A group of Pakistani parliamentarians, including prominent figures from the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP), Balochistan Awami Party (BAP), and Muttahida Qaumi Movement-Pakistan (MQM-P), issued a letter directed at Pakistan’s Prime Minister, Shehbaz Sharif. The letter aimed to counter the recent Congressional push led by U.S. Representative Greg Casar, signed by 62 U.S. lawmakers, calling for action against human rights abuses allegedly committed by Pakistan’s military, particularly targeting General Asim Munir. This American letter not only highlighted political oppression in Pakistan, specifically the treatment of former Prime Minister Imran Khan, but also demanded sanctions on top military officials, travel bans, and asset freezes.
Big news! In a bold move, 160 Parliamentarians of Pakistan have penned a scathing letter to the Prime Minister of Pakistan in response to the US Congressmen’s letter to the US President. pic.twitter.com/5DShE2LwQS
— Wajahat Kazmi (@KazmiWajahat) October 31, 2024
The Pakistani parliamentarians’ response labels the U.S. congressional letter as “inaccurate,” “unwarranted,” and a “skewed view of realities,” accusing the U.S. Congress of being swayed by “political propaganda” circulated by Imran Khan’s supporters. The letter portrays Khan as a divisive figure and holds him responsible for recent political unrest in Pakistan. While intended as a defense of Pakistan’s internal politics, it raises concerns about the credibility of Pakistan’s institutions and the nation’s political stability, reflecting a dismissive stance toward the critiques raised by international observers.
The Influence and Weight of Greg Casar’s Congressional Letter
Casar’s letter holds notable diplomatic weight as it comes at a time of increasing scrutiny of Pakistan’s internal political dynamics. Signed by influential figures such as Maxine Waters, Rosa DeLauro, and Barbara Lee, the letter aligns with U.S. legislative authority on sanctions, financial oversight, and foreign relations. This advocacy places substantial pressure on the U.S. State Department and signals to Pakistan’s government that human rights concerns are being taken seriously by the U.S. Congress.
Read my full press release with co-leads @RepMcGovern and @RepSummerLee: https://t.co/5yMtNasitj
— Congressman Greg Casar (@RepCasar) October 23, 2024
The letter does not merely offer criticism; it demands specific actions from the Biden administration to hold Pakistan’s military leadership accountable. For Pakistani lawmakers to dismiss these actions as “propaganda” disregards the influence of the U.S. Congress in shaping international diplomatic stances.
Pakistani Parliamentarians Label Facts as “Propaganda”
The Pakistani parliamentarians’ response categorically dismisses the Congressional letter, labeling its claims as “propaganda” and “disinformation.” However, this rhetoric is devoid of substantial counter-arguments addressing the issues raised. Congressmembers specifically highlighted concerns over human rights abuses, political imprisonment, and threats to Pakistan’s democratic structure—issues echoed by international human rights organizations. By failing to engage substantively with these critiques, Pakistani lawmakers sidestep the core of the Congressional letter’s argument, which emphasizes the need for transparent governance and democratic rights.
Conflating Imran Khan with Human Rights Concerns
The Pakistani letter takes a combative stance against Imran Khan, accusing him of instigating violence, manipulating social media, and fostering division. By framing Khan as the primary instigator, the lawmakers deflect from the broader calls for human rights reform, portraying international critique as partisan support for Khan rather than a genuine concern for democratic principles.
Read More: Pakistani-Americans Push Congress for Action Against Gen. Asim Munir’s Regime
The Pakistani response further defends ‘exceptional measures’ taken by the state against political unrest, comparing these to U.S. policies on surveillance and national security. This whataboutism conflates security policies within entirely different governance contexts, failing to acknowledge the democratic rights expected of a country’s citizens, particularly during political contestation. Attempting to justify crackdowns on dissent and political freedoms under the guise of national security only underscores the very concerns raised by Casar’s letter.
Ignoring Structural Democratic Concerns
Perhaps most telling is the Pakistani letter’s assertion that the Congressional concerns reflect “a skewed view of realities.” Such a blanket dismissal disregards the U.S. Congress’s legitimate influence on foreign policy decisions. By labeling these concerns as “unsubstantiated political propaganda,” the Pakistani response implies an unwillingness to address issues of democratic governance.
The Congressmembers’ call for asset freezes and travel bans against top Pakistani officials, specifically targeting General Munir, represents more than symbolic pressure. These measures, if implemented, could hinder the officials’ access to U.S.-based financial assets and curtail their international mobility. In failing to engage with these serious diplomatic implications, the Pakistani parliamentarians’ letter risks further straining U.S.-Pakistan relations, potentially alienating Pakistani-Americans who support democratic reforms.
Pakistan’s Path Forward: Confrontation or Engagement?
As the Congressional letter gains support, the Pakistani government must consider its diplomatic response carefully. The parliamentarians’ letter asserts Pakistan’s sovereignty and condemns perceived interference but fails to acknowledge the potential impact of dismissive rhetoric on U.S.-Pakistan relations. The Pakistani-American diaspora, increasingly politically engaged, could play a bridging role, fostering positive relations and supporting democracy in Pakistan. However, the parliamentarians’ letter does little to encourage such cooperation.
By prioritizing nationalistic narratives over diplomatic engagement, Pakistan risks isolating itself from influential international voices. A more pragmatic response would involve acknowledging international concerns, promoting transparency, and inviting independent reviews of human rights practices. Such measures would not only foster international goodwill but also strengthen Pakistan’s democratic institutions in the long term.
Read More: US Congressmen Demand Release of Imran Khan and Change of American Ambassador in Pakistan
In sum, the Pakistani parliamentarians’ response misses an opportunity to present a constructive stance on human rights and democratic accountability. Instead, by framing these issues as foreign “propaganda,” the letter underscores the concerns raised by Greg Casar and his Congressional colleagues.
Watch Congressman Greg Casar’s discussion with CEO Global Village Space Publications, Dr. Moeed Pirzada: