Terrorism scars Balochistan, Sindh and Punjab too. Only one province is being threatened with a federal takeover, and it is the one planning a march on Islamabad.
For the past week, federal ministers have spoken openly of imposing Governor’s Rule or an emergency in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. One minister said an emergency was being “seriously” considered. The prime minister’s adviser said Governor’s Rule was “on the table”. The reason given is terrorism.
Nobody denies that KP has suffered. Thousands of families have lost loved ones, and six people were martyred in a clash in Hangu only last month. Everyone wants peace. But wanting peace and choosing the right method are two different things.
Why only KP?
If terrorism and crime are reason enough for emergency rule, look at the whole country.
In Balochistan, militant attacks and targeted killings are routine. Security forces killed 19 terrorists in Quetta and Kech in operations last month. Nobody is discussing an emergency there.
In the riverine kacha areas of Sindh, dacoits kidnap people, rob travellers and spread fear. Nobody is discussing an emergency there either.
In Punjab, police records show 32 children killed after sexual abuse in two years, and Section 144 was imposed across the province last month as terror alerts mounted. Nobody is discussing Governor’s Rule in Lahore.
Each of these problems is serious. So if the remedy is right for KP, why is it not right for the others? A rule applied to one province and ignored in three looks less like a rule and more like a choice.
The timing
PTI announced a long march on Islamabad for September 27, then postponed it to October 4. As the date drew near, the talk of Governor’s Rule grew louder. Days earlier, the information minister had said the Centre had no such intention.
This could be a coincidence. But ministers themselves have cited both the security situation and the protest call. When a constitutional power is raised in the same breath as a political march, people will conclude that it is meant to pressure PTI, not to bring peace. The talks that opened in the Speaker’s chamber on October 2 were held under that shadow.
Notice, too, who is silent. The PML-N speaks often of democracy and saw Governor’s Rule imposed on its own Punjab government in 2009. Today it leads the federal government weighing the same step. Its ally, the PPP, has said only that it will give its view in line with the Constitution and the law if it is consulted. When the parties that once resisted such measures stop objecting, big decisions go unquestioned.
What the Constitution requires
Two articles are in play, and neither is a blank cheque.
Article 232 allows an emergency when the country’s security is threatened by war, external aggression or an internal disturbance beyond the power of a provincial government to control. The test is not whether terrorism exists. It is whether the province can no longer cope. Since the 18th Amendment, an emergency on this ground needs a resolution of the provincial assembly. If the President acts without one, both Houses of Parliament must approve the proclamation within ten days.
Article 234, commonly called Governor’s Rule, applies when the government of a province cannot be carried on in accordance with the Constitution. The system itself must have broken down. Such a proclamation lapses after two months unless Parliament approves it, and it cannot run beyond six months.
Does KP meet either test? Its elected government is functioning. Its police are in the field. Its departments are running. A government that is fighting terrorism is not a government that has failed. If the mere existence of a threat were enough, these articles could be used anywhere, at any time.
What history shows
Pakistan has reached for such powers before.
| Year | Step taken | What followed |
| 1973 | Elected Balochistan government dismissed and federal rule imposed | An insurgency that lasted four years, and mistrust that has lasted decades. |
| 1999 | Military takeover, proclaimed as an emergency | The elected government was removed and democracy was interrupted for years. |
| 2007 | Emergency declared by Gen Pervez Musharraf | A political and judicial crisis, with no lasting gain in security. |
| 2009 | Governor’s Rule in Punjab | A political fight, settled politically within weeks and not by better governance. |
Each step changed who held power for a while. None fixed the underlying problem. A method that has failed repeatedly is not a plan.
The strongest comparison is closer to home. When the Awami National Party governed KP from 2008 to 2013, bomb blasts were frequent and cities were hit again and again. Nobody imposed Governor’s Rule or an emergency. If the situation today is worse, the government should publish the facts. If it is not, the reason is political.
What could go wrong
Remove an elected government and the sequence is predictable. Voters feel their mandate has been discarded, and they protest. The state answers with force or restrictions. Trust between citizen and state thins. Militants move into the gap, because they grow where trust is low.
Fighting terrorism depends on local cooperation, good intelligence and a working provincial administration. Removing the provincial government damages all three. It is a painkiller for a headache while the illness keeps spreading.
A better way
The better path is slower, but it works.
Agree together. Terrorism is a national problem. The federal government, the provinces and the security institutions should sit at one table and settle on one plan.
Take the province along. The provincial government runs the police and the local administration. No plan succeeds without it.
Plan for the long term. Terrorism does not end with an announcement. It ends with police reform, better intelligence sharing, development in neglected areas and a fair political process.
Use one standard. If security failures are to be dealt with under the Constitution, the same test must apply to every province. Fairness is what gives a decision its strength.
The other side
Supporters of federal action have their arguments. The state must protect people when a province seems unable to. Terrorism crosses provincial borders. The Constitution provides these powers for grave times.
These are valid points. But the burden of proof lies with the government. It must show, with facts, that KP has reached that stage, and explain why other provinces are treated differently. Parliament, the courts and the public have every right to ask.
The real debate is not whether terrorism is dangerous. It is. The debate is whether Governor’s Rule and emergency are the right tools, whether they are being applied fairly, and whether the timing is honest.
Temporary measures do not solve permanent problems. The road to peace does not pass through Islamabad alone. It runs through trust between the provinces and the federation. To defeat terrorism, we must first stop using it as a tool of politics.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and not necessarily those of The Lahore Times.
Leave a Reply