Imran Khan: Delusion or stupidity?

September 1, 2019

Rohit Dhankar

New York Times published an article supposed to be written by Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan on 30th August 2019, with a long title “Imran Khan: The World Can’t Ignore Kashmir. We Are All in Danger”. The title says all that Mr. Khan wanted to say in the article. I have a few comments to make on this article.

First, Mr. Khan should hire better ghost writers. His current ghost writers do not do their homework properly. They rely on Indian liberals too much for their quotes and analysis and it is too transparent. This is not to blame Indian liberals; they live in a democracy and have all the right to criticise functioning of their political parties and the government; even the state and the nation. But their criticism is well known by now and all India and the world know the merits and demerits of their stand by now. So, by aping them Mr. Khan sounds stale and second hand.

Second, Mr. Khan’s argument that the new India is dangerous to the world is based on Modi being an RSS swayam-sevak in the past, and quotations from writings of Golwalkar. Before coming to Golwalkar’s actual quote we should not that the Indian state and government are not run according to Golwalkar’s books but by the Constitution of India which gives equal rights to all its citizens irrespective of their gender, caste, religion and creed. As Prime Minister of India Mr. Modi has sworn to uphold that constitution and has said more than once that the only book we have to run the country is our constitution. Therefore, what Golwalkar might have written does not define India. Let’s see what Mr. Modi (as Prime Minister of India, I am saying nothing about him as an individual here) has sworn to. The oath of the Prime Minister of India is:

“I, A.B., do swear in the name of God (or solemnly affirm) that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India as by law established, that I will uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India, that I will faithfully and conscientiously discharge my duties as a Minister for the Union and that I will do right to all manner of people in accordance with the Constitution and the law, without fear or favour, affection or ill-will.” The allegiance here is solely to the constitution of India which is created and adopted by Indians democratically. An atheist can become PM of India and in taking oath need not mention God. The way the God is mentioned it is for the personal commitment of the oath taker, could be the God of any religion, and even that is not necessary.

Compare what Mr. Khan as the Prime Minister of Islamic Republic of Pakistan has sworn to:

“(In the name of Allah, the most Beneficent, the most Merciful.)

I,____________, do solemnly swear that I am a Muslim and believe in the Unity and Oneness of Almighty Allah, the Books of Allah, the Holy Quran being the last of them, the Prophethood of Muhammad (peace be upon him) as the last of the Prophets and that there can be no Prophet after him, the Day of Judgement, and all the requirements and teachings of the Holy Quran and Sunnah.

… …

That I will strive to preserve the Islamic Ideology which is the basis for the creation of Pakistan:

… …”.

Mr. Khan who wants to pass on his Islamic country as a democracy is sworn in the name of Allah, Prophet and Quran. No theocratic state can ever be a democracy, neither can it ever grant freedom of expression and equal rights to all its citizens. This oath can be taken only by a Muslim and upholding Islam is the primary duty here, not equal rights of all citigens.

 The preamble of Constitution of Pakistan makes it amply clear. Have a look:

