Muhammad Shahid
In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, thousands of young men carry guns not out of choice but out of necessity. They are uneducated, unskilled, and with no alternative means of earning a living, weapons have become their only trade and source of survival. Yet the province’s Chief Minister, Sohail Afridi, repeatedly criticizes military operations and state institutions, claiming that counter-terror measures increase extremism and that peace can only be achieved through dialogue and jirgas.
Afridi has publicly declared, “No military operation will be carried out in the province as long as I am the Chief Minister,” and has blamed Islamabad for the resurgence of terrorism, saying, “Due to wrong federal policies, terrorism has resurfaced in the province… the federal government is not providing us with the War-on-Terror funds and other constitutional rights.”He has also leveled disparaging remarks against security forces, alleging that they once “brought dogs into mosques and told us ‘there is no difference between you and these dogs’,” statements that drew condemnation from the provincial Governor and religious leaders for undermining the morale of the armed forces.
The problem, however, is not just his statements but their contradiction with reality. Afridi himself comes from a region where guns dominate the landscape, where uneducated youth rely on armed trade as their only livelihood. If these men’s only skill is running guns, how can they be expected to abandon them without alternatives?And yet, Afridi continues to focus on blaming institutions rather than offering practical solutions to the structural problems that drive militancy. There are no visible plans for vocational training, literacy programs, job creation, or reintegration of former combatants—initiatives that could genuinely reduce reliance on weapons.
The lack of development infrastructure in many districts compounds the issue. Roads, schools, and healthcare facilities remain inadequate, and investment in small businesses or agricultural projects is minimal. Without addressing these foundational gaps, any attempt to promote peace through dialogue alone is bound to fail. Youth who see no future in education or employment naturally gravitate towards armed groups or illicit trades, perpetuating cycles of violence and instability.
Afridi’s reliance on jirgas as a solution has also proven ineffective. Numerous jirgas have been held according to the government’s direction, often with great public attention and fanfare. Yet despite these assemblies, there has been little tangible improvement in security or reduction in armed activity. The repeated failures of these traditional gatherings underscore the fact that dialogue alone cannot replace practical interventions such as education, employment, and social development. Peace is not simply a matter of convening elders—it requires long-term structural change.
Furthermore, the absence of effective local governance leaves communities vulnerable to exploitation by extremist networks. These networks offer not only financial incentives but also a sense of identity and belonging, which the state fails to provide. Ignoring this social dimension risks allowing militancy to fester in the very districts that Afridi claims to represent. Peace cannot be declared from the podium—it must be built from the ground up, through opportunities and empowerment. While Afridi criticizes the army and federal government, he ignores the fact that peace and security require active governance and opportunity. Rejecting federal support and equipment for police forces during times of rising terrorist activity reflects a leadership that prioritizes rhetoric over results. Announcing peace jirgas and public consultations cannot replace concrete programs that give youth a viable alternative to weapons.
Afridi’s political strategy relies on confrontation and blame. He claims, “Khyber Pakhtunkhwa belongs to Imran Khan… no operation can take place without his approval,” signaling loyalty to party politics over pragmatic governance. Meanwhile, the young men in his native districts continue to carry guns because the state offers them nothing else.
Leadership requires creating opportunities, not amplifying grievances.The longer the leadership delays implementing structured programs, the deeper the roots of militancy become. Each passing year without meaningful intervention strengthens the argument of extremists that the state is absent or indifferent to the plight of its citizens. Education, vocational training, and social services are not luxuries—they are the very tools needed to break the cycle of armed survival. Until Afridi replaces his weapon of words with programs that provide education, skills, and jobs, the province’s armed youth will remain trapped in the cycle of violence, and his calls for peace will remain empty rhetoric.
Leave a Reply