The issue of military courts in Pakistan has once again come under scrutiny. This time, it is the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) that finds itself in the spotlight, and not for the right reasons. PTI’s shifting stance on military courts highlights an alarming contradiction in its political approach, raising critical questions about its moral authority and sincerity.
Let us not forget that Imran Khan, along with other PTI leaders like Murad Saeed, once openly supported the idea of trying political leaders, media figures, and civilians in military courts. Back then, they deemed it necessary for accountability. But today, the same party vehemently opposes such trials. The sudden change in position reflects a glaring lack of consistency, if not outright hypocrisy.
The narrative of PTI’s contradictions deepens when we examine its role in fostering anti-institution sentiment. Imran Khan and his supporters introduced the damaging rhetoric of “Mir Jafar” and “Mir Sadiq” against security institutions. This reckless messaging misled the youth, sowed hatred, and culminated in the tragic events of May 9. PTI bears significant responsibility for the fallout, which it conveniently chooses to ignore.
When workers accused of May 9 violence were nominated for trial in military courts, PTI had the chance to show solidarity with them. Instead, it abandoned its supporters. It neither provided legal assistance nor engaged in the trial process to ensure transparency and fairness. Now that convictions have occurred, the leadership has emerged with criticism. But where was this concern during the trials?
Defense experts have raised valid points about PTI’s rhetoric. The party irresponsibly labeled its workers as “military and intelligence personnel in civilian clothes.” This claim not only added confusion but also weakened its own position. Now, with military courts delivering verdicts against those involved in attacks on security installations, PTI’s objections seem baseless.
If PTI had genuine concern for justice, it would have stood by its workers during their most challenging times. It would have worked to ensure fair trials instead of abandoning them. Unfortunately, the leadership’s recent actions appear more like political maneuvering than principled opposition.
The question we must ask is simple: does PTI have the moral authority to object to military courts today? Based on its past support for these courts and its failure to assist its workers, the answer seems clear. PTI’s inconsistent stance reflects a troubling trend of prioritizing political expediency over genuine accountability.
This is not just a lesson for PTI but for all political parties in Pakistan. Consistency, transparency, and responsibility must form the cornerstone of any political movement. Anything less undermines the democratic process and erodes public trust in leadership.
It is time for PTI and its leadership to reflect on their actions and rhetoric. They must move beyond politics of convenience and embrace a more principled approach. Only then can they hope to rebuild credibility and regain the trust of their supporters.
