The negotiations have, for the time being, failed. The question is: what next?

 The answer lies in the latest tweet by Sohail Afridi, apparently posted at almost the same time as the talks collapsed. Giving his long march a fresh narrative, he writes: “Innocent people in my province are martyred in military operations and drone strikes, and this is called collateral damage.”

It is striking that the tweet makes no mention of terrorism, let alone condemns it. Its only target is the Pakistani security forces, accused of causing the deaths of innocent people through military operations and drone strikes. This was, in effect, the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa chief minister’s counterattack following the failure of the negotiations. Both the content of this counterattack and the state of mind in which the tweet was posted raise serious questions. They must be examined in context.

This does not appear to be merely a tweet issued in the heat of the moment. It seems to be part of a coordinated strategy. In the legal world, we often say that one provision must be read alongside another to understand its true meaning. In the same way, if Sohail Afridi’s tweet is read alongside Junaid Akbar’s rhetoric about Somnath, it becomes easier to see where the PTI leadership stands and in which direction it is heading.

Look further back, and manifestations of the same mindset can be found everywhere. We have heard that without Khan, nothing matters. We have heard that it would be better to drop an atomic bomb on the country than to hand the government to these people. We have even heard that it would be better to move to Afghanistan than continue living in this country. There have been numerous such statements, yet the party leadership has never reprimanded anyone for making them.

Now the chief minister himself is making statements that appear to lend support to the allegations levelled by Khawaja Asif. Sohail Afridi may not realise that he is helping build a case against his own party, and against himself. In the heat of political passion, even the party’s supporters may not understand the implications of this conduct. But it is dangerous. By the time they do understand, it may be too late.

If the strategy is to pressure the state into submission through this kind of conduct, it is unlikely to succeed. Earlier, the assumption was that protests and shutting down cities would force the state to yield.........

© The Patriot