Does Pakistan Tehreek e Insaf see the government as its opponent, or the state itself? Why is its narrative shifting from criticism of the government to a posture that appears increasingly hostile to the state? Is this happening unintentionally, or is it a matter of strategy?
Things have come to a point where PTI appears willing to stand alongside figures like Arif Ajakia and Naseem Baloch while speaking against Pakistan. Here comes a crunch question to the fore: Who is actually making decisions in the party? Who is strategizing its policy?
It is not a trivial matter that after engaging with Zalmay Khalilzad, PTI now finds itself in the company of Arif Ajakia when raising allegations against Pakistan. Ajakia’s identity today rests less on where he was born and more on the hostility he expresses toward the country. At the same time, the son of Imran Khan, who has never chosen to live in Pakistan even during his father’s tenure, appears in such company while speaking about the state.
Where does political opposition end, and harm to the state begin?
One pattern keeps surfacing. Wherever an anti Pakistan voice is heard, PTI is not far behind. Is this merely coincidence, or is there a deliberate hand at work?
Concern for a father’s health is natural for Qasim Khan. No one can question that. But for that purpose, was Dr. Naseem Baloch the only choice?
Naseem Baloch is linked with the Baloch National Movement. His views on Pakistan are well known. Does PTI not know them, or does it no longer matter? He has described Pakistan as an occupying state, taken positions in favor of India and Afghanistan, and called Pakistan a terrorist state. He has been associated with figures like Aslam Achu and with the Majeed Brigade. Is this now the platform from which PTI or those close to it will speak about human rights?
At the center of all this lies the same unresolved question: where is PTI heading, and who is actually in control?
The concern deepens when one recalls that a video praising Sheikh Mujibur Rahman was posted from Imran Khan’s account, with Yahya Khan replaced by the image of Asim Munir. When the Federal Investigation Agency looked into it, PTI’s spokesman Rauf Hasan said the post was made without Imran Khan’s knowledge and that the account is operated from abroad.
An account followed by more than twenty million people, yet no clarity on who runs it. This is not a small issue. It again brings us back to the same point. Who is deciding what appears in Imran Khan’s name? Who is setting the line the party follows?
Inside the country, another development demands attention. Under the slogan of securing Imran Khan’s release, a “Tiger Force” is reportedly being reorganized. Recruitment is said to be ongoing. Oaths are being taken. But for what purpose? If the aim was legal relief, a legal team was the obvious route. If protest was the goal, the party already has a structure. Why create a “force”? What role is it meant to play? Is this politics, or something else?
At the social level, the damage is already visible. Hatred has become the easiest tool. Building anything takes time. Breaking it does not. It takes years to construct a road, but only minutes for a charged crowd to shut it down. PTI has leaned into this dynamic. Relationships have suffered, even within families. Abroad, its supporters have stormed Pakistani embassies and crossed into violence. There is little patience for disagreement. In its harsher expressions, one even hears that without their leader, Pakistan itself holds no meaning. When such thinking is organized into a “force,” the implications are obvious.
The economy offers another example. Pakistan is already under strain, yet politics continues to pull in the opposite direction. At times there are attempts to influence positions so that talks with the IMF do not succeed. At others, appeals are made directly to external actors. Overseas Pakistanis are asked to hold back remittances. The question is simple. Where does political opposition end, and harm to the state begin?
In moments of external tension, the pattern does not change. Whether it is India or Afghanistan, the instinct often is to place Pakistan in the dock. The search is not for balance but for the harshest possible reading of events.
PTI appears clear about the path it has chosen. The only question is whether the state is equally clear about how it intends to respond.
The writer is a freelance columnist.