  1. “Whereas sovereignty over the entire Universe belongs to Almighty Allah alone, and the authority to be exercised by the people of Pakistan within the limits prescribed by Him is a sacred trust; …” Sovereignty is of Allah, thus his will shall be flowed. And that is expressed through the last Prophet Mohammad in Quran and Hadith.
  2. “Wherein the principles of democracy, freedom, equality, tolerance and social justice, as enunciated by Islam, shall be fully observed;” Principles of democracy freedom etc. will be as per Islam, therefore, you cannot express doubt that that extremely reputative book called Quran which threatens humans almost in every line is given by merciful Allah. You can not say that the idea of God is a creation of human mind and no such thing actually exists. This would be blaspheme, and you will get capital punishment.
  3. “Wherein the Muslims shall be enabled to order their lives in the individual and collective spheres in accordance with the teachings and requirements of Islam as set out in the Holy Quran and Sunnah;”
  4. “Wherein adequate provision shall be made for the minorities freely to profess and practise their religions and develop their cultures; … …”. This freedom of the minorities will be within the Islamic low. Meaning Ahamadias can not call their place of worship a Mosque. Minorities can be converted to Islam but a Muslim can not be converted to any other religion. The minority girls can be kidnapped and can be forcibly converted. Muslims can say that their religion is the only true religion and all other religions are false, and their followers will go to hell. But a Christian or a Hindu has no such right, s/he will be hanged for blaspheme.
  5. “Wherein shall be guaranteed fundamental rights, including equality of status, of opportunity and before law, social, economic and political justice, and freedom of thought, expression, belief, faith, worship and association, subject to law and public morality;” Subject to law and the Law is Islamic. Therefore, a woman gets only half the property compared to her brother as share in his father’s property. She can be divorced by her husband but she herself has no such right. This is equality as per Islam.
  6. “Wherein adequate provision shall be made to safeguard the legitimate interests of minorities and backward and depressed classes; … …”. Legitimacy will be decided by Islam law, which we have hinted at above.
  7. “Conscious of our responsibility before Almighty Allah and men; … …”
  8. “Faithful to the declaration made by the Founder of Pakistan, Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah, that Pakistan would be a democratic State based on Islamic principles of social justice; … …”. ‘Democratic state’ based on Islam? Can democracy be based on any theology?

This man whose nation itself is founded on discriminatory ideology and on Islamic supremacy has the temerity of lamenting in front of the world about some bigoted Hindus who want India to become a Hindu Rashtra, and are rejected by majority of Hindus themselves? We, Indians have the strength to defeat them and can be genuinely concerned about it. But what moral ground the Prime Minister of a Muslim Supremacist country has to cry foul on this? Isn’t he making a joke of himself?

He laments that India blames his bigoted Islamic country for terror and trying to get them black listed by intergovernmental Financial Action Task Force. But why shouldn’t India do that when terrorists are continuously being funded by his country and according to his own admission there are 40,000 terrorists roaming freely in his beloved Islamic country?

He shows concern for the Kashmiris but forgets that it is his Islamist country’s doctrine to use terror against India in Kashmir and putting Kashmiris at risk. The restrictions in Kashmir today are actually to save peaceful Kashmiri’s from Islamists, who want to create an Islamic state in Kashmir.

He is telling the world that India has said that no-first use nuclear doctrine may be revised if need be. But he is the one who first threatened India by painting a scenario of nuclear war in his own parliament. No responsible person has threatened nuclear war in India, but half a dozen of his ministers have threatened India of nuclear war.

Finally, let’s come to Golwalkar’s quote. “To keep up the purity of the nation and its culture, Germany shocked the world by her purging the country of Semitic races – the Jews. National pride at its highest has been manifested here. Germany has also shown how well-nigh impossible it is for races and cultures, having differences going to the root, to be assimilated into one united whole, a good lesson for us in Hindustan to learn and profit by.” The quote says “National pride”, Golwalkar as per the copy of the book I have says “Race pride”. But that is a minor, perhaps, inadvertent mistake; also, I am not sure as some other addition may have said “national pride”.

I said above that Mr. Khan should change his ghost writers. This exact quote is used by Mr. Sitaram Yechuri in Rajya Sabha and published in the Hindu ( And I am not blaming Yechuri here, like some misguided people blame Rahul Gandhi for giving ammunition to Pakistan. We have our own free debates and if Pakistan can do nothing better than aping us, that is their problem. WE can not curb our freedom of debate and expression simply because Pakistan will quote us.

However, Mr. Golwalkar is not exactly preaching ‘purging’ India of Muslims in this quote in spite of the last phrase “a good lesson for us in Hindustan to learn and profit by”. He is trying to buttress his definition of “Nation” taking examples of UK, Germany, Russia and Czechoslovakia. Though his views on the nation are completely bigoted, do not define Indian nation (which is basically a constitutional nation, granting equality to all) and are not in consonance with Hindu history and thinking. Golwalkar says “Those only are nationalist patriots, who, with the aspiration to glorify the Hindu race and Nation next to their heart, are prompted into activity and strive to achieve that goal. All others are either traitors and enemies to the National cause, or, to take a charitable view, idiots.” By this definition I am an enemy or an idiot, how ever I do consider myself a patriot and even a nationalist in a non-aggressive manner. India does not accept Golwalkar’s views.

