aggar yahan jahill noora butt gwalmandi wala hota to is waqt sabb log hanss rahey hotey aik banda jiss kaa IQ sri paiy,dahi bhalley aur rabbri takk hi jaata ho aur woh kisi ke haath ki rabri yaa dahi bhalley khaa karr usko president banna dai woh jahil kia jawab dai sakey gaa jis ko kashmiri kulchay laganey waley ke ilawa koi aur finance minister bhi naa nazar aata ho woh jahil gama majha kia jawab dai sakta hai
HT Leadership conferance question answer with Imran Khan
- Thread starter Geek
- Start date
i qalandari ghtia insan Aqal say baidal ghtia PPP Kay supporter andhay Imran khan Kay sath kisi bhi leader ka muqabla ker lay koi bhi us Kay muqablay ka nahi kisi terha agar tu apnay Baap ki aulad ha tu dallil say Imran ka mawazna ker Kay dekh lay wo sub pay bahri peray ga.
Saeed4Truth
Minister (2k+ posts)
The more I hear this guy, more i get inspired !
rashidfarooq
Senator (1k+ posts)
تیرا باپ زرداری کہاں دفن ہے آج کل، اور ہاں اس کا جاپانی کتورا بلاول آج کر بہت پھدک رہا ہے، مگر پی پی پی کے جیالوں کو تو ہر بار نیا باپ۔۔ اوہ سوری نیا وارث مل جاتا ہے، زرداری کے بعد اس کو پلا۔۔۔
wasiqjaved
Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
Clearly you weren't listening to his speech closely (especially the closing remarks)
Bani Adam
Senator (1k+ posts)
Although Ive supported IKs actions on several occasions, but Ive serious reservations on his recent talk in Delhi. This is not a question of comparison between NS or IK and I know this might not go well with some of IK fans, but we need to encourage and accept dissent and be accountable for all our actions.
Firstly, imho, IK was ill-advised to attend the HT Leadership Conference (its a misnomer to call it a Summit since there werent many top leaders other than some neocons there), unless he was asked so by his overseas friends that the road to Islamabad in the NWO went via Delhi and he ought to first build bridges there. I doubt that IK is short of money and would be looking for speakers fee at this stage of his political career. He chose the wrong forum also cuz if he wanted to tell the Indians that its time to move on, as he said a number of times during his talk, then again that was nothing new but in fact an already known Indian position on core Indo-Pak issues for long and already advocated by Aman ki Asha, Geo, SAFMA. IK and his advisors need to understand that public motivational seminars and speaking events like this one (its not a lecture at Harv/Cantab) are very very rarely graced by serving politicians for a plethora of reasons. Its a different game for academics, celebrities and captains of the industry, as it is a vital part of building their brand and brand value. But for running political horses, every single word you utter, every question you answer is not directed to the person in front of you but to the whole world and so open to minute analysis; I suspect some of the things will come back to hurt Brand IK later.
Secondly, a speaking event in Delhi could never be an ordinary speaking event, esp for a serving Pakistani politician and is bound to be loaded with loaded questions which if you ve never been in the power or ve never had Intel briefings are bound to catch you on the wrong foot. IK tried hard, but despite having clearly prepared for the talk and briefed by SMQ, in my assessment, he fell short of the mark and exposed his weaker side.
Thirdly, since words matter, strategically, IK should have delivered a formal address (from a prepared text that he seemed to shuffle on the rostrum in front of him), since that was why the organisers had allotted him the first 7-10 minutes to read his position paper (and then a disproportionately long 40-45 minutes of Q&A). By appearing to speak orally, IK oozed raw courage and confidence but it rather went on the hinges of over-confidence and rhetoric. There were unnecessary long pauses when he searched for appropriate words, an unnecessary repetition of his central point that there is need for strong leadership on both sides to withstand the pressure and it all seemed like a political rhetoric and not an inspirational leadership address. However, IK still tried to carry the day with his fluent English, thanks to his schooling/living abroad and the vestiges of colonialism in the sub-continent.
Fourthly, on merits, his two positive moments during the talk were his answers to the questions on Salman Rushdie and on Kashmir, although the response to the question on Kashmir could ve been better, as IK emphasized the two parties, India/Pakistan, need to sit on the table for a dialogue but failed to mention the need to consult the third and central party the Kashmiri people and their continued plight/sufferings/human right violations.
Fifthly, at the same time, IK failed to rebut certain key Indian arguments on Mumbai and Taleban again probably cuz he was not fully prepared for that. He did bring in Indian involvement in Balochistan at one point but couldnt construct a lucid argument, as he missed to connect India with BLA/TTP or Mumbai with Delhi and Samjhota train, missed to explain the discrepancies within the Mumbai investigations (re Ajmal Kasab plus the obnoxiousness of demanding people from Pakistan while CIA refuses to handover the alleged central character, Daud Headley, against whom theres substantial culpable evidence), and on Indian assurances of a fair trial when their own courts admitted that they sentenced Afzal Guru to death to appease public anger despite little evidence. Furthermore, on at least three occasions, IK didnt understand the questions. On a couple of other occasions, he had no answer most importantly on a womans question whether 1947 partition was the right thing and IK was caught unguarded and could only mumble it has happened while the moderator rescued him by chipping in its irreversible. Likewise, IKs emphasis on water as an important issue for the subcontinent was mind-boggling cuz the Indians already recognized this >20 yrs ago and are no fools to have started building reservoirs on major rivers flowing into Pakistan; so it was a baloney to talk of water crisis but not call for equitable water distribution or highlight a systematic blockade of water flowing into Pakistan by India. Similarly, the example of EU/ASEAN was relevant but the dream of a joint civilian nuclear energy plant at the border was wrong (inconsistent with IKs own emphasis on environment in his talk, and at a time when the whole world, esp EU, is moving away from nuclear energy; a better example couldve been joint solar/wind energy plants, hospitals and water reservoirs on the border that serve populations on both sides of the border) and therere host of other points as well where IK rather sounded as an apologist from cricketing events to the sentiments of the youth (again a very serious contradiction with IK/PTIs own emphasis on self-respect/dignity which is technically born out of ones self-identity, which in turn is rooted in ones value system; Can self-respect/self-identity and cultural imperialism go together? Clearly, IK/PTI still has some work to do on the mechanics of its own motto) IK was also misleading when he said that PTI didnt award party tickets to big political houses, whereas hes fast entrenched from all sides by status quo forces (big feudals/mercantilists/Aitchisonians) - and such are precisely the reasons for a running political horse to avoid such public discourses.
