By Riaz Hussain

Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Chief Minister Sohail Afridi has launched an unprecedented political outreach effort to build a unified strategy against rising militancy in the province, inviting all major parties to a province-wide All Parties Jirga to discuss peace, security, and counter-terror measures.

According to official sources, the chief minister has spoken with ANP President Senator Aimal Wali Khan, JUI-F chief Maulana Fazlur Rehman, Jamaat-e-Islami’s Sirajul Haq, PML-N KP President Amir Muqam, QWP Chairman Aftab Ahmad Khan Sherpao, and PPP’s Muhammad Ali Shah Bacha. A formal announcement of the All Parties Conference (APC) is expected next week.

“We may differ politically, but on public safety there can be no two opinions,” CM Afridi said. “The purpose is to develop a unified provincial policy before finalising counter-terror measures.”

The initiative comes amid a fresh wave of targeted killings, extortion, and cross-border militant infiltration in Swat, Bajaur, North Waziristan, and Dera Ismail Khan — increasing pressure on the KP government to restore public confidence.

Qaumi Watan Party (QWP) Provincial President Sikandar Khan Sherpao welcomed the APC initiative but cautioned the government against “symbolic peace conferences without real consequences.”

“We will join the APC, but peace cannot be achieved through statements,” he said. “History shows that militants use dialogue windows to reorganise and come back stronger. Those who challenge the writ of the state must be dealt with, not accommodated.”

Political analyst Haq Nawaz Khan said military pressure alone was not enough to ensure long-term stability.

“Force is essential, but lasting peace requires a hybrid strategy. Political parties, religious leaders, and the security establishment must sit together — and Afghanistan must be part of the diplomatic process. A united civil-military position is the only way forward,” he said.

ANP Rejects Jirga Approach, Urges Implementation of National Action Plan

Awami National Party (ANP) spokesperson Engineer Ihsan Ullah Khan criticised the KP government for bypassing existing national security frameworks.

“There is no need for jirgas when the state already has the National Action Plan. If the government has a policy, it should implement it instead of outsourcing security to political committees. Jirgas are what opposition parties do — not governments in power,” he said.

He added that previous negotiations had only allowed militants to expand their influence.

“We tried dialogue in the past; militants simply relocated. It was military action that restored peace in Swat and allowed displaced families to return.”

Governor KP: ‘No Talks With Enemies of the Constitution’

KP Governor and senior PPP leader Faisal Karim Kundi issued the strongest rejection yet of talks with militants during a media briefing in Mardan.

“Those who refuse to accept the Constitution, kill our soldiers and civilians, and run a parallel system based on terror cannot be candidates for dialogue,” the governor said. “They operate on foreign agendas inspired by Israel and India — not Pakistan’s interests.”

“The state cannot negotiate with those who wage war against it. We tried appeasement before  it only strengthened terrorism.”

Why Experts Say Jirgas Fail Without State Enforcement?

Past Peace Deals in KP/FATA Outcome

Between 2004 and 2006, the Waziristan pacts allowed militants to regroup and expand their control, while the 2009 Swat Nizam-e-Adl agreement collapsed when militants advanced into Mingora. Similarly, the 2013 talks between the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and the federal government ended after the Karachi airport attack. Security analysts note that the only periods of sustained peace in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) followed major military operations—Rah-e-Rast (2009), Rah-e-Nijat (2009), Zarb-e-Azb (2014), and Radd-ul-Fasaad (2017–2020)—all supported by public, military, and political consensus. As one former counterterrorism official observed, “Political consensus is not a substitute for enforcement. Without intelligence, the writ of the state, and consequences for defiance, jirgas become ceasefires for militants to rearm.”

Militants operating from across the Afghan border

Public distrust of “talks with terrorists” remains high, reflected in protests across Swat, Dir, and Wana. The assassinations of tribal elders who took part in earlier jirgas have deepened this scepticism. Moreover, the absence of enforcement mechanisms in past peace deals has further undermined confidence in such negotiations.

Where Political Consensus Can Help

Achieving political consensus on counterterrorism offers several key benefits. It reduces political point-scoring over issues of terrorism, ensuring a more unified national response. Such unity also helps build civilian support for future security operations, fostering trust between the public and state institutions. Additionally, consensus provides legitimacy for deradicalisation and rehabilitation programmes aimed at reintegrating former militants. Ultimately, it strengthens Khyber Pakhtunkhwa’s position in its engagements with the federal government and the military, promoting coordinated and effective security policymaking.

Conclusion

Chief Minister Afridi’s outreach is the boldest political initiative so far to build provincial unity on security. But Pakistan’s history offers a clear lesson:

“Dialogue without enforcement is not peace — it is surrender.”

Whether the upcoming APC becomes a turning point or another failed peace attempt will depend not on negotiations — but on the state’s resolve to act.