- “No substantial results emerged from the interactions,” says Gandapur.
- “Khan stands firm in her ideology and cannot be imprisoned.”
- CM says PTI would not seek forgiveness for 'someone else's mistake'
After Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) founder Imran Khan expressed his willingness to hold talks with the military, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) Chief Minister Ali Amin Gandapur on Saturday confirmed that he had several interactions with the establishment but all proved inconclusive.
“No substantial results emerged from the interactions [with the establishment]”Gandapur said after holding a meeting with the former prime minister incarcerated in Rawalpindi's Adiala Jail.
Gandapur hinted at his multiple engagements with the establishment in his official capacity as KP chief minister.
He said: “I hold an official position and I remain in contact with the establishment… interactions occur frequently but so far no concrete results have emerged.”
His statement came after Imran, who has been jailed for nearly a year, offered three days ago to start “talks with the military” and asked the institution to nominate its representatives for the negotiations.
The deposed prime minister, who ruled the country from 2018 to 2022 before being removed from office through a no-confidence vote, reiterated his offer of dialogue “within constitutional limits” once again during an interaction with journalists at Adiala jail earlier today.
The KP CM further said that the PTI founder stood firm on his ideology, which according to him cannot be “imprisoned”. Detailing his meeting with the former prime minister, he said he found Khan concerned about the national economy and “ready to engage in dialogue for the sake of the country, besides constituting a dialogue committee”.
The prime minister dismissed any confusion in the party ranks and said they were bound to abide by the decision of the PTI founder. Gandapur also said he would prefer to quit politics if he did not announce and hold a public rally in Islamabad.
The politician urged the stakeholders to formulate terms of reference (TOR) for holding negotiations to end political disputes and bring stability to the country.
The PTI firebrand politician also reiterated that his party does not consider the current government eligible for talks despite being offered to initiate negotiations on multiple occasions as “they are not the real rulers.”
He, however, expected a “great advance” for his province, as had happened in the past.
The PTI founder's move has triggered a strong response from the government, which has accused Khan of trying to “politicise” the army and also offered the party a seat at the negotiating table.
Asked about the cases related to the May 9 riots, Gandapur said the PTI was not responsible for the violent protests and “whoever made the mistake will have to accept it.”
He further said the PTI was ready to apologise if found guilty of the crime, however, it would not seek forgiveness for “someone else's mistake”.
The founder of the former ruling party and other senior leaders, including former foreign minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi and a large number of workers, have been embroiled in several cases related to the May 9 riots triggered after Imran's arrest in a corruption case last year.
During the riots, mobs vandalised military installations including the General Headquarters Rawalpindi (GHQ), Corps Commander House Lahore and others, which was followed by a nationwide crackdown on the PTI.
Regarding Sher Afzal Marwat, whose membership in the party was apparently terminated but the decision exposed a rift among PTI leaders, Gandapur revealed that he was still in touch with the NA lawmaker.
“I have advised Marwat to tolerate criticism but we will sort out internal issues within the party. I think the doors should not be permanently closed on anyone's return,” Gandapur said, adding that he was not aware of any notification regarding the former's dismissal.
Responding to another question on a fierce tribal clash in Parachinar, the KP Chief Minister said that “a ceasefire had been agreed between two warring groups fighting over a land dispute.” He asserted that the incident should not be termed as terrorism or religious dispute.
