- Taliban Ties: Khan publicly supported peace deals with the TTP and was once nominated by them as a negotiator — raising questions about ideological alignment.
- Osama bin Laden Controversy: As Prime Minister, Khan referred to bin Laden as a “martyr,” triggering international outrage and signaling deep-rooted sympathies.
- Narrative of Justification: He consistently portrayed terrorists as victims of U.S. drone strikes rather than ideologically driven militants, undermining Pakistan’s counterterrorism stance.
- Populism Over Principle: While championing anti-corruption reforms, Khan downplayed extremist violence, fueling polarization and weakening democratic norms.
Imran Khan, former Prime Minister of Pakistan and a global icon once celebrated for his cricketing prowess and Westernized lifestyle, has long cultivated a dual image: one of a modern, reformist leader and another, increasingly evident, as a politician with troubling sympathies for extremists and terrorists.
This contradiction lies at the heart of what many Pakistanis and international observers now call the “Taliban Khan” phenomenon; a moniker not born out of political satire, but rooted in years of appeasement, denial and dangerously soft stances toward terrorism.
From London’s high society and Oxford’s lecture halls to the rugged tribal regions of Pakistan, Khan’s transformation has been dramatic. To the Western world, he sells himself as a liberal reformer: educated, articulate, and progressive. But domestically, his policies and rhetoric have frequently aligned with the narratives of militant Islamist groups, especially the banned terrorist outfit Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), responsible for mass killings including of children, civilians, Pakistani security forces and other law enforcement agencies.
Pakistan Strikes with Precision: Operation Bunyān al-Mārsūs Redefines South Asian Deterrence
Khan’s critics argue this duplicity is not just political strategy, it is outright hypocrisy with grave consequences. Throughout his political career, Imran Khan has demonstrated a consistent pattern of downplaying the brutality of extremist groups and promoting dialogue with terrorists. He was the first major political figure to support the 2009 Swat peace deal; a capitulation that temporarily ceded control of the region to the Taliban, only for violence to later resurge with greater ferocity.
When the Pakistani Taliban nominated him as a negotiator in 2014 peace talks, it was no surprise to many; he had long been their preferred political figure due to his opposition to military operations against them. More recently, during his tenure as Prime Minister (2018–2022), Imran Khan confirmed that his government was in talks with TTP, aiming to “reintegrate” them into society.
MORE READ:Imran Khan’s talks with the Pakistan Taliban will not bring peace
While dialogue is often a noble pursuit in conflict resolution, Imran Khan’s framing of the militants as misunderstood victims of state policy particularly drone strikes and Pakistan’s alliance with the US was a deeply flawed and dangerous narrative. He portrayed the TTP’s terrorism not as a product of religious extremism, but as a natural reaction to American military intervention, essentially legitimizing their bloodshed as a form of resistance.
This stance came despite the fact that the TTP has waged a prolonged war against Pakistan and its people, bombing schools, mosques, markets and security forces. The Army Public School massacre of 2014, in which over 140 innocent children were brutally murdered by the TTP, remains one of the darkest chapters in Pakistan’s history. Yet Imran Khan has repeatedly advocated for leniency toward such groups, a position that many Pakistanis see as not only insensitive, but as an affront to the victims of terrorism.
The international community began to take note of Khan’s alarming sympathies when, in 2020, he publicly referred to Osama bin Laden as a “Shaheed” (martyr) during a parliamentary speech. The use of the word; a term of honor in Islam shocked lawmakers and citizens alike, leading to widespread condemnation. Bin Laden was the mastermind of 9/11 and a global symbol of terrorism. For a head of state to grant him martyr status exposed a deeply worrying mindset, one that seemed to value ideological allegiance over moral clarity.
READ MORE:Imran Khan ignored the Hazara development in his strategie
Imran Khan has often attempted to justify his positions by invoking national sovereignty or blaming Western policies, particularly America’s “War on Terror.” Yet his critics argue that his narrative serves not Pakistan’s interests but those of militant groups, by framing terrorism as justified blowback rather than deliberate, ideologically driven violence. Despite these disturbing patterns, Khan continues to enjoy support, particularly among Pakistan’s youth.
He is seen by many as a symbol of change and resistance to entrenched political elites. His anti-corruption rhetoric and welfare initiatives, such as universal healthcare in select provinces, have earned him genuine praise. But this does not absolve his troubling record on extremism. Today, Imran Khan is incarcerated and faces a litany of legal charges, including corruption and misuse of power.
While his imprisonment has galvanized some public sympathy, it should not overshadow the critical examination of his ideological positions. His opponents argue that his flirtations with extremist narratives were not just politically naïve, but have directly contributed to the emboldening of violent groups in Pakistan. For the international audience, especially in liberal democracies that once hailed Imran Khan as a Westernized, progressive leader, it is time to confront the full reality.
Imran Khan may speak the language of reform, but his actions and rhetoric tell a different story; one in which extremism is rationalized, militant actors are appeased and the principles of liberal democracy are sacrificed for political expediency. The world must look beyond Imran Khan’s Oxford-educated charm and cricketing legend. The evidence is overwhelming: Imran Khan is not a liberal reformer betrayed by circumstances.
He is a populist leader who has repeatedly chosen to placate terrorists, reinforce dangerous ideologies, belied socio-political division in the society and undermine the very foundations of peace and pluralism he claims to uphold.