Imran Khan’s Controversial Tactics Before and After Operation Bunyan Un Marsoos

Imran Khan’s appeal to the overseas Pakistani community to engage in civil disobedience and withhold remittances from the country reflected a disregard for Pakistan’s economic well-being. Fortunately, this call was overwhelmingly rejected by the patriotic diaspora, which responded instead with record-breaking remittances, reaffirming their commitment to the nation.

Subsequently, reports emerged that Imran Khan had sent a letter to Field Marshal Asim Munir, the Chief of Army Staff. However, Field Marshal General Munir publicly denied receiving any such communication. He made it clear that even if such a letter had been delivered, it would have been forwarded directly to Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, not entertained by the military. General Munir reaffirmed the Army’s neutral stance and underscored that he would not engage with such correspondence.

This principled position from the Field Marshal reassured the public that the military remained committed to constitutional boundaries, allowing the legal system to address elements acting against the state. Despite having repeatedly demanded military neutrality, Imran Khan now appears to contradict himself by trying to involve the Army in his personal political and legal battles. This inconsistency highlights a broader pattern: while publicly rejecting the idea of a National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO), he continues to pursue behind-the-scenes efforts to obtain one. These actions have led many to conclude that he is, in fact, desperately seeking an NRO. To regain credibility, both Imran Khan and his party must demonstrate the integrity to address their challenges through legitimate political and legal means.

Another deeply troubling issue has surfaced. While in custody, Imran Khan has been publishing articles on international platforms, raising serious questions. Prison regulations do not permit inmates to send out written material, and authorities have confirmed that there is no record of Khan writing or submitting any articles from jail. This raises a critical question: if he is not the author, who is orchestrating this narrative?

There is growing suspicion that foreign elements—including the Goldsmith family and Western lobbying groups—may be operating his social media accounts and distributing anti-state content on his behalf. Reports suggest that individuals based in London are crafting and promoting this “article writing” narrative, using Imran Khan’s name and influence to advance their own agendas.

It is alarming that Imran Khan appears to have allowed anti-state forces and foreign actors to exploit his platform to spread hostility against Pakistan and its institutions. This behavior has prompted serious concerns that he is no longer engaged in a democratic movement, but is instead at the center of an expensive, externally driven political project. Rather than promoting national interests, his actions increasingly appear to serve those of Pakistan’s adversaries. His propaganda, once again, stands exposed as a vehicle for personal ambition and foreign manipulation—not a sincere struggle for democratic reform. Imran Khan has consistently placed his personal interests above national priorities, demonstrating a clear disregard for Pakistan, its people, and its institutions.

This narrative gained further complexity when two U.S. lawmakers introduced a bipartisan bill in the House of Representatives aimed at imposing sanctions on Pakistani state officials over alleged human rights violations. According to U.S. media reports, these violations include the so-called “persecution” of former Prime Minister Imran Khan. The bill, titled the Pakistan Democracy Act, was presented by Republican Congressman Joe Wilson of South Carolina and Democratic Congressman Jimmy Panetta of California. It has since been referred to the House Foreign Affairs and Judiciary Committees for further consideration. The proposed legislation called for sanctions against Pakistan’s Army Head to be enacted within 180 days if Pakistan failed to address ongoing human rights concerns. The bill sought to invoke the U.S. Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act, which empowers the U.S. government to deny visas and entry to individuals accused of human rights abuses. Additionally, it directed U.S. authorities to identify and penalize those allegedly involved in suppressing political opposition in Pakistan. The President of the United States would have the authority to lift such sanctions if Pakistan ceased military interference in civilian governance and released all political detainees considered to be wrongfully imprisoned.

This raises an important question for the two lawmakers who introduced the bill: How would they respond if a similar piece of legislation were introduced in another country, advocating on behalf of individuals imprisoned in the United States on serious charges? Would they welcome foreign support for someone like Aafia Siddiqui—an individual the U.S. judicial system has found guilty and considers a national security threat? It is almost certain they would reject such external interference in their legal process.

Similarly, Pakistan has the sovereign right to manage its internal affairs and prosecute individuals under its own legal framework. While these lawmakers may personally support Imran Khan and his political party, the bill reflects their individual opinion rather than official U.S. policy. It is unlikely to influence Pakistan’s legal system and appears more as a symbolic gesture of solidarity with Imran Khan’s supporters rather than a serious diplomatic position.
It’s also worth noting that during President Donald Trump’s previous term, his administration maintained constructive relations with Pakistan’s elected leadership. In one notable instance, President Trump publicly expressed his appreciation for Pakistan’s assistance in capturing a terrorist suspect, highlighting ongoing counterterrorism cooperation.

Following the successful conclusion of Operation Bunyan Marsoos, Pakistan’s Field Marshal Syed Asim Munir received an official invitation to visit the United States from President Donald Trump. During his visit, Field Marshal Munir was warmly welcomed by the U.S. administration, and President Trump personally expressed his appreciation for Munir’s leadership, particularly in ensuring regional security and counterterrorism efforts. This high-level engagement marked a significant strengthening of ties between Washington and Islamabad. These developments represent a major political blow to former Prime Minister Imran Khan, who has consistently sought to distance Pakistan from the United States.

These developments dealt a blow to Imran Khan, who had been hoping for a different trajectory in U.S.-Pakistan relations aligned with his personal political interests. The introduction of the Pakistan Democracy Act also highlighted the persistent lobbying efforts of PTI supporters in the U.S. Since Imran Khan’s ouster in 2022, these activists have been organizing rallies, meeting with lawmakers, and urging increased American involvement in Pakistan’s internal politics. Over the past three years, their efforts have intensified in an attempt to reshape the international narrative in Khan’s favor—though with limited success on official diplomatic fronts. In June 2024, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a similar resolution with overwhelming bipartisan support—garnering 98 percent approval. The resolution called on then-President Joe Biden to urge Pakistan to uphold democratic principles and the rule of law. However, despite the strong congressional backing, the Biden administration chose not to take any concrete action.

After exhausting other avenues, Khan has now instructed his followers from prison to prepare for another agitation. Yet, this latest attempt seems destined to fail, as the people of Pakistan have demonstrated remarkable unity—especially during and after Operation Bunyan-un-Marsoos—and are determined not to allow division or hatred to resurface.

Those involved in the May 9 events, including Imran Khan, must face the full force of Pakistan’s legal system rather than attempting to bypass it or exert undue pressure to weaken the country’s judiciary. Khan should learn from the principles of Riasat-e-Madina, where laws apply equally to all citizens. The nation continues to grapple with the damage caused by the anti-state actions of May 9 and demands that the perpetrators be held accountable with the same severity reserved for terrorists and criminals.

Operation Bunyan-un-Marsoos has strengthened the patriotism and awareness of the Pakistani people. They are no longer willing to be misled by Imran Khan, who appears to prioritize his personal ambitions over the interests of the state.