Imran Khan’s meteoric rise in Western media coverage since his ousting in April 2022 is nothing short of remarkable. Unlike previous Pakistani leaders like Benazir Bhutto or Nawaz Sharif, who were dismissed with little foreign media fanfare, Khan has been thrust into the international spotlight with over 130 articles in European and North American media defending him. One can’t help but wonder why this unprecedented attention is directed at Khan.
The most plausible explanation seems to be that Khan’s party has invested heavily in media lobbying. With his team based in the United States, actively engaging with foreign journalists, it’s clear that there’s a deliberate effort to shape his international image. Yet, there’s a pervasive and troubling myth that his media favor stems solely from his imprisonment. This belief is not only simplistic but also ignores a broader, more unsettling narrative.
Historically, figures like Hakeem Muhammad Saeed and Dr. Israr Ahmad have suggested that Khan’s ascent was part of a Zionist strategy. Saeed, who was tragically murdered in 1998, argued that the Jewish lobby had handpicked Khan to advance their agenda in Pakistan. According to Saeed’s book, ‘Japan Ki Kahani,’ Khan’s promotion was orchestrated by Zionist media giants like CNN and BBC. Saeed’s predictions, despite being controversial, highlight a concerning possibility: that Khan’s prominence might be the result of external manipulation rather than purely domestic dynamics.
Khan’s marriage to Jemima Marcelle Goldsmith, a figure deeply connected to the British political sphere, adds another layer to this narrative. Despite Goldsmith’s denials, suspicions persist about the extent of her family’s influence. As President Asif Ali Zardari pointed out, PTI’s social media strategy, allegedly crafted with foreign assistance, gives Khan an edge that no other political party can match. This raises critical questions about the authenticity of the support Khan receives and whether it reflects genuine public sentiment or is artificially engineered.
The British High Commissioner to Pakistan, Jane Marriot, has been particularly conspicuous in her support for Khan, holding meetings with journalists and human rights activists. Her active involvement suggests that Britain has a vested interest in Khan’s case, though the exact nature of these interests remains murky. Given Marriot’s extensive background in conflict zones and her recent comments on Pakistan’s electoral process, one might wonder if her actions reflect genuine diplomatic concern or if they are part of a larger geopolitical strategy.
Furthermore, the notion that Western diplomatic efforts and media campaigns are designed to rescue Khan from legal challenges is deeply troubling. The UK Embassy and European Union’s involvement in his cases indicates a concerted effort to influence Pakistan’s internal affairs. This raises a broader question about the role of foreign powers in shaping Pakistan’s political landscape.
In essence, the fervor with which Western media and diplomats have embraced Imran Khan suggests a complex web of international interests at play. Whether this support is a genuine expression of concern for human rights or part of a broader strategic agenda is open to debate. What’s evident is that Khan’s narrative has become a significant global issue, with foreign entities playing a pivotal role in crafting and sustaining his image.
