PDP chief says the former Pakistan PM’s hospital-transfer episode exposes the deeper crisis of military interference, political revenge and weak civilian institutions
Srinagar, Aug 25: Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) president Mehbooba Mufti has described the controversy surrounding former Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan’s hospital transfer as a test of the country’s democratic institutions, arguing that Pakistan remains trapped in a cycle of military intervention and political retribution.
In an opinion article published on Tuesday, Mufti said the events surrounding Khan’s return to Adiala Jail raise questions about the authority of civilian institutions, particularly after Pakistan’s Supreme Court had ordered his transfer to a hospital for medical assessment and treatment.
“Whatever the legal justification may be,” Mufti wrote, the episode raises the larger question of what happens to democracy when even orders of the highest court appear vulnerable to executive preferences and, ultimately, those of the military establishment.
Khan, who has been incarcerated since 2023, was ordered by the Supreme Court on August 18 to be transferred to Shifa Hospital. Instead, he was examined at the Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences and subsequently returned to Adiala Jail after being declared medically fit, according to Mufti’s account.
Mufti argued that the controversy should not be viewed solely through the prism of Khan’s political fortunes, saying Pakistan’s crisis is rooted in a much deeper institutional problem.
“Pakistan’s problem is bigger than Imran Khan, Nawaz Sharif or any political party. The problem lies in the system itself,” she wrote.
Recalling her first meeting with Khan in London in 1994, Mufti said his determination to bring change to Pakistan had impressed her father. However, she noted that Khan’s government eventually became part of the same political culture that had characterised Pakistani politics for decades.
She pointed out that leaders of the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz, including Nawaz Sharif and Maryam Nawaz, faced imprisonment and prosecution during the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf government.
According to Mufti, this illustrates the central problem: political leaders have repeatedly relied on the military establishment to consolidate power before eventually becoming victims of the same system.
She traced Pakistan’s institutional crisis to the early years after independence, arguing that the country failed to establish a durable balance between civilian authority and military power.
Mufti referred to successive periods of military rule under Generals Ayub Khan, Yahya Khan, Zia-ul-Haq and Pervez Musharraf, while describing the execution of elected Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto during Zia’s rule as one of Pakistan’s darkest chapters.
She contrasted Pakistan’s political trajectory with India’s, arguing that India’s founding leadership helped establish constitutional institutions under which the armed forces remained subordinate to elected civilian governments.
“Pakistan, by contrast, developed a vicious cycle,” Mufti wrote, adding that civilian politicians often learnt that gaining power required accommodation with the military establishment, only to find themselves targeted when relations with it deteriorated.
She said Imran Khan was no exception, arguing that his rise to power in 2018 was widely regarded as having benefited from military backing. His relationship with the establishment later deteriorated, culminating in his removal from office in April 2022 and subsequent imprisonment.
Mufti also placed responsibility on civilian politicians for sustaining military dominance, saying they have frequently sought military intervention when it suits their political interests.
“The cycle will end only when political parties decide that they would rather lose an election fairly than win through intervention from the barracks,” she wrote.
Despite the political turmoil, Mufti said Pakistan possesses several ingredients of a functioning democracy, including politically conscious citizens, political parties, civil society and an independent-minded legal community.
She also argued that Pakistan’s strategic importance and its growing role in regional diplomacy give it an opportunity to project itself as a responsible regional power. However, she cautioned that such ambitions could be undermined if the country remains internally consumed by political confrontation and institutional conflict.
“A country cannot credibly champion peace and stability while its own politics remains trapped in confrontation and political revenge,” she wrote.
On the Imran Khan episode, Mufti stressed that the issue was not whether the former prime minister was above the law, but whether imprisonment and State institutions were being used as instruments of political retribution.
“The issue is not whether Imran Khan is above the law,” she wrote. “But imprisonment cannot become a substitute for political competition, and courts and State institutions cannot become instruments of political revenge.”
Mufti called for a political settlement under which the military returns permanently to what she described as its constitutional role, courts function independently, elections reflect the popular mandate and political parties compete without seeking military intervention.
She concluded that while Imran Khan may have returned to Adiala Jail, the larger prisoner is Pakistan’s democratic system itself.
“The choice before Pakistan’s Establishment is, therefore, larger than the fate of one man,” Mufti wrote, arguing that it could either continue with political engineering and selective accountability or allow Pakistan’s civilian institutions to function independently.
Mufti said the release of Khan, followed by a genuinely free, fair and transparent political process, could potentially mark the beginning of a broader change in Pakistan.
“Sometimes returning to the pavilion is not the end of the innings. It can be the moment when the game itself is finally changed,” she wrote.
