve trading partners of Pakistan.

Short-term economic benefits

Lu's veiled threat of economic and political isolation for the South Asian country can be further proven true by the dramatic shift in Pakistan's foreign policy months after Khan was ousted from power. The new government under Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif quickly sent shipments of weapons to Ukraine worth almost 900 million dollars—money that Pakistan subsequently earned from arms deals with US companies. 

Not only that but supplying ammunition to Ukraine also reaped the rewards for Pakistan by utilising the collected cash from these weapons sales to improve its financial position and secure a new bailout from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) with the assistance of the Biden administration.

The deal with the IMF offered a $3 billion bailout, much-needed economic assistance for a country that was almost to the point of being bankrupt. So, from a financial point of view, it does appear that the new shifts in the country's policies paid off, at least for the short term. But economic stability came at a heavy price as well, with the country being more politically divided than ever. 

It also raises the question of whether Pakistan is transitioning from a phase of democracy to kleptocracy. Opposition members are targeted indiscriminately, and it's fair to assume that PTI - under the current circumstances - cannot compete effectively enough in the upcoming general elections on 8 February.

Khan's policies

Yet, with Khan's popularity surging, it looks as though he might pose some headaches for the current administration. Questions are also raised by several experts and analysts on the power and influence of the Pakistani military on the country's political field. Even though the country is no longer a military dictatorship, as it was under Ayub Khan, Yahya Khan, and Zia-ul-Haq, the shadowy control of the army has not ebbed by any means. 

Former military officer-turned-president Parvez Musharraf is certainly a good example of this. Even Imran Khan can be a solid case for consideration, considering the fact that many believe he himself took the backing of the army establishment in his ascension to power.

But unlike so many of his predecessors, Khan actually attempted to bring about some reforms, such as reducing the dependency of the political administration on the armed forces. He also respected minority rights and took the initiative to preserve religious sites belonging to various minority groups. 

At the same time, he maintained decent relations with Islamist parties and normalised ties with neighbouring Afghanistan, unlike the current administration. However, perhaps the catalyst for his being at odds with the military was his personal stance on the foreign affairs of Pakistan.

Many see Khan's foreign strategies as slightly anti-US and inclining more towards China. His statements on the 2021 US withdrawal from Afghanistan as the Afghans 'breaking shackles of slavery' and reference to Osama Bin Laden as a martyr drew the ire of many. 

He attempted to financially lessen the dependency of the country on America by refusing to take IMF aid. Instead, he went on to form strong ties with Gulf kingdoms like the UAE, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia. These ties led to the Gulf countries giving loans to Pakistan and also caused a reduction in the country's energy import bill.

He also tried to mediate hostilities between Iran and Saudi Arabia, a feat that was later accomplished by China in 2023. Khan was also very supportive of the Palestinian movement against Israeli occupation and uncompromising on the Kashmir issue, like many of his predecessors, demanding full Indian withdrawal from the Indian-held Kashmir region. 

Overall, Khan's diversified foreign policy and refusal to take IMF loans ultimately put him in the US's bad books, which eventually saw him descend a path somewhat similar to Zulfikar Ali Bhutto.

A frustrating cycle

No Pakistani prime minister managed to complete a full term in office, and maybe this 'jinx' could be solved by minimising the role of the Pakistani Armed Forces in the political arena. Pakistan also submitted a proposal to join BRICS. Still, given the history that India and Russia have with the country, the alliance may not yet be ready to accept this just yet. 

However, it could be a good move in the future on the country's behalf if Pakistan indeed wants to have a more independent foreign policy instead of being too dependent on the EU and the US. Maybe the Imran Khan saga helped to expose many of the problems modern-day Pakistan is facing at present.

Chowdhury Taoheed Al-Rabbi. Sketch: TBS

Chowdhury Taoheed Al-Rabbi studies at the Bangladesh University of Professionals.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and views of The Business Standard.