Imran does not make deals.” That was PTI Chairman Barrister Gohar Ali Khan’s firm response on Monday to speculation that the incarcerated former prime minister and PTI founder might be seeking some form of political agreement. Gohar’s argument was straightforward: if Imran Khan had been interested in a deal, he would not have spent years behind bars. He also insisted that Imran did not want to remain in hospital “even for a minute” and was only seeking the medical tests and treatment he required.
The comments came amid the PTI’s legal battle over the alleged non-implementation of a Supreme Court order concerning Imran Khan’s transfer to hospital. The court had directed that he be taken to Shifa International Hospital, but authorities instead transferred him to the Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences (PIMS). The dispute has since become another flashpoint between the PTI and the government, with the party pursuing contempt proceedings over what it describes as a violation of the court’s directions.
Yet while the PTI is forcefully rejecting speculation about a possible political deal, some of its own actions have inevitably kept the issue alive. In particular, the party’s decision to name Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif while leaving Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi out of its contempt petition has prompted questions both inside and outside the party.
According to a report published in this newspaper, the PTI parliamentary party meeting was told that proceedings concerning the enforcement of a judicial order could focus on the administrative officials responsible for implementing it, including the interior secretary and the principal secretary to the prime minister, rather than political figures. Nevertheless, the petition names the prime minister, the law and information ministers, Islamabad’s chief commissioner, the interior secretary, the Punjab inspector general of prisons and the superintendent of Adiala Jail.
The PTI’s explanation is that the political figures included in the petition had made public statements concerning Imran’s treatment. That, however, raises another question: when exactly did the prime minister comment on the issue, and why was the interior minister omitted from the petition despite his position and relevance to the matter?
The greater significance of this controversy lies not merely in the names included or excluded from a legal petition, but in the political speculation surrounding the PTI and the government. The Supreme Court’s initial order, followed by what appeared to be considerable concern within government circles, prompted renewed talk about whether someone might be acting as an intermediary between the PTI and the powers-that-be. Such speculation should not be presented as fact without credible evidence. But neither can the political context surrounding it simply be ignored.
The PTI’s particularly strong rejection of the word “deal” is understandable. The party has spent years building a political narrative around resistance to backroom arrangements and concessions. During his time in government, Imran Khan repeatedly accused opposition politicians of seeking an NRO to escape accountability and imprisonment. Now that similar allegations are being directed at him and his party, the PTI is understandably reluctant to acknowledge even the possibility of political compromise.
But the terminology can sometimes obscure the real issue. Whether an arrangement is described as a “deal”, “dialogue”, “negotiation”, “reconciliation” or “compromise” is ultimately less important than its substance. Political systems across the world have relied on negotiations and compromises to resolve prolonged conflicts. There is nothing inherently unusual or shameful about political opponents eventually finding common ground.
In Pakistan, such accommodation may be even more necessary because of the country’s long history of political victimisation and retaliation. Governments change, political fortunes reverse and those who once exercised power can eventually find themselves on the receiving end of the same methods they once supported or criticised. This creates a vicious cycle in which political confrontation becomes permanent and every change of government risks producing another round of arrests, prosecutions and institutional conflict.
The PTI has been cautioned before that refusing to even contemplate reconciliation may eventually become politically counterproductive. Imran Khan and his supporters may reject the word “deal”, but the political reality remains that no party can indefinitely operate outside the system while simultaneously seeking to reshape it. Political pressure can produce mobilisation, but sustained political change usually requires some form of engagement.
That does not mean the PTI should surrender its political position or abandon its legal demands. Nor does it mean that any agreement should be reached at the expense of constitutional principles, judicial independence or accountability. Rather, the party should recognise that dialogue is not necessarily a sign of weakness. Negotiations can be a means of securing political space, reducing tensions and protecting democratic institutions.
Pakistan’s current political environment has little room for more confrontation. The country needs its political temperature lowered, and that will require engagement between the government and opposition. Formal talks may be necessary, while informal or backchannel contacts can also have a role when conventional negotiations become difficult.
The real question, therefore, is not whether Imran Khan “makes deals”. It is whether Pakistan’s political forces are willing to find a sustainable way out of the cycle of confrontation. The words may change — talks, negotiations, reconciliation, compromise or deal — but the objective should remain the same: reducing political hostility and creating enough space for the country’s institutions and elected representatives to function without perpetuating another round of political victimisation.
Shafaqna Pakistan
pakistan.shafaqna.com
Note: Shafaqna do not endorse the views expressed in the article
