KHYBER Pakhtunkhwa is once again paying a devastating price for terrorism. Police officers are being targeted, soldiers are losing their lives and civilians are being killed in mosques, markets and public spaces. Fear and uncertainty have returned to communities that have already endured decades of violence. Terrorism is no longer confined to a few remote border districts; its consequences are being felt across the province. At such a moment, the first responsibility of any government should be clear: protect citizens, restore the writ of the state, strengthen law-enforcement agencies and place security above partisan politics. Yet the political tragedy of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa is that the distinction between governing and opposing has increasingly blurred. The provincial government has authority, resources, administrative machinery, a police force and a constitutional mandate. Yet much of its political energy remains focused on confrontation, protests and the campaign for Imran Khan’s release.
The demand for Imran Khan’s release is a political and legal matter and his supporters have every right to pursue it peacefully and constitutionally. But the responsibilities of an elected government extend far beyond the fate of one leader. A government exists not for one individual, one party or one movement, but for every citizen of the province. Counterterrorism cannot succeed without meaningful cooperation between the province and the federation. The provincial government controls the police, while border security and major national-security functions involve federal institutions. Intelligence sharing and counterterrorism operations therefore require close coordination across institutions. Political disagreement is not the real issue. Priorities are.
A provincial government may strongly oppose federal policies and question the conduct of state institutions within constitutional limits. But when the province is facing a serious terrorist threat, political confrontation must not obstruct security cooperation. Terrorists do not care about court cases, party rivalries or who occupies which office. They look for weakness within the state. Division, institutional distrust and political paralysis create precisely the environment militants can exploit. Afghanistan is also central to this security challenge. Pakistan has repeatedly maintained that the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan and other militant groups benefit from space across the Afghan border. Whatever the diplomatic arguments, militant networks operating from Afghan territory remain a serious concern for Pakistan’s security.
In such circumstances, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa’s political leadership should speak with clarity. Supporting dialogue or diplomacy is not objectionable, nor is arguing that military force alone cannot provide a lasting solution. But there should be no ambiguity on one principle: those who attack Pakistani civilians, police officers and soldiers cannot be given political or moral legitimacy. Years of political confrontation have also blurred the line between criticism of state institutions and hostility towards the state itself. Every citizen has the right to criticize the political role or conduct of the military. But disagreement with military leadership is not the same as hostility towards the soldier risking his life in Waziristan, Khyber or Bajaur. Nor should opposition to a government ever become satisfaction at a national tragedy.
Social media has repeatedly shown how political polarization can reduce even deaths, terrorist attacks and national loss to partisan arguments. Whenever such behaviour emerges from supporters of any political party, responsible leadership should condemn it rather than deepen the division. A soldier who dies confronting terrorism is not dying for a political party. A police officer facing an armed militant does not first ask who governs Islamabad or which politician is in prison. He stands there on behalf of the state. And when his body returns home, it does not return under a party flag. It returns under the flag of Pakistan.
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa has already paid an extraordinary price for terrorism. It has buried its dead, seen markets attacked, schools destroyed, mosques targeted and generations traumatized by violence. Such a province deserves more than permanent political agitation. It needs serious, competent and focused governance. Governing is not the same as running an election campaign. Once a party assumes power, slogans must give way to decisions, protest to administration, accusation to accountability and partisan loyalty to public responsibility.
A party that remains permanently in opposition mode while holding office may keep its supporters mobilized, but governing requires something more: judgment, cooperation, institutional discipline and the ability to distinguish political rivalry from the interests of the state. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa needs stronger policing, better intelligence coordination and counterterrorism institutions insulated from partisan conflict. Above all, the federal and provincial governments must recognize that on matters of national security they are not merely political rivals; they are partners with a shared responsibility. The question, then, is no longer whether Khyber Pakhtunkhwa has a government. The question is: is that government actually governing? Khyber Pakhtunkhwa does not need another permanent political campaign. It needs peace, stability, development and a government capable of putting the province ahead of party politics. Because perhaps the greatest tragedy today is not simply that Khyber Pakhtunkhwa is burning. It is that even while it burns, politics still comes first.
—The writer is Barrister, based in Canada.
