Terrorism in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KPK) has deep historical roots, primarily stemming from the Soviet-Afghan War and the post-9/11 U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, which turned the region into a hotspot for militant activity. The porous Durand Line allowed easy cross-border movement of militants and resources. Groups like the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) emerged from the Afghan jihad era, exploiting religious ideologies and weak governance in the tribal areas, especially the former FATA regions.
Militants capitalized on local grievances, filled governance gaps, and undermined traditional tribal leadership. In response, the Pakistani military launched major operations—such as Rah-e-Rast, Zarb-e-Azb, and Radd-ul-Fasaad—to dismantle terrorist networks. While these efforts have disrupted militant strongholds, they came at a high cost, including civilian displacement, infrastructure damage, and long-term psychological trauma. Militants have also adapted, re-emerging in urban areas or aligning with international terrorist groups.
A particularly tragic aspect of this conflict has been the targeting of children and educational institutions. The 2014 Army Public School attack in Peshawar, which claimed over 140 lives—mostly students—remains one of the darkest chapters in Pakistan’s history. Terrorist groups have systematically targeted girls’ education, aiming to suppress literacy and awareness in order to maintain control through fear and ignorance.
From an economic perspective, the impact of terrorism has been nothing short of devastating for KPK. The region, which was once famously known for its thriving tourism sector, especially in the breathtaking Swat Valley, Malakand, and the mountainous northern areas, has suffered a sharp and crippling decline in both domestic and international visitors. The sustained destruction of critical infrastructure, the perpetual and palpable security threats, and overwhelmingly negative media portrayals have all collectively crippled the local economy. Trade and foreign investment have been significantly deterred, and local businesses struggle desperately to survive amidst frequent operational disruptions. Unemployment remains persistently high, and this pervasive economic stagnation unfortunately further fuels the tragic cycle of radicalization, as disillusioned and marginalized youth seek a desperate sense of meaning and opportunity within extremist networks that deceptively offer status, income, or a perceived sense of higher purpose.
The significant and destabilizing role of external actors in persistently fueling terrorism within KPK is an inescapable element that cannot be ignored. The combination of cross-border militancy, foreign funding of extremist groups, and deeply ingrained regional geopolitical rivalries has effectively transformed the province into a tragic battleground for proxy conflicts. The pervasive instability in neighboring Afghanistan, particularly during the protracted Taliban insurgency and the tumultuous period following the U.S. military withdrawal, has had immediate and profound direct repercussions in KPK. Militant groups have consistently found a readily available refuge, essential resources, and strategic depth just across the border, from which they can also launch their deadly attacks into Pakistan. Despite intensive efforts involving border fencing, intelligence cooperation, and joint security mechanisms, the overwhelming challenge of transnational terrorism remains profoundly unresolved. Therefore, extensive international cooperation, especially with Afghanistan and key regional powers, is recognized as absolutely essential for achieving any meaningful and sustainable solution, yet such cooperation is frequently hampered by entrenched mutual mistrust, political instability, and divergent strategic interests.
In this critical context, religious institutions and respected scholars in KPK are widely seen as having a critical role to play in actively countering extremist narratives. While it is a regrettable truth that a small number of madrassas have historically been accused of promoting radical ideologies, it is also important to note that many moderate religious leaders have courageously spoken out against terrorism and attempted to reclaim the authentic narrative of Islam as a religion of peace, justice, and coexistence. However, their important voices require much stronger institutional support, targeted training, and broader platforms to effectively reach the wider population. Comprehensive counter-radicalization efforts must strategically move beyond purely military responses and place a significant, sustained focus on educational reform, fostering interfaith harmony, and promoting moderate, nuanced religious interpretations. Furthermore, crucial initiatives involving community engagement, dedicated youth mentorship programs, and structured deradicalization initiatives can all play an integral part in successfully transforming vulnerable segments of society into productive, peaceful, and fully engaged citizens.
Above all these factors is the profoundly concerning and arguably damaging political dimension to the counterterrorism efforts, stemming from the alleged hesitancy of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KPK) provincial government to fully and robustly support strong federal efforts to confront the resurgence of terrorism. Critics have increasingly charged that Imran Khan, the founder and head of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party, has for an extended period advocated for a policy of negotiations with militants and has actively urged for a significant halt or scale-down of military operations directed against them. According to a recently circulated and highly controversial post on a social media platform, he purportedly asserted that he personally removed Ali Amin Gandapur from the Chief Minister’s position precisely because Gandapur was allegedly not complying with his specific directive to stop counterterrorism operations. Moreover, those making these significant claims believe that Khan has subsequently appointed a new Chief Minister whose primary, effective mandate is to obstruct or, at the very least, substantially soften counterterrorism measures currently underway in the province.
