Islamabad:

Before the digital age, the epistolar history is full of personal and open letters that serve as a crucial window in one’s life and socio-political events in that era.

From the greatest Urdu poet Mirza Ghalib to the greatest Muslim leader Bahadur Yar Jung and from social rights activist Martin Luther King, JR to South Africa Former President Nelson Mandela, their letters conveyed all sorts of information from Mundane to the life change and highlighted their views on social and social Political issues, injustice and need for reforms.

Some of these letters are still considered the best or most influential when they reveal who the authors were and what they were going through at the time. Fring to the present, the last week in Pakistan can be quite called “Letter Week” as imprisoned former Prime Minister Imran Khan revived the old tradition of writing back-to-back open letters to the Chief of Army Staff (Coas) Gen Syed Asim Munir.

While they highlighted IMRAN’s concerns about alleged election manipulation, these letters accused the creation of enabling “corrupt” politicians to return to power and warned of growing public resentment against the institution. Khan also described the harsh conditions for his prison, including lonely inclusion and limited access to legal adviser, among other things.

However, the response from the military and the government was dismissive. The Army Chief stated that he had neither received nor intended to read any letter from Khan, emphasizing that any such communication would be forwarded to Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif instead.

Meanwhile, the Prime Minister’s political adviser Rana Sanaullah reportedly accused Khan of using letters as a political tool to spread anti-military propaganda. PM Aide claimed that Khan rather than seeking dialogue tried to manipulate the public view against the army by publishing the letters.

Some political experts consider these letters as a strategic step to keep his political narrative alive despite being in prison. By tackling the COAs directly, they claim, Khan has tried to highlight the military’s influence on politics while gathering his followers.

However, they note that the military’s dismissive reaction highlights its unwillingness to engage in Khan on political affairs, at least for now, and may be further “annoying the boss.”

“These letters are nothing but a communication strategy and low -risk co -operation to remain relevant in the game,” said the President of the Pakistan Institute of Legislative Development and Transparency (Pildat), Ahmed Bilal Mehboob. “The content of the letters is such that these will annoy the boss further, so reconciliation becomes even more difficult if there was a chance at all,” he added.

In response to several questions about the intention and influence, Mehboob said that “These letters are also intended to send a message to military staff who see I have repeatedly tried to unite.”

On the Army Chief’s response, he said, “I think the boss’s reaction to the question of letters could have been better. A simple ‘no comments’ would have been sufficient.”

Professor Tahir Naeem Malik of Numl University stated that IMRAN’s letters show his repeated attitude that he only wants to talk to the real powerful stakeholder – a desire often criticized by the government ministers.

Following the failure of the government-TPTI negotiations, the professor said, Khan tried to open his narrative and to put pressure on the powerful stakeholders to meet his demands.

Through letters, Professor Malik said, Khan has also tried to highlight the difficulties he has been in prison. “By writing letters, he [Imran] Want to document his case and reset his narrative. “

In a comment on the army chief’s response, Malik said Khan wrote open letters to Coas, so “society as great could be involved in his opinion.”

Malik concluded that Khan has not only tried to put pressure on powerful stakeholders, but also tried to build and present his case to the people. However, he posted Mehboob by saying that Khan seems to have annoyed the army chief further by making letters open. “It caused dissatisfaction,” he said.

Some political commentators also see Khan’s letters as a sign of desperation and an attempt to repair ties with establishment, while others interpret them as a calculated effort to postpone the military’s alleged role in political technique and influence on the political chessboard.