Peshawar: The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Cabinet has approved renaming Peshawar’s iconic Arbab Niaz Cricket Stadium as Imran Khan Cricket Stadium.
The decision, aimed at honoring Khan’s contributions to sports and politics, has ignited a fiery debate, with critics questioning its timing, propriety, and the erasure of a historical legacy tied to the stadium’s original namesake, Arbab Niaz.
The provincial sports department spearheaded the move, submitting a summary to Chief Minister Ali Amin Gandapur, who gave the final nod. The stadium will now be known as the Imran Khan Cricket Stadium, a tribute to Khan’s legendary cricketing career, which saw him lead Pakistan to its first World Cup victory in 1992, and his role in national politics as the founder of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party.
Who Was Arbab Niaz?
The decision to rename the stadium as Imran Khan Cricket Stadium has brought the legacy of Arbab Niaz into the spotlight. Born Muhammad Niaz Khan, he belonged to the influential Arbab family of Tehkal, Peshawar, a clan deeply entrenched in the region’s political and administrative history. After earning his commission, Niaz served as a lieutenant colonel in the Pakistan Army.
In 1951, Niaz was arrested in connection with the Rawalpindi Conspiracy Case, an alleged coup attempt against Pakistan’s first Prime Minister, Liaquat Ali Khan. He was imprisoned alongside renowned poet Faiz Ahmed Faiz but was later released under a general amnesty. Niaz rose to prominence during General Zia-ul-Haq’s regime, serving as a federal minister for sports, culture, and tourism. His family’s political influence remained strong, with his brother, Arbab Jehangir Khan, serving as the chief minister of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and as a federal minister.
Niaz himself also served as the mayor of Peshawar, a position later held by his brother, Arbab Fatah Muhammad Khan. The Arbab family’s political legacy continues to this day. Niaz’s son, Arbab Shehzad, served as the chief secretary of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and as an advisor to Prime Minister Imran Khan. Another son, Arbab Tariq, was the mayor of Peshawar, while his grandson, Arbab Sher Ali, is currently a PTI Member of the National Assembly.
A Family’s Opposition
The decision to rename the stadium has not been well-received by Arbab Niaz’s family. Arbab Shehzad, his son and a former advisor to Imran Khan, has publicly rejected the move to rename the stadium as Imran Khan Cricket Stadium, calling it “an unsuccessful attempt to please Imran Khan.” He said that the stadium was named in honor of his father through a resolution passed by the Peshawar Municipal Committee and that the change undermines that legacy.
Shehzad also raised ethical concerns, pointing out that Imran Khan himself has long opposed naming public spaces after living individuals. In 2013, under Khan’s directives, the provincial cabinet passed a resolution barring such practices. “Did the government seek Imran Khan’s permission for this?” Shehzad questioned, adding that the move contradicts Khan’s own principles.
A Broader Debate
The renaming has sparked a broader conversation about the politics of memory and legacy in Pakistan. Supporters of the move argue that Imran Khan’s contributions to cricket and politics merit such recognition. They highlight his role in Pakistan’s cricketing landscape and his efforts to combat corruption and promote transparency during his tenure as Prime Minister. Critics, however, see the decision as a politically motivated gesture that disregards historical figures like Arbab Niaz, who played a significant role in the region’s development.
They argue that the move risks erasing the contributions of individuals who have shaped Khyber Pakhtunkhwa’s history. The controversy also highlights the complexities of honoring living individuals. While Imran Khan remains a polarizing figure, his stance against naming public spaces after living personalities has added an ironic twist to the debate.
The stadium, once a symbol of Arbab Niaz’s contributions, now stands at the center of a heated debate. Whether it will unite or divide public opinion remains to be seen. What is clear, however, is that the decision has reignited discussions about how our government chooses to honor its past and present icons.
also read
