Asif Mahmood
Recent attempts to stir frenzy and hatred by spreading misleading information about Imran Khan are not only illogical but entirely unpolitical. They seek to provoke public outrage, misrepresenting the actual circumstances of his confinement. Contrary to the narratives circulated by some political quarters, the reality of Imran Khan’s situation in prison is completely different from what PTI or its supporters claim. Media reports and official records make it clear that he enjoys privileges and facilities far beyond the ordinary inmate experience.
According to the information available, Imran Khan is housed in a separate seven-cell compound, originally designed for 30–35 inmates, now functioning as his private enclosure. This compound includes a corridor and a lawn where he can walk, read, and sunbathe. He has unrestricted access to fresh air and movement from morning until evening, a level of freedom far above standard incarceration conditions.
His medical care is comprehensive. Doctors visit him three times daily, monitor his vital signs, inspect his meals before serving, and maintain detailed medical records. Specialist consultants examine him whenever required. This ensures that any health concern is immediately addressed, a provision rarely available to ordinary prisoners.
His diet is carefully prepared by a dedicated cook in a separate kitchen, based entirely on his personal preferences. Fresh juices, dry fruits, meat, salads, and coffee are part of his daily meals, which are far superior to the standard jail rations provided to regular inmates. Additionally, he is provided with exercise equipment, seasonal clothing, bedding, hygiene kits, and unrestricted access to filtered water. Official reports specifically confirm that he has been granted “better class” facilities, highlighting that these arrangements are privileges, not hardships.
Given this reality, the claims that Imran Khan is being subjected to severe mistreatment or denied basic facilities are entirely false. Such statements, often circulated on social media and amplified in political rhetoric, amount to manufactured post-truth narratives. They serve only to create unrest, mislead the public, and portray the legal system as unfair, when in fact, the circumstances tell a very different story.
The important point to recognize is that, instead of resorting to street protests, road blockades, and public disruption, it would be far more constructive for political leaders and their supporters to face legal proceedings through proper channels. The courts and the law are the institutions designed to adjudicate disputes and hold individuals accountable. Creating chaos undermines the rule of law, erodes public trust, and fuels division.
Imran Khan is receiving medical care, nutritional support, and personal accommodations that go beyond what most people experience in ordinary life. The focus should not be on dramatizing or exaggerating the situation but on addressing legal matters responsibly. Upholding the law and ensuring due process is far more beneficial for the country than inflaming passions with misleading narratives.
It is essential for the public and political commentators to distinguish between political rhetoric and verified facts. Media outlets play a crucial role in reporting responsibly, providing accurate information, and preventing the spread of false claims. When citizens understand the true situation, it becomes clear that the narratives of inhumane treatment are not only inaccurate but also counterproductive.
The discourse surrounding Imran Khan’s imprisonment should prioritize truth, responsibility, and legal process over sensationalism. The facilities he enjoys are exceptional and reflect the standards and privileges accorded within the prison system, not deprivation or cruelty. As a nation, the more constructive approach is to allow the legal system to function, ensure accountability, and avoid creating unnecessary unrest. Responsible reporting, adherence to law, and public restraint are the true markers of a mature democracy, and they must guide discussions around high-profile cases such as this.