Can sacrifice development, not security: Governor Kundi, Naqvi chair KP apex committee meeting

KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA (PAKISTAN), PESHAWAR, 12 OCTOBER 2026 —

Federal Intervention in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa: Kundi and Naqvi Launch Crisp Counterterrorism Push as Emergency Rule Takes Hold

The new administration’s first order of business is uncompromising: security will take precedence over development, with Kundi declaring that “we can sacrifice our development, but never security.” His remarks came at the inaugural meeting of the provincial apex committee, where he vowed to eliminate the “lack of synergy” in counterterrorism efforts that has plagued the province for years.

“Now it will show that there is synergy,” he said, promising that the administration would “fulfil the demands of the Counter-Terrorism Department and police” without delay. The governor’s directive—“work 24/7”—underscores the urgency, as he dismissed any notion of holidays or weekends, insisting the new setup would prioritise “result-oriented” actions over cosmetic measures.

Kundi’s warning carried particular weight given the province’s deteriorating security landscape. Districts like Dera Ismail Khan, Tank, and Waziristan have become no-go zones for civilians, with residents stripped of basic freedoms to travel or live without constant threat. “People have no freedom to live, travel and do other things” in these areas, he said, framing the crisis as a denial of fundamental rights.

His call to restore freedom of movement in these districts reflects both a humanitarian imperative and a political challenge to the narrative that Khyber Pakhtunkhwa is beyond the reach of state authority. “People from our province also want peace, prosperity and development,” he stated, positioning the new administration as the only viable path to reclaiming stability.

The governor’s ambition extends beyond immediate security gains. He pledged that the administration would be remembered for “restoring peace” in the province, declaring that history should record their efforts as pivotal. To ensure accountability, Kundi announced regular apex committee meetings, a mechanism to oversee progress and hold stakeholders to their commitments. His tone was unyielding: “We have to show the difference,” he said, implying that past failures under the PTI-led government would not be repeated.

Naqvi’s participation as co-chair of the meeting underscored the federal government’s determination to align provincial and national security efforts. “Today is the first time I can proudly say that the federal and the provincial governments are on the same page,” he declared, a stark contrast to the “many ups and downs” of the past 2.5 years. Naqvi’s criticism of the PTI government was direct and damning, accusing it of “deliberate disengagement” from the counterterrorism fight.

“It was the [provincial] government’s job to lead the war against terrorism, but they did not do it,” he said, framing the intervention as a necessary correction. His assertion that the PTI “kept bowing their heads only because they did not want to compromise” suggested a deliberate obstruction of federal efforts, a claim that resonates with federal ministers’ allegations of a “nexus” between the provincial government and terrorist groups.

Naqvi’s remarks also highlighted the operational challenges faced by security forces. “The most difficult work was that the war against terrorism was being fought with no backend support,” he said, implying that the federal government had been left to shoulder the burden alone. His promise that “the same people will show you results”—referring to the security apparatus—hinted at a renewed commitment to military and police coordination, though he acknowledged that progress would not be instantaneous.

“It’s not like things will change in a day; there will be difficult times,” he cautioned, but added that unity among the governor, police, administration, and federal government would be the key to success. “Our intentions are pure; God will help us produce results,” he concluded, invoking a blend of secular and religious rhetoric to rally support.

The federal government’s decision to impose emergency rule under Article 232 and assume direct control of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa via Article 234 was not taken lightly. A federal cabinet meeting on Sunday had deliberated the province’s security crisis, concluding that the PTI-led government had engaged in “deliberate disengagement” from counterterrorism efforts.

The subsequent deployment of Pakistan Army troops and assets to aid civil power marked a significant escalation, with shipping containers strategically placed around Peshawar to block roads and heavy police deployments visible on the ground. These measures reflect a zero-tolerance approach to the security threat, signaling that the federal government will not tolerate further inaction.

The breakdown of talks between the Centre and PTI on October 3 had already exposed deep divisions over counterterrorism policy. The PTI has repeatedly alleged that it was being excluded from security decision-making in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, a claim the federal government has denied.

The party has also called for a review of the counterterrorism policy and opposes military operations, positioning itself as a voice for dialogue with the Afghan Taliban—a stance that has clashed with the federal government’s hardline approach. Federal ministers, in turn, have criticised the PTI’s efforts to combat terrorism, accusing the provincial government of enabling terrorist activities through its perceived inaction.

The federal intervention comes at a critical juncture for Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, where the security situation has deteriorated to the point of paralysis. Districts like Dera Ismail Khan, once a hub of economic activity, now operate under severe restrictions, with civilians unable to move freely. The imposition of emergency rule has sent a clear message: the federal government will not tolerate further erosion of law and order.

Kundi’s emphasis on “fast-tracking” governance and “zero tolerance for corruption” suggests a determination to clean house and restore efficiency, while Naqvi’s insistence on federal-provincial unity signals a coordinated effort to reclaim control.

For the people of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, the intervention offers a glimmer of hope that their security and livelihoods will no longer be hostage to political gridlock. The governor’s pledge to “restore freedom of movement” in terrorism-affected districts is a direct response to the suffering of civilians, who have borne the brunt of the province’s instability.

However, the road ahead will be fraught with challenges, including the need to rebuild trust with local communities and ensure that security gains are not undermined by bureaucratic inefficiencies.

Regionally, the developments in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa carry broader implications for Pakistan’s counterterrorism strategy. The province’s proximity to Afghanistan and its role as a transit point for cross-border movements of militants and narcotics make its stability a matter of national security. The federal government’s decision to deploy military assets signals a willingness to take decisive action, but it also raises questions about the sustainability of such interventions.

If the new administration can demonstrate tangible progress in restoring law and order, it may set a precedent for other provinces facing similar challenges.

For investors and businesses operating in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, the intervention could bring a measure of stability to an otherwise volatile environment. The province’s economic potential—particularly in trade, agriculture, and infrastructure—has long been constrained by security concerns. If the new administration can successfully curb terrorism and improve governance, it could unlock opportunities for investment and development. However, the immediate focus remains on security, and any economic benefits will depend on the administration’s ability to maintain momentum.

The PTI’s response to the federal intervention remains unclear, but its repeated calls for dialogue and its opposition to military operations suggest that the political battle is far from over. The party’s ability to regain influence will depend on its ability to articulate an alternative vision for security and governance that resonates with both the federal government and the people of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.

For now, the federal government’s grip on the province is firm, and the message is clear: security comes first, and compromise is not an option.

As the new administration moves forward, the eyes of the nation—and the international community—will be on Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The success of this intervention will be measured not just in the reduction of terrorist incidents, but in the restoration of normalcy for its people. Kundi’s hope that the administration will be “remembered well” in history reflects a desire to leave a legacy of stability and progress.

Whether that vision becomes reality will depend on the unwavering commitment of the governor, the Interior Minister, and the security forces to the task at hand.