Many political analysts and security commentators view this alleged political maneuvering as a grievous betrayal, especially coming from a political figure who consistently presents himself as a steadfast patriot and repeatedly claims to uphold the nation’s supreme interests. The core argument against this alleged policy is that by actively opposing forceful, decisive responses to terrorism, and by stubbornly preferring dialogue even in the face of ongoing, brutal violence, Khan is effectively turning his back on both innocent civilians and the dedicated soldiers and police officers who risk their lives daily defending the nation against these attacks. For the many people who have suffered the unimaginable loss of loved ones in KPK due to militant violence, or whose entire livelihoods have been fundamentally disrupted, the notion that their political leadership would intentionally slow or prevent necessary operations specifically aimed at protecting them feels profoundly immoral and utterly unacceptable.
Conversely, supporters of Imran Khan might articulate a counter-argument, suggesting that indiscriminate military operations have, on numerous occasions, regrettably harmed innocent civilians, deeply disrupted local communities, and potentially invited a violent backlash that can, in turn, tragically fuel further radicalization. They may thus perceive negotiation or mediation as a strategic necessity if military means alone are proving insufficient or if the human and infrastructural cost of prolonged conflict becomes unbearably high. However, the current prevalent public discourse remains sharply critical: the accusation is that Imran Khan is potentially trading off essential security for political leverage, and in doing so, is allegedly forgetting both the sacred responsibility of a leader to protect his people and the foundational Islamic principle that the protection of life and property are paramount duties of the state to safeguard.
Further intensifying the public emotion surrounding this issue is the repeated reference to Afghan refugees in the accusations. Pakistan has generously hosted a massive population of Afghan refugees for decades, and while the overwhelming majority are ordinary civilians seeking safety and refuge, some reports have alleged the isolated involvement of a small number of refugees or external actors in militant activity. Critics aggressively assert that Imran Khan has reportedly opposed their orderly repatriation even when objective security conditions in Afghanistan have reportedly improved, and that by doing so, he is intentionally allowing an additional, potential security burden to persist within the nation. A significant portion of the public views this policy as yet another example of a political leader placing political optics or the image of his party above genuine national welfare and security.
What many people across the nation find most deeply galling is the perceived and dramatic contradiction between Imran Khan’s rhetoric and his alleged actions: he frequently invokes lofty ideals like “Riasat-e Madina,” an aspirational Islamic concept of governance explicitly premised on justice, protection, and deep care for the vulnerable. Yet, critics claim he is fundamentally neglecting those very ideals when he appears to systematically deprioritize the protection of life and state security in favor of protracted political negotiation or short-sighted appeasement. For many, the recent claims regarding the alleged removal of Gandapur, the appointment of a more compliant Chief Minister, and the active opposition to decisive operations are not merely conventional political disagreements but represent a deeply felt moral and existential crisis—because when the state fundamentally does not act forcefully and decisively against proven threats, innocent lives are tragically lost, public trust deeply frays, and the very legitimacy of the state itself is severely undermined.
The situation of terrorism, particularly in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KPK), is extremely alarming. In a recent press briefing, the Director General of ISPR presented a summary of counter-terrorism operations carried out in the province. He stated that in 2024 alone, a total of 799 terrorists were eliminated, averaging one every 2.1 days. However, this came at a heavy cost, as 577 Pakistanis were martyred, including 272 army personnel, 140 policemen, and 165 innocent civilians. In 2025 so far, 10,115 intelligence-based operations have been conducted, with approximately 40% of these in KPK. As a result, 917 terrorists have been killed — averaging one every 3.5 days — while 516 lives have been lost, including 311 soldiers, 173 policemen, and 32 civilians. These figures clearly reflect the severity of the situation in KPK. In such a context, if anyone still suggests negotiating with terrorists, their loyalty to the country naturally comes into question.
In the current public sentiment, a noticeable shift appears to be underway. A growing number of citizens, political analysts, and influential civil society actors are increasingly articulating the view that the appropriate moment for talking has decisively passed: they believe the current, escalating trajectory of violence now demands firm, unified, and decisive action. For these voices, Islam’s true, authentic teachings are demonstrably not served by postponing necessary protective operations or by deliberately delaying justice — because Islam, they argue compellingly, demands both the uncompromising protection of the innocent and absolute accountability for all wrongdoers. Thus, people are currently demanding not merely rhetorical declarations or social media posts, but concrete, actual policy implementations — including strategic arrests, decisive law enforcement, robust military operations, seamless intelligence cooperation, and thorough judicial follow-through — all carried out under a framework of both moral and constitutional accountability. In their resolute view, this critical issue is no longer just conventional politics, but a fundamental matter of survival for the Pakistani state and its people.
The complex tapestry of alleged actions by Imran Khan has demonstrably generated deep disappointment and a sense of betrayal across the nation, especially from a figure of his stature as a former Prime Minister of Pakistan. There is a palpable demand from both the populace and political analysts for the government to take strict and decisive actions against what are being viewed as anti-state activities or political maneuvers that consciously undermine national security.
Comments are closed, but trackbacks and pingbacks are open.