Khyber Pakhtunkhwa needs more than expressions of grief after each militant attack. Its residents need functioning institutions, effective policing and a government that places their security at the centre of its priorities.
The imposition of emergency and governor’s rule has brought the province to a critical juncture. President Asif Ali Zardari approved the measures under Articles 232 and 234 on the advice of Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, with the federal government citing deteriorating security and shortcomings in the provincial administration’s counterterrorism efforts.
For those who support the intervention, the decision offers an opportunity to address weaknesses that have left communities and law-enforcement personnel exposed. But any description of the occasion as Youm-e-Nijat, or a day of deliverance, must ultimately be judged against what follows. A change in administration will mean little unless it produces a measurable improvement in public safety.
The concerns over provincial preparedness deserve serious scrutiny. A PML-N white paper claimed that Khyber Pakhtunkhwa recorded 680 militant attacks between January and September 2026, compared with 508 during the corresponding period last year, an increase of nearly 34 per cent. It also identified shortages of personnel, protective vehicles and equipment within the Counter-Terrorism Department.
These figures require clear attribution. The document was issued by a political party, and the provincial government rejected its findings. Then information minister Shafi Jan accused the Centre of politicising terrorism and argued that responsibility for counterterrorism policy also rested with the federation.
That disagreement makes independent scrutiny more necessary. The public deserves a transparent account of security expenditure, recruitment, equipment procurement and the implementation of decisions taken at coordination forums. Neither federal nor provincial authorities should be able to deflect questions about their responsibilities.
Political mobilisation also deserves scrutiny when it competes with urgent administrative demands. An elected government has every right to organise protests and challenge the Centre. It nevertheless remains responsible for policing, public services and the protection of its citizens. Political activity cannot excuse administrative neglect.
At the same time, allegations that political leaders have facilitated or sympathised with militants must be supported by evidence and examined through lawful processes. Such accusations cannot substitute for an assessment of institutional failures. PTI has denied the federal government’s allegations and maintains that the province lacked sufficient funding and equipment.
The immediate task is to strengthen the institutions confronting militancy. Vacant posts must be filled through transparent recruitment, frontline personnel provided with suitable equipment, and intelligence coordination improved. Vulnerable districts need sustained attention rather than measures announced after major attacks.
The authorities should publish clear targets and regular progress reports. Residents must be able to assess whether police response times, security coverage and protection of public infrastructure are improving.
Emergency powers also demand restraint. Citizens’ rights must be respected, peaceful political activity protected and allegations of wrongdoing handled through due process. Parliamentary oversight and compliance with constitutional requirements are essential to the credibility of the intervention.
The strongest argument for emergency rule is that it can restore the state’s ability to protect people where existing arrangements have failed. That argument now places a substantial responsibility on the federal government.
For Khyber Pakhtunkhwa’s residents, deliverance will mean being able to travel, work and send their children to school without fear. The new administration must earn that description through security, accountable governance and a timely return to normal constitutional government.
