Imagine the heart-wrenching plight of millions struggling for survival in Pakistan, yet the social media buzz is all about freeing a jailed former leader—does this fiery demand really tackle the root causes of their daily hardships?
Dive into this eye-opening piece by Justice Katju, where we'll unpack why so many Pakistanis, both at home and abroad, are passionately calling for the reinstatement of democracy, genuinely free parliamentary elections (with the February 2024 vote widely seen as manipulated), and the liberation of former Prime Minister Imran Khan from his prison cell, where he's been held since August 2023 under conditions described as brutally inhumane. But here's where it gets controversial: Justice Katju challenges us to rethink our priorities, urging Pakistanis to reflect deeply on what truly matters.
He poses a fundamental question that's as simple as it is profound—the ultimate gauge for any political action boils down to this: Does it genuinely uplift the lives of everyday people? Does it translate into tangible improvements like better jobs, nutritious food, reliable healthcare, and quality education? From this lens, debates about whether the 2024 elections were fair or unfair, or whether Imran Khan walks free or remains behind bars, might feel secondary. Picture this: If those elections hadn't been rigged, the PTI (Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, Imran Khan's party) likely would have swept to a commanding majority, reinstalling him as Prime Minister. Yet, for the average Pakistani grappling with bills and basic needs, would that have erased the scourges of widespread poverty, rampant unemployment, severe malnutrition, inadequate healthcare, and subpar education? Tragically, not at all. In fact, under Khan's leadership, the economy deteriorated further—prices for essentials like food and staples soared, forcing him to seek massive bailout loans from the IMF, despite his earlier vow that he'd rather die than beg from international lenders. His tenure was marked more by grandiose rhetoric about a 'Madine ki Riyasat' (an Islamic utopian state) and other outdated ideals than by concrete progress, not to mention his crackdown on political opponents through arrests.
And this is the part most people miss: Khan built his political platform on a promise of unshakeable integrity in public service. Yet, during the 2018 elections, he handed out PTI nominations to a slew of questionable 'electables'—think corrupt power brokers like sugar magnates—who won seats and became lawmakers. Shockingly, he never held them accountable, fully aware that challenging them could collapse his fragile government. It's a stark reminder that even leaders hailed for reform can prioritize power over principles.
For the ordinary Pakistani, politics often feels like a distant luxury. They're consumed by the grind of earning a living, feeding their families, and navigating life's unpredictabilities. So, why should it matter if Pakistan is governed by the military or civilians, or if Imran Khan is incarcerated or at large? When parties like the PML-N (Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz), PPP (Pakistan Peoples Party), or PTI held the reins, did they dismantle the barriers of extreme poverty, high joblessness, inflated commodity prices, insufficient medical services, or poor schooling? Absolutely not. And under the current de facto military dominance, has this changed for the better? The answer remains a resounding no.
Justice Katju isn't blindly championing democracy or freedom as infallible virtues—they're merely tools, he argues, not sacred goals in themselves. The true aim should always be enhancing people's quality of life. If democratic processes lead to that uplift, fine; if not, they're not worth the fuss. To illustrate, consider Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, a Turkish army general in the 1920s who toppled a corrupt sultan and caliphate that had plunged Turkey into backwardness and feudalism. Through sheer military force—bypassing democratic channels—he rapidly modernized the nation: outlawing sharia law, banning the burqa, curbing religious clerics' influence, and mandating education for girls. Had he relied on elections, he would have faltered, as most Turks then clung to conservative, outdated views resistant to change. It's a bold example of authoritarian reform yielding progress.
Drawing from this, Justice Katju states he'd endorse military rule in Pakistan if it genuinely sparked modernization and slashed poverty and unemployment. But the harsh reality? Pakistan's army brass shows little appetite for such transformation; instead, they're accused of indulging in lavish lifestyles, accumulating fortunes, and exploiting citizens like bloodsucking predators. For deeper insights into this 'Pakistani vampire' narrative, check out pieces like those from WritersCafeteria.com and Indica News.
On the flip side, civilian leaders haven't fared much better. Former premiers like Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto allegedly plundered the nation's resources—Bhutto's husband, Asif Zardari, was notoriously dubbed 'Mr. 10%' for his cut of deals. Revelations from the Panama Papers exposed Sharif and his kin owning opulent London properties and assets worldwide, as detailed in articles from The Week and Nayadaur.tv. And for Imran Khan, a revealing exposé from Indica News lays bare his apparent lack of a roadmap to fix Pakistan's economic crises.
From the everyday Pakistanis' perspective, the contrast between civilian governance and military control is as meaningless as Tweedledum and Tweedledee in Alice's Adventures in Wonderland—essentially indistinguishable. So, all this uproar over reviving democracy and Khan's release echoes Shakespeare's Macbeth: 'a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.'
*
Markandey Katju is a respected Indian jurist, formerly a judge on the Supreme Court of India and chairman of the Press Council of India from 2011 to 2014.
View all posts
What are your thoughts? Does Justice Katju's critique hit home, or is it too dismissive of democratic ideals? Could authoritarian measures ever justify themselves in the name of progress, or should Pakistan double down on elections and freedoms? Do you agree that improving living standards trumps political theater? Share your opinions in the comments—let's spark a dialogue!