Golwalkar’s views on how Muslims and others should live in India though grants them freedom of their religion but certainly declares them second class citizens. “From this standpoint, sanctioned by the experience of shrewd old nations [he counts UK, Germany, France, etc. in them], the foreign races in Hindusthan must either adopt the Hindu culture and language, must learn to respect and hold in reverence Hindu religion, must entertain no idea but those of the glorification of the Hindu race and culture, i.e., of the Hindu nation and must lose their separate existence to merge in the Hindu race, or may stay in the country, wholly subordinated to the Hindu Nation, claiming nothing, deserving no privileges, far less any preferential treatment -not even citizen’s rights.” Notice how similar it sounds to Constitution of Pakistan, where everything is governed by Quran and Hadith. We reject Golwalkar and Modi rules under secular Indian constitution; however, Mr. Khan’s Islamic nation follows Golwalkar to the dot, if you replace “Hinduism” with “Islam”. So, Mr. Khan, if honest can have absolutely no problems with Golwalkar.

If Mr. Khan wants further proof of similar thinking in founding ideologists of Pakistan he should look at the writings of many Muslim league leaders and speeches of Zinnah himself. I will say content by quoting the only one ideological founder here. Sir Syed Ahamad Khan, as highly respected by Mr. Khan as Golwalkar by Mr. Modi, says: “Now, suppose that all the English and the whole English army were to leave India, taking with them all their cannon and their splendid Weapons and everything, then who would be the rulers of India? Is it possible that under these circumstances two nations – the Mohammedans and the Hindus – could sit on the same throne and remain equal in

power? Most certainly not. It is necessary that one of them should conquer the other and thrust it down. To hope that both could remain equal is to desire the impossible and the inconceivable.” This is the two-nation theory that created Pakistan. He further says: “Can you tell me of any case in the world’s history in which any foreign nation after conquering another and establishing its empire over it has given representative government to the conquered people? Such a thing has never taken place. It is necessary for those who have conquered us to maintain their Empire on a strong basis … The English have conquered India and all of us along with it. And just as we [the Muslims] made the country [India] obedient and our slave, so the English have done with us.” Conquering and making obedient slave is even justified here.

India rejected this ideology, be that from Sir Syed or from Golwalkar; and that rejection happened right after the partition fuelled by the same ideology. That speaks volumes of sanity and democratic commitment of Indians.  Pakistan, on the other hand, is created precisely on this ideology and its present-day constitution accepts it.

One wonders whether Mr. Khan’s lamentation should be seen as delusional or stupid?


As a tail piece, just as a little curiocity, some thing interesting for leftists in Golwalkar, which they themselves will hardly quote. Golwalkar argues that the concept of national necessarily has 5 common factors: geography, race, culture, religion and language. While discussing Russia (USSR of those days) he comes up with something interesting regarding religion, worth quoting in full here. “In Russia now we have the new religion known as Socialism-and the new culture, that of the workers, evolved out of their materialistic religion. Readers, we think, will not disagree with us regarding the culture—the materialistic culture of Russia; they may, however, feel surprised at our statement that Socialism is modern Russia’s religion. But there is nothing to be surprised at. To most, religion means a set of opinions to be dogmatically followed, for the good of the individual and of the society and for the attainment of God. Here we have a religion which does not believe in God. It is a Godless religion but a religion none the less. For the Russians, their prophet is Karl Marx and his opinions are their Testament. Even in other parts of the world there have been Godless religions in the past. The Russian religion is the modern form of those ancient ones. The socialists are veritably the descendants of Virochana and Charwak.” In this Golwalkar is not alone. The last chapter in R.C. Zaehner edited ‘Concise Encyclopaedia of Living Faiths’ is Material Dialecticism.

One wonders whether this explains why USSR, China and other leftists stated thought it necessary to kill all who disagreed with them? Whether this explains why leftists do not allow others freedom of expression when they are in power?