PTI says civil disobedience movement not cancelled, only delayed
PTI leader says PTI always acted responsibly, saying, “Our committee remains prepared for dialogue”
- Ali Bukhari questions govt’s seriousness for talks with PTI.
- Says it’s always govt part to initiate talks to resolve differences.
- Fazal Ch says PTI’s demos were neither political nor peaceful.
Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) leader Advocate Ali Bukhari has said that his party is willing to engage in negotiations, but the government is not serious about taking the initiative to engage with the Opposition party, noting that the civil disobedience movement has been temporarily delayed, not cancelled altogether.
The PTI leader’s remarks came hours after the incumbent government of Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) ruled out talks with the embattled PTI with the “sword of civil disobedience hanging on its neck”.
“For the first time, a pleasant breeze came from the opposition […] but talks cannot be held at gunpoint,” Defence Minister Khawaja Asif said while speaking on the floor of the National Assembly on Tuesday.
Incarcerated PTI founder — in a post on X — had warned the government of launching a “civil disobedience” movement if his demands – a judicial inquiry into the May 9, 2023, riots and November 26 crackdown on PTI protesters and release of its “political prisoners” — are not met.
The ousted prime minister also constituted a five-member negotiation committee comprising Omar Ayub Khan, Ali Amin Gandapur, Sahibzada Hamid Raza, Salman Akram Raja and Asad Qaiser.
Earlier today, Bukhari reiterated the party’s readiness for dialogue, saying, “We have always acted responsibly. Our committee remains prepared for dialogue. However, the government has not demonstrated any seriousness.”
“The PTI founder Imran Khan had only “postponed the civil disobedience movement, not called it off entirely,” the former ruling party’s member said, speaking on Geo News’ programme Capital Talk on Tuesday.
It is always the government’s responsibility to initiate dialogue to resolve disputes, Bukhari stressed.
Speaking during the same programme, Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (JUI-F) leader Hafiz Hamdullah distanced his party from the former ruling party’s civil disobedience call, saying the JUI-F would not support the PTI in its civil disobedience campaign. However, he said that his party would support the PTI in parliament on an issue-by-issue basis.
Meantime, PML-N leader Dr Tariq Fazal Chaudhry welcomed the PTI’s realisation of political engagement, saying that it is encouraging that the Imran Khan-led political party now realises politics is the solution to all problems.
However, he criticised the PTI’s previous actions, noting that peaceful protest is everyone’s right, but the PTI’s demonstrations were neither peaceful nor political, as according to him, they were nothing but an onslaught by armed groups.
Dr Chaudhry underscored the importance of democratic norms for political parties to resolve their issues politically through negotiations. He slammed the PTI saying that it calls itself a political party while talking about marching on Islamabad.
Mixed signals
Earlier on Tuesday, the PTI lawmakers, while addressing in the lower house of the legislature expressed willingness to hold talks with the government but maintained they would “not beg”, with firebrand politician Sher Afzal Marwat saying that terms of references (ToRs) should be chalked out for the negotiations.
Speaking on the NA floor, Marwat said that no negotiations would bear fruit unless “political forces discuss ToRs”, adding that later they should discuss the terms of references with the establishment.
PTI lawmaker Ali Muhammad Khan lambasted the incumbent government for opening gunfire at the protesters in Islamabad on November 26, saying that politicians do not fire bullets, but talk.
“During our tenure, the PPP and the JUI-F held long marches but not a single bullet was fired,” he said, adding that their hands were not “tainted with blood”.
“When we did not give rights to West Pakistan, they created Bangladesh,” he said, asking what would have happened if they had been allowed to form the government.
He noted that his party would not beg for talks. “If you think you can run the country by excluding Imran Khan, try it,” he added.
