PTI Faces Internal Divide Over October 4 Long March as Calls for Delay Grow

Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) is facing fresh differences within its leadership over the planned October 4 long march to Islamabad, with one senior party leader calling for the protest to be postponed again because of growing security concerns.

PTI Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Information Secretary Shaukat Yousafzai wrote to Chairman Gohar Khan and other party leaders on September 29, urging them to reconsider the October 4 date. He argued that proceeding with the march could increase the risk of emergency rule and create further instability amid the deteriorating security situation and rising militant activity.

Yousafzai warned that the federal government could use security-related developments, including a possible incident originating from Afghanistan, as justification for imposing emergency measures. He also expressed concern that a narrative was being developed portraying the KP government as unwilling or unable to cooperate with the federal authorities.

According to Yousafzai, such circumstances could eventually lead to serious political consequences, including the dissolution of the KP government, allegations that the provincial administration was supporting terrorism, or even action against PTI itself.

He also referred to Imran Khan's previous decision to end a long march in order to protect party workers from potential casualties. Yousafzai argued that dialogue should be given priority over confrontation, particularly given the current security environment.

However, PTI Chairman Gohar Khan rejected the call for another postponement and confirmed that the October 4 march would go ahead.

Gohar also dismissed speculation about changes to the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa government. He said PTI had no plan to dissolve the KP Assembly and rejected suggestions that Chief Minister Sohail Afridi could be disqualified or replaced. According to Gohar, Afridi continues to enjoy Imran Khan's full confidence.

The disagreement highlights a growing debate inside PTI over whether confrontation with the federal government remains the best strategy or whether negotiations could deliver some of the party's immediate demands.

The government has maintained that it is not opposed to dialogue. Law Minister Azam Nazeer Tarar said the government had not closed the door to negotiations but objected to PTI making Imran Khan's release a precondition for talks.

Tarar argued that Khan's release is a matter for the courts and cannot be secured through rallies or marches on major cities. He also referred to the Supreme Court's direction concerning Khan's medical treatment and possible hospital transfer, saying that a medical examination had already taken place. Any question regarding implementation of the court's order, he said, should be taken back to the judiciary rather than addressed through street protests.

Within PTI, Senator Ali Zafar has also suggested that the current situation could provide an opportunity for negotiations. He said the postponement had previously given the government an opportunity to engage with the opposition and that meaningful talks could begin if the government was willing to take the first step.

Zafar argued that the earlier meeting between the opposition leader and government representatives did not amount to formal negotiations. In his view, proper talks should take place through designated committees and behind closed doors.

Despite the internal debate, Zafar described October 4 as the final date for the march and claimed that the government's response reflected concern about the planned mobilisation.

The latest developments show that PTI is balancing two competing approaches: continued street mobilisation and political negotiations. While some leaders are warning that confrontation could expose the party and the KP government to serious risks, the party's central leadership appears determined to proceed with the October 4 protest.

The decision could become a significant test for PTI. A large mobilisation could increase pressure on the federal government, but it could also deepen political tensions and create additional security challenges. A move towards dialogue, meanwhile, could offer both sides an opportunity to address immediate disputes without further escalation.