PTI News, Updates and Discussion

[gamaji]

Of course it is. I am quite sure.

Good to hear that.

 

[MNZGamerX]

Eliminating the immensely popular leader would not end the crisis; it would unleash one that the Pakistani state may not survive.

By Asif Ullah Khan
December 02, 2025



Rumors about former Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan’s death in custody have once again exposed the deep mistrust that defines Pakistan’s political landscape. Officials have rejected the claims, calling them the product of misinformation campaigns. Yet the very speed with which these rumors spread tells a larger story.

Field Marshal General Asim Munir understands that eliminating Khan would be a self-destructive blunder that the establishment can ill-afford. Munir, in his long military career, has seen the disastrous results of the impulsive policies of his predecessors, such as Gen. Pervez Musharraf’s reckless actions, including the killing of Nawab Akbar Bugti in 2006 and the Lal Masjid operation in 2007. Pakistan is still reeling from the aftermath of these events.

Another reason the army cannot afford to eliminate a leader from Punjab — Pakistan’s biggest province and the army’s largest catchment area — is the political risk such an act would carry. Many observers believe that former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif was allowed to go to England for medical treatment in 2019, after his blood platelet count dropped to a critically low level, because the establishment knew it could not provoke a backlash in Punjab by letting a Punjabi leader die in custody. This caution underscores a fundamental reality: the army’s power, recruitment, and legitimacy are deeply intertwined with Punjab’s political sentiment.

It is for this reason that the establishment could get away with Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s hanging in 1979 or the assassination of Benazir Bhutto in 2007. Except for limited demonstrations in Sindh, the rest of Pakistan — especially Punjab — remained largely unmoved. The military faced criticism, but not a nationwide revolt nor a crisis that threatened its core constituency.

Khan represents a fundamentally different political reality. Although he is not ethnically a Punjabi but a Pashtun, Khan hails from Punjab. His support is national, spanning Punjab, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, and the global diaspora. His arrest in May 2023 triggered unprecedented scenes of unrest, including attacks on military installations — events unimaginable in any previous political confrontation. For the first time, the establishment witnessed direct anger erupting not in peripheral provinces but in Punjab itself, the heart of its recruitment base, administrative machinery, and political weight. Whatever the interpretations of those events, they revealed one unavoidably clear truth: eliminating Khan risks igniting political unrest of a scale the army would be unable to contain, especially at a time when the country’s economy is in the doldrums.

More importantly, eliminating Khan would create a martyr of unprecedented scale in Pakistani politics.

Bhutto and his daughter Benazir became icons in death, but their martyrdoms were largely confined to loyal party bases. Khan’s martyrdom would be qualitatively different. His appeal cuts across class, province, and age. He commands a digitally mobilized youth base that sees him not just as a political leader but as a symbol of resistance. A figure with this kind of emotional resonance does not disappear when eliminated — he expands. His movement would radicalize. The state would face the fiercest political backlash in its history.

The establishment knows this, and it remembers the Bhutto precedent well enough not to repeat such a disastrous course. Even with the expanded powers held by the military leadership today, political reality imposes limits that no institution can ignore. Imran Khan is not Bhutto in 1979, nor is this the Pakistan of 2007. He is a national figure with deep roots in the province that the state relies on most. Eliminating him would not end the crisis; it would unleash one that the state may not survive.

For all its strength, the military cannot afford that gamble. And that is why, despite the rumors, the establishment knows that removing Imran Khan is a risk far greater than any conceivable benefit.

 

[PK781]

The guy is already 73 and isn't getting any younger as time goes on.
I don't think he can run the country at that age anymore. We must come out of personality-worship.........stop worshipping the mians, the zardaris/bhuttos and the khans and all that.

The country needs young dynamic leadership (must be corruption-free and patriotic and willing to work hard), and not all of these ultra-rich feudal lords of the past (or their families or offspring)

 

[MNZGamerX]

I don't think he can run the country at that age anymore

Muhammed Yunus in Bangladesh is 85 and Donald Trump is 79 ...

 

[airhead]

You are looking at Pakistan’s situation emotionally, not realistically. The idea that 90 percnt will still vote PTI is simply not supported by ground realities. Support exists..yes, but it is nowhere near the fantasy numbers you are quoting.

The “incomprehensible damage” narrative ignores that Pakistan’s economic decline started long before 2022. Circular debt, collapsing exports, tax evasion, and loss-making government companies were never fixed by anyone, including PTI.

Saying IK united Pakistan from Karachi to Khyber is another exaggeration. Karachi had the same problems under PTI: no water, no empowered local government, no security reforms, and no progress on infrastructure. In Balochistan, PTI also failed to launch any real political or economic reconciliation. Even PTI’s own leaders complained about being ignored.

