DND Report: Academicians, politicians, and senior journalists are raising an important question: Why does PTI oppose military operations in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP)?
This question has multiple dimensions and is deeply rooted in the very making of PTI. After the May 9, 2023 attacks on Pakistan’s military installations and monuments to national martyrs, the alleged links between PTI and the banned Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) became a topic of debate. Some academicians questioned PTI’s rise, but these concerns were brushed aside because PTI’s success had long been associated with the unprecedented support it received from previous establishments, which had pitched it against traditional political parties. Today, however, PTI’s connections with TTP are again under discussion.
In May 2023, during the state-run television program Views on News anchored by Faheem Bangash, it was highlighted that many in Europe believe PTI has deep ties with TTP—the same group accused of attacking military installations and state buildings on May 9, 2023. That same month, a research article titled ‘Is there any difference between TTP and PTI?’ pointed out the similarities between TTP and PTI: both reject Pakistan’s 1973 Constitution, both seek to replace it with a system of their preference, and both share hostility toward the Pakistan Army. TTP calls the constitution “un-Islamic” and demands Shariah law, while PTI advocates a presidential system. Moreover, PTI has historically invited TTP to resettle in Pakistan and even proposed that it form a political wing.
Security experts argue that when Pakistan’s military crushed TTP, PTI “bailed them out” by negotiating their resettlement from Afghanistan. They note that the only difference between the two is that PTI is a registered political party, while TTP is not. While TTP relies on guns and violence, PTI employs political and diplomatic tools—such as letters to the IMF and UN—against Pakistan. These actions, they say, have harmed Pakistan’s international reputation, with even the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) listing Pakistan as a “country of concern” partly due to PTI’s lobbying. Analysts have drawn comparisons between TTP’s 2009 attack on GHQ Rawalpindi and PTI’s May 9, 2023 assaults.
In June 2024, the program Sochna Hoga anchored by Dr. Sajjad Bokhari concluded that PTI often uses TTP as an auxiliary force to pressure state institutions. The show’s participants observed that PTI opposes Operation Azm-e-Istehkam because it undermines both PTI’s political interests and TTP’s strategic goals. They also noted that PTI and TTP share hostility toward major national projects like CPEC and SIFC, which strengthen Pakistan economically and globally.
In February 2025, Zaid Zaman Hamid, a well-known commentator and regional analyst, claimed that PTI had hired TTP to assassinate him. Given his background in Afghan jihad and his connections in radical networks, he argued his claim should be taken seriously. Hamid accused PTI of maintaining deep ties with TTP.
A senior analyst, speaking anonymously, claimed that the PTI government had allowed around 45,000 terrorists to settle in KP and had consistently taken a soft approach toward them, even at the cost of civilian and military lives. He stressed that PTI’s 13-year rule in KP enabled a network of terrorism, smuggling, extortion, and illegal trade—arguing that PTI’s real objective has been power politics, not governance.
On the Tirah Valley incident, he identified two culprits: Imran Khan who allegedly gave space to TTP during his rule and TTP’s leadership, which used civilians as human shields. He added that Khan’s politics now rely solely on violence, chaos, and protest narratives. According to him, Khan’s ties with Afghanistan often shaped PTI’s policies against Pakistan’s national interest, making PTI’s 13-year rule in KP a grave mistake that Pakistan continues to pay for in blood.
“When we used to say that PTI was promoting ‘Talibanism,’ we were silenced between 2011 and 2022. But now everyone can see that Imran Khan endangered the country by aligning with Afghanistan and TTP. Political actors who enable terrorism—whether rhetorically or practically—must also be considered abettors of terrorism, and the state should take strict action against them,” he concluded.
