The political landscape of Pakistan has been dramatically reshaped since Imran Khan’s removal from office via a no-confidence vote in April 2022. Rather than engaging through traditional democratic channels, Khan launched a persistent, aggressive campaign widely seen as anti-state in nature.
At the heart of this campaign was Khan’s “foreign conspiracy” narrative, alleging— without verifiable evidence— that his ouster was orchestrated by the USA. in collusion with Pakistan’s military, referred to euphemistically as “neutrals.” This message, spread through rallies, media, and social platforms, aimed to delegitimize the new government, erode trust in the military, and radicalize his supporters. Critics argue the purpose was not to reveal truth but create a permanent crisis, positioning Khan as the sole legitimate leader and portraying the state as conspiring against the people.
This campaign was complemented by physical mobilization, translating online sentiment into real-world action. The PTI orchestrated numerous large-scale protests and protracted marches, paralyzing key urban centres and major transportation arteries. The so-called “long march” of late 2022 was a prime example, explicitly designed to force the dissolution of the government and compel early elections, thereby exerting maximum pressure on the administration outside of Parliament. These demonstrations frequently escalated beyond peaceful protest into direct and violent confrontations with law enforcement agencies, prompting inevitable responses involving mass arrests, the dispersal of crowds and the imposition of curfews and road blockades.
This recurring pattern of protest served a clear dual purpose: applying maximum pressure on the sitting government while simultaneously rallying and solidifying Khan’s support base, effectively attempting to strong-arm both the political and legal systems into submission through street power and populist demand, undermining the authority of elected assemblies and court judgments.
The most severe and damning manifestation of this mobilization strategy occurred on 9 May 2023, triggered by Khan’s arrest on corruption charges. The country was subsequently shocked by scenes of widespread, coordinated, and intensely violent attacks as enraged PTI supporters, allegedly acting on pre-planned instructions, targeted the most sacred symbols of state sovereignty: military installations including the house of the Corps Commander in Lahore, government buildings, police stations, and public property were set ablaze.
This was assessed by the government, independent analysts, and subsequent anti-terrorism court orders to be a premeditated and coordinated strategy of violence, not a spontaneous outburst of anger. Judicial findings, detailed in court orders, have explicitly stated that evidence suggests Khan not only incited his followers with his rhetoric but actively delegated responsibility to senior party leaders to create chaos, deliberately disturb law and order, and commit acts of arson to essentially hold the state hostage and pressure the military and government into securing his immediate and unconditional release.
This occurs at a critically precarious time when the Pakistani nation, demonstrating remarkable unity in the face of formidable economic and security challenges, increasingly demands that all political grievances be channeled through constitutional and legal frameworks, and that strict action be taken against all those seeking to harm the state from within, for personal ambition or, worse, by advancing the agendas of the nation’s enemies.
The events of May 9 became a pivotal and indelible moment in Pakistan’s recent history, cementing in the official and public perception the accusation that Khan’s actions had decisively crossed the red line from political opposition into outright anti-state activity, seeking to undermine the state’s monopoly on force.
These grave allegations were subsequently formalized through a series of extensive and ongoing legal proceedings. Special courts have accused Khan of behaviour that “resembles that of a terrorist” for his alleged central role in orchestrating the May 9 violence. He has since faced a veritable barrage of serious charges, including under the stringent Anti-Terrorism Act and the Official Secrets Act in the infamous “cipher case,” alongside separate convictions for corruption, though some of these convictions subsequently overturned or remained under appeal in higher courts. While the PTI and its spokesmen dismiss all cases uniformly and without exception as a politically motivated “witch-hunt” masterminded by his enemies, independent analysts and observers see them, despite the fraught and polarized environment, as a necessary application of legal accountability for a political figure.
Beyond the courtroom battles, Khan’s political strategy further expanded to include explicit calls for civil disobedience, urging his supporters to boycott political processes, refuse to accept state actions, and reject the authority of elected institutions. This tactic further illustrated a fundamental rejection of established democratic channels for redress— such as Parliament and the judiciary— in favor of extraconstitutional pressure and street power. Seasoned political analysts argue that the cumulative and synergistic effect of these actions poses a grave threat to Pakistan’s fragile constitutional order.
They warn that publicly attacking the military and intelligence agencies with sensational accusations of treason, while simultaneously mobilizing impassioned crowds to physically target state symbols, creates a dangerously combustible environment that escalates tensions to a breaking point and risks provoking a destabilizing cycle of severe crackdowns and violent reprisals.
