Charter for National Reconciliation in Pakistan.

​

Charter for National Reconciliation in Pakistan

Pakistan belongs to all Pakistanis. No single party, leader, or institution owns the state. Pakistan Muslim League (N), Pakistan Peoples Party, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, Tehreek-e-Labbaik, Tehreek-e-Istehkam, and all other political forces—along with their leaders and supporters—are citizens of the same republic. History has repeatedly shown that attempts to “minus” any individual or party are neither constitutional nor workable. Exclusion breeds instability; inclusion sustains democracy.

Leadership, Popularity, and Responsibility

There is no denying that Imran Khan is a popular and charismatic leader with genuine public support. Like every major movement, his ranks include both opportunists and sincere, selfless supporters. This is not unique to any one party; it is the reality of mass politics. The real test of leadership lies in strengthening institutions, elevating principle over personality, and ensuring that political struggle remains within constitutional and ethical bounds.

At the same time, national responsibility must guide political expression. India is a strategic adversary of Pakistan. Any narrative—however well-intended—that can be weaponized against Pakistan’s sovereignty, security, or international standing must be avoided. The misuse of leaders’ names by sensationalist vloggers and YouTubers to sell hostile narratives ultimately harms Pakistan itself. Criticism aimed at reform is legitimate; rhetoric that weakens the state is not.

The Cycle of Incarceration and the Question of Dignity

Pakistan’s political history is scarred by a recurring cycle: today one leader is imprisoned, yesterday another was. Imran Khan today; Nawaz Sharif and his daughter yesterday; Asif Ali Zardari spent years in jail; Shaheed Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto faced imprisonment and exile. Faces change, cells remain.

This raises a fundamental question: have we learned anything?

Regardless of political affiliation—or even guilt—every prisoner, whether a politician or an ordinary citizen, has the right to family visits and basic facilities. These are not privileges; they are human and legal rights. If the state disagrees with a political narrative, it may regulate speech through due process. But denying human contact and dignity is neither justice nor strength. Punishment should restrict liberty, not erase humanity.

The Army: History, Reality, and Balance

It is an established fact that the Pakistan Army has, at different times since independence, been involved in power struggles—through martial laws, political engineering, and amid tragedies such as the separation of East Pakistan. These chapters must be acknowledged honestly.

Yet it is equally important to ask why such spaces emerged. Persistent political infighting, personal ambition, zero-sum rivalries, and the habit of branding opponents as traitors created vacuums that were repeatedly filled.

Army officers and soldiers are Pakistanis. Their families live here; their futures are tied to this land. If the armed forces were driven solely by lust for power, Pakistan would not be counted among the world’s most professional militaries, nor would it have demonstrated credible deterrence against an adversary backed by advanced Russian, Israeli, and French technologies.

A dangerous hypocrisy has also plagued our politics: when in power, civilian leaders praise the military as saviors; when out of power, they brand it an enemy. This instrumental use of institutions weakens the state. The military has the right to defend its reputation against sweeping accusations—especially when hostile states exploit such narratives. At the same time, enduring stability requires that the military remain within constitutional limits and that politicians stop pulling institutions into partisan battles.

Protest vs. Political Solutions

Not every problem is solved by street protests, confrontation, or destruction. Protest is a democratic right, but it cannot substitute dialogue, legislation, and institutional reform. Sustainable solutions are political solutions—crafted through negotiation, compromise, and constitutional process.

Pakistan needs a shift from the politics of victory and defeat to the politics of coexistence and reform:

• The Constitution must be supreme.
• Elections must be the only legitimate path to power.
• Institutions must respect each other’s domains.
• Political disagreements must not translate into state weakness.
• Human dignity must be preserved, even in accountability.

A Call for Dialogue and Mediation

The time has come for Imran Khan, Nawaz Sharif, Asif Ali Zardari, the military leadership, and the judiciary to step back from rigidity and ego, sit together, and agree on a forward-looking framework for Pakistan. This is not surrender by anyone; it is salvation for the country.

Someone must be willing to set aside personal pride to help settle national matters. True leadership is not measured by how loudly one confronts, but by how wisely one reconciles.

In this spirit, I openly express my readiness to play a mediating role between the government, the Pakistan Army, and Imran Khan—purely in the national interest. Mediation does not require formal authority; it requires sincerity, neutrality, and a commitment to Pakistan above self.

Let there be no victors and no vanquished—only a Pakistan that moves from confrontation to reconciliation.

Syed Ali Raza Naqvi Bukhari

Unity of Peace, Economic Reform, and Global Unity

Founder & Chairman of Tehreek Istehkam Pakistan, and the author of “Law of God” and “Social Democratic System.” Advocate for truth, social justice, and reform in all sectors of society.