While he did not take any names, it was not difficult to discern who Director General Inter-Services Public Relations Lt-Gen Ahmed Sharif Chaudhry was referring to on Friday when he castigated a political leader and his party’s “anti-army rhetoric”. Without naming anyone, the ISPR chief described the individual as a “mentally ill person” whose conduct had become a “serious national security threat”, and accused the PTI chief of running a “scientific system” of coordinated troll activity that pushes anti-state narratives through sequenced online campaigns. According to him, these narratives originate from Imran Khan’s own social media accounts before being amplified abroad. A day later, Defence Minister Khawaja Asif said the military’s spokesperson was free to “respond with full force” to criticism aimed at the armed forces. Yet many observers believe that the ISPR DG’s press conference should have been avoided. It was not only unnecessary, they argue, but also unusually harsh in tone. If the military high command was irked by statements attributed to Imran Khan from jail, there were other options available, including restricting his meetings, as the government has already said it would do. By reacting publicly in this manner, the inadvertent message is that Imran Khan still has the capacity to rattle the powerful, despite being incarcerated.
Others, however, insist that this confrontation was bound to happen given the PTI’s recent posture. They cite several factors that may have compelled the ISPR chief to respond directly and in a manner not witnessed before. One such factor could be the appearance of Imran Khan’s sisters on Indian television, where they gave interviews to outlets widely regarded as pro-Modi or part of the so-called Godi media. In principle, there should be no objection to speaking to international media. But there are geopolitical realities that cannot be wished away. Given the recent May conflict between the two nuclear-armed neighbours, the Godi media has been eager to exploit any political cleavages in Pakistan, particularly to target the Pakistani military. These interviews, critics argue, handed them precisely that opportunity. There were also reports that Imran Khan’s sister was allowed to meet him after assurances were given that no political statements would follow. According to these reports, those assurances were not honoured, a claim the family has denied. What is not in dispute is that a subsequent statement issued from Imran Khan’s X (formerly Twitter) account went beyond harsh criticism of the military’s top brass. It also lambasted PTI members who had recently attended a National Defence University workshop, labelling them Mir Jafar and Mir Sadiq. Denouncing one’s own party workers as ‘traitors’ for merely interacting with military personnel shows how readily internal allies are sacrificed when anger takes over.
Politics, we must remember, is also the art of survival. What is increasingly clear, however, is that the PTI founder-chairman appears to subscribe to a different creed. Name-calling and personalised insults are not politics; they drag political disagreements into the realm of outright conflict. Pakistan’s power dynamics offer ample evidence of how such confrontations usually end. It is in this context that Prime Minister’s Adviser on Political and Public Affairs Senator Rana Sanaullah’s remark that prospects for talks with PTI now seem untenable must be viewed. This spiral serves no one. PTI Chairman Barrister Gohar has sensibly called for de-escalation and for giving space to each other, expressing disappointment over the ISPR DG’s press conference. Equally important is the need to draw a clear line: no political leader should be labelled a traitor or a threat. Pakistan’s history is littered with such branding and it has always been used to justify exclusion rather than resolve differences. This practice must end. If there is one lesson to be learned from decades of political turmoil, it is that confrontation generates chaos and labels and certificates harden positions. Dialogue, however messy and frustrating, remains the only sustainable way forward. All the stakeholders here would do well to lower the political temperature – for everyone’s sake.
