This is the great man on the cancellation of the tour by the Australians.
He is admitting/accusing the public of being in cahoots with terrorists.
Then how can these same supporters turn against them?
He is not just crazy, but silly too.
Does his statement imply that when mosques are bombed people don’t give a damn and are therefore not religious?
If KFC is bombed, do they turn against terrorists because they like their chicken wings?
If planes are hijacked, do they turn against terrorists because they love being up in the air?
If the symbols of consumerism are hit, do they turn against terrorists since they love their bling things?
Can someone please just make him cultural ambassador and send him off to the Bahamas or something?
Or maybe Zardari can appoint him Minister for Affairs and let him flatter the hip Sarah in hipsters?
To add your point, Imran himself is not from the "Masses" in pakistan, he belongs to a loaded family in Mianwali, went to top college in Lahore and then to London, he has always been the model of pakistan for the west....he should come forward and accept the fact that even the middle class of Pakistan is now under the threat of terrorism and that might create a bigger push back ....terrorist have a single line agenda , how to become breaking news on CNN, the more the merrier for them .
ReplyDeleteYes this comment was really silly, but for a different reason. He should know very well there would be 'some' brands of terrorists who would do it just to defame 'other' brands, and for completely different motives.
ReplyDeleteThese days no one knows which is which.
Manish:
ReplyDeleteAgree with you about Imran, not about terrorists. Or 'terrorists'. They prefer Al Jazeera to CNN!
Zeemax:
What is this 'brand' thing? Stop talking like a corporate honcho. The most underestimated brand of terrorists are politicians.
FV,
ReplyDeleteImran was silly for not elaborating further on a sensitive issue like this, but I was pointing to your ... ahem ... equally inadequate remark i.e. "He is admitting/accusing the public of being in cahoots with terrorists."
In fact, there is no particularly agreed definition of 'terrorist', there are several 'brands', though I understand there may be a single one in the Indian imagination! Which is perhaps why Imran's remark went unnoticed in Pakistan :)
Zeemax:
ReplyDeleteI take strong objection to your comment:
{Imran was silly for not elaborating further on a sensitive issue like this, but I was pointing to your ... ahem ... equally inadequate remark i.e. "He is admitting/accusing the public of being in cahoots with terrorists."}
I said this in response to his statement, "Terrorists rely on support from the masses because that's where they get their recruits".
I pointed out that it was a sweeping generalisation, in effect saying the public was terrorist.
{In fact, there is no particularly agreed definition of 'terrorist', there are several 'brands', though I understand there may be a single one in the Indian imagination! Which is perhaps why Imran's remark went unnoticed in Pakistan :)}
If you want to make this into an Indo-Pak issue, then bring it on...
I felt your initial 'brand' comment was off because you said one brand was defaming another. I don't think that is how it works. Dissent cannot be passed off as brands.
The Indian imagination cannot conjure up one brand because we have many more areas of dissent; honestly, we have a greater variety. Yet, I will not brand them differently because the subterrain is the same.
FYI, I read it in an Australian paper...the only thing Indians are interested in about Imran are his views on women...or rather view 'of' them...
FV,
ReplyDeleteMy point is reinforced by your own statement here i.e. "The Indian imagination cannot conjure up one brand because we have ... a greater variety. Yet, I will not brand them differently because the subterrain is the same."
In Pakistan, the subterrain is not the same.
The biggest debate nowadays is between the school which claims "It is Pakistan's war which Pakistani Army must fight", and the other school which insists "It is America's war and Pakistani Army must not fight its citizens on behalf of the Americans".
These citizens of-course are the PTT in FATA and Swat, and are branded differently in the public imagination from 'terrorists'. Media terms them as 'militants'.
Would Indians call them that? Of-course not. As you admit you will call them 'terrorists' being of the same subterrain. Pakistanis don't think so.
This latter 'Not our war' school is in vast majority, as well as has popular media support. Imran Khan belongs to this school.
What he simply meant was any such attack would strengthen the first group while weakening the second as it did in case of Wah Ordnance factory attack, and their losing the edge of public sympathy. It doesn't mean Imran Khan or Pakistani media who sympathize with the second school are terrorists.
Hope it's now clear.
BTW I heard Imran Khan has turned celibate of late!
Zeemax:
ReplyDeleteThanks for clarifying and adding several dimensions to this.
However, the subterrain being the same only denotes that frustration is similar.
For me terrorism is dissent. So don't argue about it. I will call them terrorists, but what do I think of it...it is obvious.
"BTW I heard Imran Khan has turned celibate of late!"
Can;t even say deir aaye durust aaye :)
ReplyDeletebut what do I think of it...it is obvious.
Based on your past writings, your feelings about the jihadis/militants/terrorists is obvious.