Treatment of a Prisoner Is a Human Right, Not a Political Tool
By Amir Muhammad Khan
The true character of any society is reflected in the way it treats its opponents, prisoners and vulnerable people. Anyone in prison—whether an ordinary citizen, a political activist or a former prime minister—has the right to medical treatment when he falls ill. Political differences are one matter, but human health and life must remain above political disputes.
In Pakistan’s politics, it sometimes appears that political leaders going to prison has become almost a routine part of political life—either before coming into power or after leaving office. Political leaders generally belong to the privileged sections of society. Even when they are imprisoned, they may continue to enjoy many facilities that are unavailable to ordinary prisoners. Nevertheless, once a political leader is behind bars, his party often begins portraying his imprisonment as a story of extraordinary oppression and hardship in order to generate public sympathy.
This is also understandable from the perspective of opposition politics. An opposition party naturally seeks to challenge the government, and its political agenda may include criticism—legitimate or otherwise—of the ruling administration. However, political propaganda should not be allowed to turn a prisoner’s health into a political weapon.
I remember my own experience during the **Press Freedom Movement in 1978**, when I, along with several other journalists, spent months in prison. Because we were classified as B-Class prisoners, the martial-law government of that time even provided us with attendants in Karachi, Hyderabad and Khairpur jails.
There was a period when we went on hunger strike inside prison. It lasted twenty days—480 hours. It was a genuine hunger strike. The issue attracted considerable attention internationally because journalists being imprisoned was regarded as an unacceptable situation. Outside the prison, journalists, newspaper workers’ organizations, student organizations and workers’ unions continuously raised their voices for the release of the imprisoned journalists.
At the time, we heard reports that the hunger-striking journalists were repeatedly fainting and suffering serious medical consequences because of alleged torture and starvation. We only discovered the extent of these claims after our release, when we read the newspapers of that period. Yes, we had become weak and had lost weight because of the hunger strike, but we were not repeatedly fainting or lying unconscious as had been portrayed.
I mention this experience for one reason: political movements can sometimes exaggerate circumstances in order to strengthen their narrative. Therefore, when it comes to the health of any prisoner—including Imran Khan—the issue should be examined through medical facts rather than political claims.
The government should not close its eyes to the medical needs of any prisoner. Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi has argued that if someone wants to make life difficult for a prisoner, the ordinary “official legal prison menu” would be sufficient. His broader point is that prisoners from privileged backgrounds can sometimes receive facilities far beyond those normally available to ordinary inmates.
Yet despite such facilities, relatives and political parties may continue to make political capital out of imprisonment. The same situation appears to have developed around former Prime Minister Imran Khan.
There are cases against him, and his lawyers are pursuing those cases—often for substantial professional fees. If he is acquitted, one might even jokingly ask: what would happen to the lawyers’ livelihood? But jokes aside, legal proceedings should remain within the courts, while medical issues should remain within the domain of doctors and medical professionals.
The role of Imran Khan’s sisters and party leaders in discussing his imprisonment has also become part of the political narrative. Likewise, some vloggers and commentators sitting outside Pakistan, often earning substantial amounts from political content, may be intensifying the controversy surrounding his imprisonment rather than helping resolve it.
Even the Interior Minister, who is himself often criticized by the opposition, has reportedly raised questions about the cooperation of the political leadership concerning medical examinations. According to his statement, Aleema Khan had allegedly instructed party leadership not to cooperate with the government regarding medical examinations because, in her view, such cooperation could damage the party’s political slogans and narrative.
If this allegation is correct, it raises a serious question: what should come first—the political narrative or the health of the prisoner?
There is already widespread discussion that some members of the leadership and the family are reluctant to cooperate with the authorities. If that is indeed the case, it would be unfortunate if political calculations were allowed to prolong a prisoner’s difficulties.
Every few days, statements are issued about taking the matter to the streets. Yet after the unsuccessful protest of May last year, the party has repeatedly had to reconsider the idea of bringing large numbers of people onto the streets. Perhaps the time has come for serious political thinking: if the objective is to continue politics, the democratic path is to leave the streets aside, return to Parliament and come to the negotiating table.