Your GDP comparison with India does not hold. India’s growth is the result of decades of policy continuity, investment, and structural reforms. Pakistan touched 6 percent under PTI but it was fueled by heavy borrowing and unsustainable imports . That is why the economy crashed right after. Growth without structural reforms is temporary hype.

And your final point proves the real issue. When investors like you base business decisions on one personality , not the system, it exposes exactly why Pakistan remains fragile. No country succeeds when its economy depends on the return of one man. Real progress comes from stable institutions, long-term policy, and economic discipline, not political nostalgia.

Pakistan will not move forward by waiting for someone to come back. It will move forward when we fix the system that keeps colapsing regardless of who sits in the chair.

You are not following me at all. I will not risk my investment as long as the likes of zardari and nawaz sharif are in power ..not a single dollar will go into Pakistan and if you don’t get this simple point then you are a very naive person or you are on their payroll. It has nothing to do with emotions ..it is practical..I wont allow an ounce of my investment to go into zardari pocket. Almost every Pakistani I know says that . We are dying to do business in Pakistan as we see tremendous potential but not as long a zardari, sharif and the army is in power .

IK delivered 6 percent growth consistently without American coalition dollars …he was on the right track ..not perfect but I felt optimism just talking to the youth in Karachi and Lahore…there was new energy. Yes he made mistakes up by putting people like buzdar in power but no one can say that he is corrupt. Yes I get you that we should not rely on one man but I dont see any one today leading Pakistan out of this mess. Our army needs to be restructured ..our economy needs to restructured …old mafia has to be dismantled so yes nawaz sharif and zardari will have to give up their gravy train . Our youth have to be trained for the new world ..we are falling behind. We need entrepreneurs starting new businesses and global enterprises. Only IK has talked about this . Nawaz and zardari and asim munir are still thinking of the old school top down colonial mindset ..ie taking bheek and investment from the west. Not going to work. Unfortunately IK is the only person I can think of who can do this sorrry. Your boys are useless.

 

[PK781]

Muhammed Yunus in Bangladesh is 85 and Donald Trump is 79 ...

Bro. At least those guys care for their country, compared to our "leaders" who come just for their own designs and purposes with shitty policies. Even the much-hated Hasina did some good for Bangladesh.....there's investments, trade, economy....

Pakistan is really the worst receiver in terms of the people it got as "leaders".
EVERYONE since 1947 has been a disaster after disaster, when actual policies are looked at, rather than sugar-coated crap

Even today Bangladesh is doing much better in terms of economy, trade and many other things, while Pakistan is stuck with Sharifs, Bhuttos and Khans and Military generals.....

God knows when this terrible cycle will end

 

[Goenitz]

We don't have institutions but powerful men with big egos. People like these (Qazi Faez Esa, Asim Munir) can do anything. These people don't think strategically but in personal interests. They have already killed the constitution, people and institutions, so IK is a small stone in their way.

 

[PakFactor]

And your final point proves the real issue. When investors like you base business decisions on one personality , not the system, it exposes exactly why Pakistan remains fragile. No country succeeds when its economy depends on the return of one man. Real progress comes from stable institutions, long-term policy, and economic discipline, not political nostalgia.

Pakistan will not move forward by waiting for someone to come back. It will move forward when we fix the system that keeps colapsing regardless of who sits in the chair.

You raise a valid point about the risks of relying on a single individual. However, it is important to recognize that certain leaders can instill confidence and direction within an organization. For example, Steve Jobs and other founders who were initially removed from their companies but later returned played pivotal roles in revitalizing their businesses. In many cases, success is not solely about one person but about the environment and culture the leader cultivates. He had within his hands the minds and hearts of the youth and the elderly, could have molded a generation to come; he was the Obama of Pakistan, for what it's worth. You do not see the same enthusiasm with the current crop at the nation's helm.

With PTI, it was their first term in office, and they were operating against entrenched systemic challenges and decades of fiscal mismanagement. Had PTI not stepped in and things continued as is, all signs indicated Pakistan was going to head south either way. Let’s not overlook the fact that their economic team faced internal collapse due to religious disputes over having a Qaidini on the team, which further complicated establishing a team. Your team of PhDs collapsed because that resurgent culture violated human decency.

Regarding the bolded I highlighted, political parties such as PML-N and PPP, and I will include the military in this as a political party, as they've governed a good portion of Pakistan over the decades, have alternated power for over six decades. Despite this revolving leadership, they consistently failed to implement meaningful structural reforms or uphold the integrity of government institutions. Given this track record, it is difficult to expect these exact figures to deliver anything fundamentally different now. The performance of your SIFC, or lack thereof, reflects the confidence of local and international investors concerning Pakistan.

Pakistan will not move forward, and it never will, because its system is a true reflection of its people. Either it's on purpose or not, you've all made it by hand.

