hakespeare’s Julius Caesar is a tragedy that has afforded me new insights at every reading. Its hero makes several critical errors of judgment, misreading people and events. His mistakes lead to his own assassination and a bloody civil war that consumes his nation.

There is pathos in “the noblest man that ever lived in the tide of times” uttering his last words: “Is there anybody who is not against me?”

The utterance may well have come from Imran Khan on witnessing the final dénouement of his rule when he discovered that all state institutions had turned against him, for no reason apparent to him. Thus, his fall - if it is read as a fall – was like Julius Caesar’s. He was stabbed in the back by many in the corridors of power. It can be argued equally, however, that he fell only to rise again and is standing tall.

Many took to the streets to support their hero. The public meeting in Peshawar was overwhelming. Seeing the outpouring of emotions across the country, I recalled his brilliant career as a cricketing icon. Thanks to him, cricket once appeared to be the only binding force in an otherwise fissiparous Pakistan.

From winning laurels in Sydney in 1976 to lifting the World Cup in 1992, he was the most sought-after public figure in Pakistan. He had an enormous fan following the like of which one could only dream of. He was the first South Asian sports star to rise to the dizzying heights where his fans compared him to the likes of Princess Diana, Dilip Kumar, Shahrukh Khan, Amitabh Bachchan, Amir Khan and Mic Jagger.

He is one of the few Pakistanis history will remember in praiseworthy terms as a sports icon, philanthropist and political leader. Integrity and idealism set him apart from most Pakistani politicians.

I earnestly believe that politics without idealism and morality is no better than a heinous crime. A leader’s vision emanates from the idealism that he harbours. It is because of his idealism – his promise to create an Islamic welfare state on the model of Medina and ameliorate the lot of the poor – and his condemnation of corrupt politicians that he has been singled out as if he does not belong to Pakistani politics.

By taking an ultra-nationalist and religious-devotee stance Imran Khan has wrested the standard of nationalist narrative away from the establishment, which had been peddling it throughout Pakistan’s history.

In the post-ideology era, Khan’s politics does not reflect the contemporary dispensation. He is perceived as an irritant because he does not fit in the political and governance structures. These very attributes and his charisma will keep him in a positive light in history.

No politician other than the founder of the nation will ever be so honoured. In comparison all generals, judges and journalists will prove expendable and be lost in the mist of history. The hero was treated with indignity and superciliousness by comparative political non-entities, but history will treat him differently.

Politics with some sort of idealism, howsoever flawed or inadequately conceived, is better than politics devoid of idealism and morality which can easily become the epitome of opportunism and avarice.

What worries many among Pakistan’s literati about him is his ultra-nationalist, far right political posturing. His discourse has many religious references. Some political analysts find his lack of flexibility very problematic. A very senior and respected academic recently denounced him as a ‘curse’ for Pakistani polity probably because he uses religion a bit too much. The secular aspect of politics has been set at rest. This may exacerbate the socio-cultural exclusion and jeopardise the status of women and minorities. His style of politics is exclusionary and divisive. It also risks isolating Pakistan from the world order led by America.

Many among Pakistan’s power elite and the intelligentsia have stakes in that world order. These quarters view Khan and his style of politics with suspicion. Several members of intelligentsia have argued against him by deploying cold logic, castigating his economic policies and picking holes in his team building. However, pure logic is an inadequate tool in the realm of power politics.

Cold logic would, for instance, have suggested that Tipu Sultan strike a compromise with the British. Just imagine how history would have judged him had that happened. Khan’s priorities and the way of their execution too can hardly be scrutinised on the basis of logic and rationality alone.

He aspires to something big, which is dangerous to say the least.

In taking an ultra-nationalist and religious-devotee stance Imran Khan seems to have wrested the standard of nationalist narrative away from the establishment which had been peddling it through the country’s history. The establishment must therefore have heaved a sigh of relief at seeing him go. All political powers and the establishment will do their best to make it hard for him to stage a comeback to the corridors of power.

Adieu Khan; you played a determined innings.

The writer is Professor in the faculty of Liberal Arts at the Beaconhouse National  University, Lahore.  He can be reached at tahir.kamran@bnu.edu.pk