Any ways, its all done but hopefully thereld be some frank analysis of this by the party and lessons learned for the future.
Firstly, imho, IK was ill-advised to attend the HT Leadership Conference (its a misnomer to call it a Summit since there werent many top leaders other than some neocons there), unless he was asked so by his overseas friends that the road to Islamabad in the NWO went via Delhi and he ought to first build bridges there. I doubt that IK is short of money and would be looking for speakers fee at this stage of his political career. He chose the wrong forum also cuz if he wanted to tell the Indians that its time to move on, as he said a number of times during his talk, then again that was nothing new but in fact an already known Indian position on core Indo-Pak issues for long and already advocated by Aman ki Asha, Geo, SAFMA. IK and his advisors need to understand that public motivational seminars and speaking events like this one (its not a lecture at Harv/Cantab) are very very rarely graced by serving politicians for a plethora of reasons. Its a different game for academics, celebrities and captains of the industry, as it is a vital part of building their brand and brand value. But for running political horses, every single word you utter, every question you answer is not directed to the person in front of you but to the whole world and so open to minute analysis; I suspect some of the things will come back to hurt Brand IK later.
Secondly, a speaking event in Delhi could never be an ordinary speaking event, esp for a serving Pakistani politician and is bound to be loaded with loaded questions which if you ve never been in the power or ve never had Intel briefings are bound to catch you on the wrong foot. IK tried hard, but despite having clearly prepared for the talk and briefed by SMQ, in my assessment, he fell short of the mark and exposed his weaker side.
Thirdly, since words matter, strategically, IK should have delivered a formal address (from a prepared text that he seemed to shuffle on the rostrum in front of him), since that was why the organisers had allotted him the first 7-10 minutes to read his position paper (and then a disproportionately long 40-45 minutes of Q&A). By appearing to speak orally, IK oozed raw courage and confidence but it rather went on the hinges of over-confidence and rhetoric. There were unnecessary long pauses when he searched for appropriate words, an unnecessary repetition of his central point that there is need for strong leadership on both sides to withstand the pressure and it all seemed like a political rhetoric and not an inspirational leadership address. However, IK still tried to carry the day with his fluent English, thanks to his schooling/living abroad and the vestiges of colonialism in the sub-continent.
Fourthly, on merits, his two positive moments during the talk were his answers to the questions on Salman Rushdie and on Kashmir, although the response to the question on Kashmir could ve been better, as IK emphasized the two parties, India/Pakistan, need to sit on the table for a dialogue but failed to mention the need to consult the third and central party the Kashmiri people and their continued plight/sufferings/human right violations.
Fifthly, at the same time, IK failed to rebut certain key Indian arguments on Mumbai and Taleban again probably cuz he was not fully prepared for that. He did bring in Indian involvement in Balochistan at one point but couldnt construct a lucid argument, as he missed to connect India with BLA/TTP or Mumbai with Delhi and Samjhota train, missed to explain the discrepancies within the Mumbai investigations (re Ajmal Kasab plus the obnoxiousness of demanding people from Pakistan while CIA refuses to handover the alleged central character, Daud Headley, against whom theres substantial culpable evidence), and on Indian assurances of a fair trial when their own courts admitted that they sentenced Afzal Guru to death to appease public anger despite little evidence. Furthermore, on at least three occasions, IK didnt understand the questions. On a couple of other occasions, he had no answer most importantly on a womans question whether 1947 partition was the right thing and IK was caught unguarded and could only mumble it has happened while the moderator rescued him by chipping in its irreversible. Likewise, IKs emphasis on water as an important issue for the subcontinent was mind-boggling cuz the Indians already recognized this >20 yrs ago and are no fools to have started building reservoirs on major rivers flowing into Pakistan; so it was a baloney to talk of water crisis but not call for equitable water distribution or highlight a systematic blockade of water flowing into Pakistan by India. Similarly, the example of EU/ASEAN was relevant but the dream of a joint civilian nuclear energy plant at the border was wrong (inconsistent with IKs own emphasis on environment in his talk, and at a time when the whole world, esp EU, is moving away from nuclear energy; a better example couldve been joint solar/wind energy plants, hospitals and water reservoirs on the border that serve populations on both sides of the border) and therere host of other points as well where IK rather sounded as an apologist from cricketing events to the sentiments of the youth (again a very serious contradiction with IK/PTIs own emphasis on self-respect/dignity which is technically born out of ones self-identity, which in turn is rooted in ones value system; Can self-respect/self-identity and cultural imperialism go together? Clearly, IK/PTI still has some work to do on the mechanics of its own motto) IK was also misleading when he said that PTI didnt award party tickets to big political houses, whereas hes fast entrenched from all sides by status quo forces (big feudals/mercantilists/Aitchisonians) - and such are precisely the reasons for a running political horse to avoid such public discourses.
Any ways, its all done but hopefully thereld be some frank analysis of this by the party and lessons learned for the future.
