Emergency rule is no substitute for a war on terror

October 12, 2026

Khyber Pakhtunkhwa is facing a serious security challenge, but the reported imposition of emergency and Governor’s Rule raises questions about whether such an extraordinary constitutional measure was necessary. Even if the move is constitutionally permissible under Articles 232 and 234, its legality alone cannot justify its political and administrative wisdom.

The central question is whether the situation in KP demanded emergency rule or whether the province needed a more effective, coordinated and sustained war against terrorism.

The province has suffered enormously from terrorism. Its people, particularly those living in districts bordering Afghanistan, have paid a heavy price in lives, livelihoods and economic opportunities. Police officers, security personnel and ordinary citizens continue to face the threat of militant violence. This reality demands urgent action, but the response must address the actual source of the crisis.

Emergency rule is not, in itself, a counterterrorism strategy. Nor does a change in the provincial administrative arrangement automatically improve intelligence gathering, border management, policing or the operational capacity of security forces. These are the areas where the state must demonstrate measurable progress.

The federal government may argue that extraordinary circumstances require extraordinary measures. However, it must establish clearly why existing constitutional and administrative mechanisms were insufficient and how the intervention will improve security. Without convincing answers, the decision risks being perceived as a political confrontation with the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf-led provincial government rather than a carefully considered security measure.

The reported formation of a technocratic advisory council and the convening of the Provincial Apex Committee may help coordinate governance and security efforts. Yet, their success will depend on practical decisions, intelligence-based operations, better coordination between civilian and military authorities, and accountability for the implementation of agreed measures.

The breakdown of talks between the federal government and PTI is particularly troubling. Political disagreements should not be allowed to obstruct the fight against terrorism. Equally, counterterrorism cannot become a justification for sidelining elected provincial representatives without demonstrating a compelling necessity. The federal government must explain the precise security objectives of emergency rule, its expected duration and the safeguards against political misuse. Parliament must scrutinise the decision, while all political parties should cooperate on a credible national counterterrorism policy.