BRANDING political leaders traitors and national security threats is nothing new in this country; the practice has long been a part of our political power game. Hardly any top political leader, even one who has held the highest state office, has been spared this abasement. The latest addition to the list is incarcerated former prime minister Imran Khan, who has been referred to as a “security threat” and as having a “delusional mindset” by the ISPR chief. This labelling of an individual who not too long ago held the country’s highest political office and still leads its largest opposition party is disconcerting. The comments came in the wake of highly provocative remarks by Imran Khan on social media. Yet it is not deemed appropriate for security circles to engage publicly in polemics regarding the issue.
While classifying certain political leaders as ‘security risks’ or ‘traitors’ cannot be justified under any pretext, many PML-N ministers have joined in the chorus against their political rival, forgetting what happened to their own leader just a few years ago. Nawaz Sharif faced similar accusations in his last term as prime minister during the ‘Dawn Leaks’ saga in 2016. Though there was no public declaration by security circles, a concerted campaign was nonetheless launched against a sitting prime minister, bringing him in direct confrontation with the powers that be. Not only was he forced to sack a minister as well as a special adviser, the scandal also contributed to his own ouster.
Nawaz Sharif also faced similar allegations when he lashed out at the then security leadership after the fall of his government; in contrast, Imran Khan was seen to come to power aided by the establishment in 2018. Ironically, Sharif, who is now viewed as politically kosher, and his party men echoed the charges against Khan and were in favour of the PTI being banned. The revenge game works well with extra-constitutional powers at the expense of constitutional democracy.
Asif Ali Zardari, during his first presidential term, had also been a target of a similar ‘security risk’ campaign in ‘Memogate’. Then, too, the PML-N was instrumental in the drive, which seemed to have been orchestrated by hidden forces. The bogey of ‘security threat’ has conveniently been used to destabilise civilian governments and discredit political leaderships. Unfortunately, political parties have been willing pawns in the game.
Perhaps the worst victim of such a campaign was Benazir Bhutto who was constantly targeted, whether in or out of power. It was well known that she was reluctantly handed over the reins of power, although her party swept the 1988 polls, and the conspiracy to oust her government was soon afoot. A smear campaign labelling her a ‘security threat’, spearheaded by the PML-N with the state’s backing, was launched.
It is unfortunate that our political leadership has not learnt any lesson from their own history.
Her meetings with the then Indian prime minister Rajiv Gandhi at the Saarc summit and her efforts to normalise relations with India were used to whip up a concerted propaganda against her as a ‘security threat’. The drive was accelerated after the failure of an establishment-backed vote of no-confidence against her government. I remember Gen Hamid Gul, then corps commander Multan, after having been removed as ISI head, telling me in early 1990 that by conducting Zarb-i-Momin, one of the country’s biggest military exercises, the security leadership had undercut her move towards evolving friendlier ties with India. Journalists from all over the country and outside had been invited to watch the exercise as a part of what was described as Pakistan’s ‘glasnost’ moment.
A few months later, her government was ousted via a ‘constitutional coup’. Benazir Bhutto was also falsely accused of passing sensitive information about Pakistan’s nuclear programme to the US. It isn’t difficult to see from where such news originates. Anti-state charges against political leaders and elected representatives can only undermine national security, and it is unfortunate that our political leadership has not learnt any lesson from their own history. Meanwhile, criticism of extra-constitutional actions should not be construed as an attack on security institutions.
Just a few years ago, Imran Khan was projected by the establishment as an alternative to a ‘corrupt political leadership’. The former prime minister also attempted to cast doubt on the patriotic credentials of his political opponents. With a turn in fortunes, he himself is now branded as a ‘security threat’ by the same elements who helped him rise to power.
While Khan’s present personalised campaign against the military leadership cannot be condoned, the treatment meted out to him and his party leaders also cannot be justified. We have seen polarisation deepening with the growing involvement of state elements. Last week’s press conference has only intensified the political confrontation in the country, with the perceived role of the security apparatus raising questions. At this time, total support from the public is required for the defence forces to successfully tackle the multiple internal and external security challenges that Pakistan faces; the worsening confrontation will only exacerbate an already volatile situation.
The deeply polarised politics inside the country and a widening trust gap between the public and state can undermine the strong support needed to end the existentialist threat from terrorism in two strategic provinces. Meanwhile, the growing tension between the PTI-led government in KP and the establishment is also a cause of concern given the surge in terrorism in the province and a war-like situation on Pakistan’s western border with Afghanistan.
More than ever, the country needs political reconciliation so that it can focus on tackling these challenges. Branding a former prime minister a ‘security threat’ or abusing the security forces will only compound the current crisis.
The writer is an author and journalist.
X: @hidhussain
Published in Dawn, December 10th, 2025
