Khyber Pakhtunkhwa is at a pivotal security crossroads again. After years of hard-won progress against militancy, the province is now facing a worrying resurgence of terrorism. Instead of bolstering law enforcement and military organizations, deposed Prime Minister Imran Khan has opted to actively hinder counterterrorism efforts. His instructions to KP Chief Minister Ali Amin Gandapur to end military operations in Bajaur district are not just irresponsible act, they amount to a dangerous provocation against the writ of the state. In a region where thousands of people have lost their lives in terror attacks, Khan’s populism has crossed into the domain of sabotage.
Earlier this week, security forces launched Operation Sarbakaf in Lowi Mamund tehsil of Bajaur, backed by artillery and gunship helicopters. The three-day curfew imposed during the operation followed confirmed intelligence on militant hideouts. While CM Gandapur initially backed a “targeted operation,” his stance quickly reversed after a public message from Imran Khan. On his X account, Khan warned against another military operation, claiming it would trigger confrontation between “the army and the people,” and insisting that issues in tribal areas be resolved through jirgas and talks with Afghanistan. This is not statesmanship; it is strategic sabotage.
Following Imran Khan’s directive, Gandapur initiated a series of jirgas, the first held in Khyber and Orakzai, attended by 150 tribal elders, six MPAs, three MNAs, and one senator. Officials including the KP chief secretary and inspector general of police were also present. The jirgas recommended rejecting civilian displacement and advocated sending a provincial delegation to negotiate with Afghanistan. While framed as inclusive conflict resolution, these jirgas do little to counter armed militants who thrive on administrative delays and mixed messaging. Dialogue may have symbolic value, but it cannot replace state-led counterterror enforcement.
The contradiction within PTI’s policy is glaring. On one hand, KP’s leadership concedes security is deteriorating. On the other, it actively resists the operations meant to restore order. PTI’s earlier statement called the Bajaur operation a “dangerous replay of past mistakes” and accused the federal government of bypassing the elected provincial leadership. Yet Gandapur’s own reversal shows that this isn’t about constitutional process, it’s about political obedience. By following Khan’s directive, he was paralyzing provincial support for counterterrorism but after wards he changed his mind and welcome this initiative to eliminate terrorism from his province but these shaky decisions send a dangerous message to militant groups that KP’s leadership lacks resolve.
Pakistan has paid a heavy price in its war on terror. Over 80,000 lives have been lost since 2001, including more than 7,000 security personnel. KP, especially its tribal belt, remains the epicenter of this violence. In 2024 alone, more than 1,600 terror-related deaths occurred, over half of them in KP. National operations like Zarb-e-Azb and Radd-ul-Fasaad succeeded because of civil-military unity. Imran Khan’s obstructionist politics now threaten to reverse those gains. His prioritization of personal influence over public safety is a disservice to the people of KP, and to the sacrifices of those who died defending them.
Even more troubling are Khan’s comments on Afghanistan. He called it Pakistan’s “Muslim neighboring country” and insisted that all issues should be resolved through dialogue with Kabul, but facts on the ground are clear: the banned Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) continues to operate from Afghan soil, carrying out cross-border attacks. Despite multiple diplomatic efforts, the Taliban regime has failed to rein in these groups. Khan’s suggestion of talks not only ignores this reality, it projects weakness. It emboldens militant networks and undermines the credibility of Pakistan’s security policy.
In contrast, the federal government, led by Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, has shown strategic clarity through Operation Azm-e-Istehkam a comprehensive, intelligence-driven campaign targeting militant hideouts. This operation reflects Pakistan’s commitment to long-term stability, especially in KP. Khan’s political interference, however, encourages those who thrive on disorder. His words are not reconciliation, they are deflection. His calls for peace mask a deliberate effort to obstruct operations that are necessary, legal, and supported by the constitution. Populism is no excuse for endangering the federation.
If Khan’s directives are followed to their logical end, KP risks sliding back into lawlessness a region ruled not by the Constitution, but by fear, jirgas, and parallel systems. His rhetoric labeling operations as “anti-Pashtun” or “anti-people” dangerously reduces national security to ethnic manipulation. This narrative undermines the army’s efforts and weakens morale in the very regions that need stability most. This is not legitimate political dissent; it is opportunism disguised as resistance and it risks the lives of civilians and soldiers alike.
Pakistan’s fight against terrorism demands unity, not division. At this critical juncture, all political forces must stand behind the state’s security institutions. KP needs coordinated action, not conflicting signals. Imran Khan must be held accountable for turning personal grievance into a national liability. His instructions do not protect the people, they expose them. The choice before Pakistan is clear: defend the state or surrender it to chaos. There is no middle ground in a war that demands clarity, courage, and conviction.
You’re either with Pakistan or you’re with its enemies, there is no third option.”
Author
