Defence Minister Khawaja Asif on Monday expressed doubts about the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf’s (PTI) sincerity in upcoming negotiations with the coalition government, questioning the party’s abrupt shift in approach.
Speaking to a private news channel on Monday, he described PTI’s willingness for dialogue as a “complete U-turn.” “I am repeatedly asking what happened to the person [PTI founder Imran Khan] who did not want to shake hands with us [and is now desperately seeking dialogue with the government],” he added.
The remarks came after National Assembly Speaker Sardar Ayaz Sadiq formally convened an in-camera meeting between committees representing the government and the embattled PTI. Scheduled for January 2, 2025, the talks aim to defuse the country’s ongoing political tensions.
Asif reiterated his scepticism about PTI’s motives. “I do not see sincerity in PTI [leadership],” he remarked, adding that while he was not opposed to negotiations, the ruling coalition must remain cautious.
Taking a swipe at the former ruling party, he said, “Look at their desperation, PTI wants to hold talks with the establishment through us.” In response to a question, he emphasised that the government would not compromise on Pakistan’s nuclear and missile programmes.
On Saturday, the defence minister had called for inclusive talks involving all power centres, including the military, judiciary, politicians, media, and bureaucracy, to resolve the country’s challenges.
“There is army, bureaucracy, politicians, judiciary, and media. These are the power centres, and they need to sit together to resolve the issues in the country,” he said.
However, Asif warned the government’s negotiating team to stay vigilant, cautioning that PTI founder Imran Khan may try to “take advantage.”
During the talks, PTI is expected to press for a judicial probe into the May 9 riots and the November 26 late-night crackdown, along with the release of “political prisoners.”
COMMENTS
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