Regarding Imran Khan’s medical treatment, the Supreme Court’s decision is certainly welcome. Interestingly, this is the same Supreme Court that some of his supporters and propagandists had previously subjected to severe criticism and abuse, but are now celebrating its decision and distributing sweets.
It is difficult to understand why such a judicial decision is being presented as a defeat for the government or the Pakistan Muslim League. This was not a cricket match or a wrestling contest in which one side had to defeat the other. A court decision concerning a prisoner’s medical rights should be viewed as a legal and humanitarian matter, not as a political victory or defeat.
If the government’s position is that Imran Khan is being provided with the medical facilities he requires, that doctors are being allowed to examine him and that treatment is being arranged according to medical requirements, then the matter should be judged on the basis of **transparency, medical standards and independent professional opinion**, rather than turned into another political battlefield.
The real question is not whether the government is paying for the treatment or whether the family is arranging it.
The real question is simple:
Is the patient receiving appropriate, timely and quality medical treatment?
Unfortunately, Pakistan’s political culture has increasingly developed the habit of viewing almost every issue through the lens of political interest. Imran Khan’s health appears to have become another victim of this political confrontation.
When the government says that medical facilities are being provided, the immediate political response is sometimes to suggest that perhaps a “deal” has been reached. Every administrative step is then linked to political reconciliation, secret negotiations or a hidden agreement.
Why should providing medical treatment to a prisoner automatically be interpreted as a political deal?
In any civilized legal system, a prisoner’s right to medical treatment is part of his basic human rights. Allowing medical examinations or providing treatment should never be treated as a political concession.
Similarly, if Imran Khan’s family, lawyers or political party genuinely have concerns about his health, the best course is to seek independent medical opinions, ensure transparency of medical reports and follow the proper legal procedures.
Turning illness into a political narrative does not serve the patient’s interests. It can actually make the situation more complicated.
The Ministry of Interior has, according to its statements, attempted to provide assurances to the prisoner’s political party by using available channels and inviting party representatives to participate in or witness the medical examination process. If party representatives initially refused to participate on the grounds that it was a party decision, this raises another important question: is political confrontation being given greater importance than ensuring confidence in the prisoner’s medical treatment?
If the concern is genuinely about Imran Khan’s health, then cooperation with doctors should be welcomed rather than rejected.
There is another aspect of this debate that should also be discussed responsibly. I have seen social-media posts from some people in Jeddah expressing their support and affection for Imran Khan in indirect or carefully worded ways. One wonders why they feel the need to express their political views in such a guarded manner. Pakistani institutions abroad should not discriminate against citizens because of their political opinions, provided that they remain within the law. Whether someone is a journalist, a community member or an ordinary Pakistani, equal treatment should be the principle.
The larger issue, however, is not Imran Khan alone.
The principle should apply to every prisoner.
If a prisoner is sick, he must be treated. If a prisoner needs a specialist, the specialist should be provided. If an independent medical opinion is required, it should be obtained. If the family has legitimate concerns, they should be heard. If the government is providing treatment, that process should be transparent.
At the same time, political parties and families should not deliberately turn a medical condition into a tool for political mobilization. A sick person is a patient first and a political figure second.
Pakistan has already suffered enormously because political disagreements are transformed into battles over every institution—courts, Parliament, media, administration and even hospitals.
We need to draw at least one clear line:
**Politics can be fought in Parliament, in elections and through democratic debate. A prisoner’s illness should not become a battlefield.**
Whether the prisoner is Imran Khan, a political opponent of the government, an ordinary citizen or someone with no political influence whatsoever, the standard should be the same.
Human rights cannot be selective. Medical treatment cannot be conditional on political affiliation. And compassion should not depend on whether we support or oppose the person behind bars.
If Pakistan wants to strengthen its democratic and legal institutions, both the government and opposition must demonstrate responsibility. The government must guarantee transparent and proper medical care, while the opposition must avoid exploiting genuine medical concerns for political propaganda.
The health of a prisoner should be protected by the state, monitored by qualified doctors and discussed through facts—not slogans.
A prisoner may lose his freedom, but he does not lose his human rights. Treatment is a human right, not a political deal.
