Meadows Foundation Trust Honours Excellence, Service and Human Endeavour
Editorial
Emergency in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa – Security Imperative or Political Overreach?
Pakistan’s decision to impose a state of emergency and governor’s rule in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa marks a sharp escalation in both the country’s internal security crisis and its deepening political polarisation. On the advice of Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s cabinet, President Asif Ali Zardari invoked Articles 232 and 234 of the Constitution, suspending the provincial government led by Imran Khan’s Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) and placing the province under federal control. The stated justification is the “grave” law-and-order situation and the provincial administration’s alleged “deliberate disengagement” from the fight against Islamist militancy. There is little dispute that Khyber Pakhtunkhwa faces a serious security challenge. The province, which borders Afghanistan, has witnessed a sustained rise in attacks by the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan and affiliated groups. Security personnel and civilians continue to pay a heavy price. In such circumstances, the federal government has a legitimate duty to protect lives and restore order. Deploying troops in aid of civil power and establishing specialised administrative mechanisms for the most affected tribal districts can be defended as necessary steps when local capacity appears overwhelmed. Yet the timing and political context invite scrutiny. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa was the last province governed by PTI, the party of the imprisoned former prime minister. The emergency was declared just as PTI supporters were organising protests and a long march demanding Khan’s release. The federal government has accused the provincial leadership of failing to cooperate on counter-terrorism; PTI counters that Islamabad has starved the province of resources and excluded it from key security decisions. When constitutional instruments that suspend elected governments are used against a political rival’s stronghold, questions of motive inevitably arise. Pakistan’s history offers cautionary lessons. Repeated central interventions in the provinces have rarely produced lasting stability; they have more often deepened alienation and fuelled cycles of resentment. True security cannot be built solely through administrative fiat or military deployment. It requires political consensus, adequate resources for provincial institutions, and a coherent strategy that addresses both the kinetic threat and the underlying grievances that militants exploit. The emergency may temporarily restore order in the short term. But unless it is accompanied by transparent accountability, meaningful engagement with political stakeholders, and a clear roadmap for returning power to elected representatives, it risks becoming another chapter in Pakistan’s troubled record of centralising authority at the expense of federalism and democratic norms. Security and democracy need not be mutually exclusive; treating them as such only weakens both.
Securing the Capital or Suffocating Democracy?
Delhi once again finds itself under an extraordinary security blanket. With around 23,000 central paramilitary personnel deployed alongside local police, and the Delhi Traffic Police issuing early-morning advisories about widespread diversions and disruptions, the national capital has been placed on high alert ahead of expected protests. The measures, intended to maintain law and order, raise a familiar and troubling question: where does legitimate security end and the constriction of democratic space begin?
There is no denying the state’s responsibility to prevent violence, protect public property, and ensure the smooth functioning of the city. Protests that spill into chaos, block arteries of daily life, or threaten institutions must be managed. The heavy presence of forces and the pre-emptive traffic diversions around key junctions—Connaught Place, Mandi House, Dhaula Kuan, and routes leading to the Supreme Court—reflect an administrative determination to avoid a repeat of earlier disorder. Commuters have been wisely advised to plan extra time or avoid non-essential travel.
Yet the scale of the deployment and the accompanying restrictions come at a visible cost. Ordinary citizens—office-goers, students, patients, and daily-wage workers—bear the inconvenience of sealed roads, diverted buses, and a city that feels more like a controlled zone than a living capital. When large numbers of security personnel are pulled from other sensitive regions and when public mobility is constrained for days, the message received by many is one of collective punishment rather than targeted crowd management.
The Supreme Court has already reminded authorities that peaceful assembly is a constitutional right and that illegal detentions and arbitrary disruptions of essential services are not acceptable. Heavy security arrangements that effectively pre-empt the very possibility of protest risk crossing from prevention into suppression. Democracy requires the state to manage dissent, not to render it logistically impossible.
A mature democracy must strike a better balance. Transparent communication about the nature of the threat, proportionate force, clear protocols for allowing peaceful gatherings in designated areas, and minimal disruption to public life would strengthen both security and public trust. Turning the capital into a fortress may keep the streets quiet for a day, but it does little to address the underlying grievances that bring people onto those streets in the first place.
Security is essential. So is the freedom to dissent. Delhi’s current lockdown-like arrangements suggest that the two are being treated as mutually exclusive. That is a dangerous assumption for any democracy to make.
SAS Kirmani
Most Popular
Speed of light: The cosmic limit that shapes our universe
September 17, 2025
Beats did announce something, after all
September 17, 2025