 

[Abdul q]

The guy is already 73 and isn't getting any younger as time goes on.
I don't think he can run the country at that age anymore. We must come out of personality-worship.........stop worshipping the mians, the zardaris/bhuttos and the khans and all that.

The country needs young dynamic leadership (must be corruption-free and patriotic and willing to work hard), and not all of these ultra-rich feudal lords of the past (or their families or offspring)

Mahatir Muhammad… remember the name

 

[Abdul q]

Bro. At least those guys care for their country, compared to our "leaders" who come just for their own designs and purposes with shitty policies. Even the much-hated Hasina did some good for Bangladesh.....there's investments, trade, economy....

Pakistan is really the worst receiver in terms of the people it got as "leaders".
EVERYONE since 1947 has been a disaster after disaster, when actual policies are looked at, rather than sugar-coated crap

Even today Bangladesh is doing much better in terms of economy, trade and many other things, while Pakistan is stuck with Sharifs, Bhuttos and Khans and Military generals.....

God knows when this terrible cycle will end

That’s your opinion… most of Pakistan trusts Imran khan… Shaukat khanum is one of hundreds of examples

 

[airhead]

You are looking at Pakistan’s situation emotionally, not realistically. The idea that 90 percnt will still vote PTI is simply not supported by ground realities. Support exists..yes, but it is nowhere near the fantasy numbers you are quoting.

The “incomprehensible damage” narrative ignores that Pakistan’s economic decline started long before 2022. Circular debt, collapsing exports, tax evasion, and loss-making government companies were never fixed by anyone, including PTI.

Saying IK united Pakistan from Karachi to Khyber is another exaggeration. Karachi had the same problems under PTI: no water, no empowered local government, no security reforms, and no progress on infrastructure. In Balochistan, PTI also failed to launch any real political or economic reconciliation. Even PTI’s own leaders complained about being ignored.

Your GDP comparison with India does not hold. India’s growth is the result of decades of policy continuity, investment, and structural reforms. Pakistan touched 6 percent under PTI but it was fueled by heavy borrowing and unsustainable imports . That is why the economy crashed right after. Growth without structural reforms is temporary hype.

And your final point proves the real issue. When investors like you base business decisions on one personality , not the system, it exposes exactly why Pakistan remains fragile. No country succeeds when its economy depends on the return of one man. Real progress comes from stable institutions, long-term policy, and economic discipline, not political nostalgia.

Pakistan will not move forward by waiting for someone to come back. It will move forward when we fix the system that keeps colapsing regardless of who sits in the chair.

Also by the way I am from Karachi ..you should go into middle class neighborhoods such gulshan and bahadurabad and Tariq road. IK is hugely popular across the board ..if it wasn’t for form47 PTI has sweeper Karachi.

 

[airhead]

You raise a valid point about the risks of relying on a single individual. However, it is important to recognize that certain leaders can instill confidence and direction within an organization. For example, Steve Jobs and other founders who were initially removed from their companies but later returned played pivotal roles in revitalizing their businesses. In many cases, success is not solely about one person but about the environment and culture the leader cultivates. He had within his hands the minds and hearts of the youth and the elderly; he was the Obama of Pakistan, for what it's worth. You do not see the same enthusiasm with the current crop at the nation's helm.

With PTI, it was their first term in office, and they were operating against entrenched systemic challenges and decades of fiscal mismanagement. Had PTI not stepped in and things continued as is, all signs indicated Pakistan was going to head south either way. Let’s not overlook the fact that their economic team faced internal collapse due to religious disputes over having a Qaidini on the team, which further complicated establishing a team. Your team of PhDs collapsed because that resurgent culture violated human decency.

Regarding the bolded I highlighted, political parties such as PML-N and PPP, and I will include the military in this as a political party, as they've governed a good portion of Pakistan over the decades, have alternated power for over six decades. Despite this revolving leadership, they consistently failed to implement meaningful structural reforms or uphold the integrity of government institutions. Given this track record, it is difficult to expect these exact figures to deliver anything fundamentally different now. The performance of your SIFC, or lack thereof, reflects the confidence of local and international investors concerning Pakistan.

Pakistan will not move forward, and it never will, because its system is a true reflection of its people. Either it's on purpose or not, you've all made it by hand.

Right on ..very well said ..I think you got it

 

[LC150]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Abid123]

The guy is already 73 and isn't getting any younger as time goes on.
I don't think he can run the country at that age anymore. We must come out of personality-worship.........stop worshipping the mians, the zardaris/bhuttos and the khans and all that.

The country needs young dynamic leadership (must be corruption-free and patriotic and willing to work hard), and not all of these ultra-rich feudal lords of the past (or their families or offspring)

What leaders? We all know who runs the country.

 

[LC150]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies