Imran Khan, not establishment, key obstacle to dialogue with govt: Rana Sanaullah
PM’s aide says not only establishment made its policy on talks public but premier has also offered dialogue to PTI
- Omar Ayub rejected PM’s offer of dialogue with PTI: Sanaullah.
- Says Imran Khan was never in favour of the political dialogue.
- “PTI second-tier leadership in favour of talks with government”.
ISLAMABAD: Rana Sanaullah, the PM’s Adviser on Political Affairs, has said that it is not the establishment but Imran Khan who is the major hurdle in the initiation of meaningful dialogue between Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) and the government.
Talking to The News, Sanaullah — the senior leader of the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) — said that not only the establishment had already made public its policy on dialogue between political parties, but Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif had also offered talks to the PTI in a recent speech in the National Assembly.
The PM’s offer was, however, immediately rejected with contempt by Leader of the Opposition in the NA Omar Ayub Khan, during the same sitting of the lower house.
The PM’s adviser said that Imran was neither in favour of political dialogue in the past nor he is interested now. The PTI founder is instead the major hurdle in the initiation of meaningful talks, which in Sanaullah’s view is important and should be pursued.
The PTI’s second-tier leadership, he said, had been in favour of dialogue with the government but despite their urge for such talks Imran rejected all of them and led to November 26 events.
“It [November 26 episode] was not only a serious jolt to the possible initiation of dialogue process but it also made it clear that Imran Khan does not give any value to the view of his entire second tier leadership,” Sanaullah said, adding that the government is in contact with PTI’s second tier leadership but they are helpless and can’t commit anything as the party’s founder chairman veto all of them.
Some political observers believe that for meaningful dialogue with the government, the PTI needs to review its over last two years’ policy of direct confrontation with the military and its top leadership, both previous and present.
Sanaullah, however, said that the military has made its policy on dialogue very clear on May 8 this year.
The adviser was referring to the statement of the ISPR DG, who in response to a question had said, “All political parties are respectable to us. However, if any political group attacks its own army, no one will interact with it. The only way for such an anarchist group is to apologise to the nation, promise to shun the politics of hatred and do constructive politics,” he had said, and stressed, “In any case, such a dialogue should take place between political parties. It is not appropriate for the Army to be involved.”
While the PTI’s second-tier leadership has been advocating a dialogue process, the PTI social media and its supporters abroad continued to run anti-army campaigns even in relation to the November 26 episode.
In response to this latest propaganda against the army and its top command, the recent Formation Commanders meeting noted with concern “the malicious propaganda done in the aftermath of the lawful deployment of the Army in the capital to secure key government buildings and provide a safe & secure environment for the valued visiting delegations”.
It added: “This pre-planned coordinated and premeditated propaganda reflects continuity of a sinister design by certain political elements as an attempt to drive a wedge between the public and Armed Forces and institutions of Pakistan. This futile attempt, fueled and abetted by external players, will never be successful.”
The forum emphasised that it is imperative that the government should promulgate and implement stringent laws and regulations to check unfettered and unethical use of freedom of expression to spew venom and lies and sow the seeds of polarisation.
Those spreading fake news for vested political/financial interests need to be identified and brought to justice.
Disclaimer: The viewpoints expressed in this piece are the writer’s own and don’t necessarily reflect Geo.tv’s editorial policy.
