The Holy Bible says, “There is a time to speak and a time to remain silent.” In the politics of “Contradiction Land” (Tazadistan), people are baffled by the long silence on one side and the continuous firestorm on the other. Three-time Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, with the most political experience, has taken a vow of silence. Everyone is left wondering what he is really thinking. On the other hand, former Prime Minister Imran Khan, imprisoned, continues to unleash fiery rhetoric daily. Interestingly, each statement differs from the last, gradually adding to the confusion. Let’s analyse why these two major party leaders have adopted such approaches and their political implications. But first, we must address the biggest news—Pakistan receiving a bailout package from the IMF.
From a political perspective, this is a significant victory for the establishment and the Shehbaz government. It marks a major defeat for the predictions, analyses, and efforts of the PTI and its supporters. Since February 8th, PTI’s analysts had maintained that this government would collapse due to a failing economy, that no institution would lend it money, and that, as a result, the government would fall, allowing PTI to regain power and steer the country towards economic recovery. This narrative, based on assumptions, is proving wrong. The government has been bolstered by the IMF’s lifeline, and the system is beginning to function once again.
Famed American journalist Ron Suskind wrote in his book The Way of the World that former U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney prioritised pragmatism over principles. Despite promises, he abandoned Benazir Bhutto and instead supported General Musharraf, acknowledging his power. The same is true today—international institutions do not operate on moral principles but on pragmatism. Did anyone hear the conditions the IMF supposedly imposed on PTI? Did the IMF respond to the U.S. House of Representatives’ resolution passed by a significant majority? No. Today’s world is not built on moral principles—pragmatism still reigns supreme. Otherwise, could the events in Gaza continue as they are?
Returning to today’s topic, I am reminded of an interview I conducted with Sufi intellectual Ashfaq Ahmed. In it, he compared various politicians to literary and historical figures (this interview is included in my English book Personal File). Regarding Nawaz Sharif, Ashfaq Ahmed said that he seemed influenced by Chinese philosopher Shen Tao, who linked wisdom with silence. Perhaps that’s why Nawaz Sharif is the “Mr Silence” of Pakistani politics. He often goes through long periods of quiet and, even when he speaks, says very little. This positive silence—or negative muteness—has had both beneficial and detrimental effects on his political career. As Thomas Carlyle said, “Silence is deeper than words.” Nawaz Sharif uses his silence to navigate many crises and intellectual contradictions.
His silence about General Zia-ul-Haq, for instance, did not stop him from becoming a champion of democracy. Despite once being in alliance with a dictator, Sharif crossed those dangerous thresholds with his silence. Today, he stands with the establishment, even though he was once its harshest critic. He has yet to speak a word about this shift in policy, perhaps believing silence is his most successful strategy. He seems to view his party’s actions as substitutes for his political narrative. However, in today’s communication-driven world, this prolonged silence and lack of a clear stance have severed his connection with his followers, severely damaging his party politically.
In contrast, the other key player in Pakistan’s politics, Imran Khan, believes in continuous fiery rhetoric. He seems inspired by U.S. President John F. Kennedy’s saying that “the only reason to give a speech is to change the world.” While Nawaz Sharif is quiet, Imran Khan speaks endlessly, speech after speech, and frequently adopts new positions. His constant statements and incendiary rhetoric have helped him establish a strong political narrative. His aggressive remarks about his opponents have made things difficult for his political adversaries.
It seems Khan has read the verse by the revolutionary Urdu poet Yaqoob Raahi:
“Polite words never made people behave,
Speak harshly, be bitter in tone.”
His fiery rhetoric has injected an aggressive tone into his party, but it has also contributed to his imprisonment. General Asim Munir was once a fan of his, but Khan not only removed him from the position of ISI Chief but also turned permanently against him. He even held a long march to prevent Munir from becoming the Army Chief and, through his party, spewed such venom that the doors to negotiation were shut. General Bajwa also became a target of this rhetoric; despite being the Army Chief, Khan labelled him a traitor, calling others “Dirty Harry” and “Mr X”. Every opponent is “Maulana Diesel” while every ally is the finest person in the world. His worldview is binary, either black or white, whereas most people in the world are neither—they exist in shades of grey. Unless one acknowledges opponents, even support loses value. Governance without an opposition is not governance—it’s dictatorship.
Khan’s fiery rhetoric has achieved its victories, but now the negative consequences are emerging. While it’s said he’s a major leader in the Muslim world, the reality is quite different. When Bhutto was arrested, every capital around the world protested against Pakistan. Islamic and Western countries tried to halt Bhutto’s execution. When Nawaz Sharif was arrested, Saudi Arabia secured his release and took him to safety. Similarly, there was a global outcry for Benazir Bhutto and even pressure from Gulf nations for Asif Zardari. But no such diplomatic activity is evident for Imran Khan. If there are any voices in his favour, they’re more about human rights than personal affection. No country has spoken up for Khan out of personal sympathy. PTI and Khan must reflect on this international isolation; after all, when Musharraf was ousted from power, Saudi Arabia, Dubai, and the U.S. came to his aid.
The PTI’s strategy of continuous firestorms must now be tempered with a dose of bitter truth to bring them back from the world of fiction and desires. Up until May 9th, there was hope that a rebellion would erupt within the military, bringing revolution across the country. The opposite happened. Then they pinned all their hopes on the judiciary—neither Chief Justice Ata Bandial nor his fellow judges could secure Khan’s release from prison. The dream of an economic collapse has also shattered. Attempts to isolate Pakistan internationally have largely failed, and direct negotiations with the military have been fruitless. The PTI’s only remaining asset is its popularity, but if these unrealistic expectations continue and hope after hope is dashed, even this strength will wane. The only way forward is political struggle, political alliances, and negotiations with other political parties. It is the only path to turning moral superiority into practical success.
Note: This is the translation of his Urdu column published in Jang