The most potent, modern, and insidious weapon in this extensive arsenal, however, has been the waging of sophisticated digital warfare. Astonishingly, from the confines of jail, Khan’s presence on social media platforms, particularly on X (formerly Twitter), has been nothing short of prolific, sustained, and strategically coherent. With a combined following exceeding 34 million across his official and affiliated accounts, his digital reach acts as an incredibly powerful political force multiplier, allowing him to bypass traditional media gatekeepers and speak directly to the masses unfiltered. His posts, often sharply critical and contemptuous of the military leadership and judiciary, are amplified hundreds of thousands of times through an organized network, shaping public perception with unprecedented speed and scale.
However, this immense influence carries a profoundly dark side. Security analysts and government officials directly link his specific online rhetoric to real-world agitation, civil unrest, and even acts of violence. For instance, the posting of sensitive and selectively edited content from the historical Hamoodur Rahman Commission Report from his verified account was not seen as historical debate but as a deliberate attempt to target the morale of the armed forces, prompting a serious state investigation into its potential impact on national unity.
The very architecture and command-and-control of this digital campaign are themselves a subject of intense scrutiny and investigation. Official probes actively challenge PTI’s public claim of running a decentralized, organic, volunteer-led online movement. Leaked intelligence reports and investigation details point instead to a highly centralized and disciplined command structure, with Khan’s sister, Aleema Khan, allegedly acting as a pivotal conduit, relaying instructions and talking points from the jailed leader to overseas handlers and social media teams who then coordinate and execute messaging across verified PTI platforms.
This suggests a highly managed, top-down information operation bearing the hallmarks of a psychological operation rather than genuine grassroots activism, designed to create a false narrative of spontaneous public outrage.
A particularly alarming and geopolitically sensitive dimension of this digital strategy is its perceived convergence, whether intentional or coincidental, with the strategic interests of hostile foreign powers. Security analysts note a striking and persistent synergy between Khan’s narratives and the coverage of major Indian news channels, which amplify his most critical statements against the Pakistani state within minutes of them appearing online, often during primetime news bulletins.
This “mirror effect,” whereby Indian media gives wall-to-wall coverage to his claims of army interference, judicial corruption, and foreign conspiracies, has raised serious alarms within Pakistan. The concern is that Khan’s digital campaign, regardless of its original intent, is being leveraged and amplified by adversaries like India’s intelligence agency, RAW, to fuel internal divisions, destabilize Pakistan, and wage a cost-effective hybrid war.
This suspicion is gravely compounded by the selectively curated nature of his messaging: while constantly questioning the state’s legitimacy and actions, his accounts remain conspicuously and consistently silent on terrorist attacks against the very security forces he criticizes, thereby indirectly reinforcing Indian propaganda narratives that seek to paint Pakistan as an internally repressive and failing state rather than a nation battling existential external threats.
This alleged anti-state agenda extends beyond mere rhetoric and digital manipulation and into the critical, life-and-death realm of national security governance and policy. The PTI-led government in KP, which borders Afghanistan, is repeatedly accused of actively obstructing the nation’s counter-terrorism efforts and creating policy confusion.
A dangerous and potentially deadly policy divergence exists between the federal and KP governments. While the Centre, having learned from what it views as the failed and costly appeasement policies of Khan’s premiership, has firmly ruled out negotiations with the TTP, but the KP government has not fully embraced this. This lack of cooperation and coordination in the face of a severe terrorism surge from Taliban-controlled Afghanistan is seen by security experts not as a simple political disagreement, but as a grave dereliction of duty that compromises the security of the country and the safety of its citizens, effectively prioritizing political point-scoring over national security.
The actions and strategies employed by Khan and the PTI since April 2022 form a complex and multi-layered tapestry of political resistance that, in the view of citizens, analysts, and state institutions, has morphed into a concerted and dangerous campaign against the state itself. From the foundational allegations of foreign plots and the incitement to violence of May 9, to the sophisticated digital warfare strategy apparently unnaturally aligning with adversarial narratives, and further to an obstructive and non-cooperative approach on critical national security matters, their activities are perceived as prioritizing personal interests over national stability.
This occurs at a critically precarious time when the Pakistani nation, demonstrating remarkable unity in the face of formidable economic and security challenges, increasingly demands that all political grievances be channeled through constitutional and legal frameworks, and that strict action be taken against all those seeking to harm the state from within, for personal ambition or, worse, by advancing the agendas of the nation’s enemies.
