Imposing emergency rule on a province already scarred by decades of conflict risks becoming yet another experiment in authoritarian governance.
By Farooq K
Pakistan’s decision to impose emergency rule in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa has deepened the political confrontation between the federal government and the opposition, reviving longstanding questions about democracy, security and the state’s treatment of its Pashtun-majority frontier region. Islamabad has presented the move as a necessary response to escalating militancy. Critics, however, argue that it represents political interference under the guise of national security.
On October 11, President Asif Ali Zardari approved emergency measures under Articles 232 and 234 of Pakistan’s Constitution, following recommendations from Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s cabinet. The measures suspended the provincial administration led by the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), whose political leadership is aligned with imprisoned former prime minister Imran Khan, and transferred authority to a governor supported by an advisory council. The federal government also announced the deployment of troops to the province.
According to the president’s office, the decision followed reports concerning the deteriorating law-and-order situation and the failure of negotiations with government delegations. Federal authorities maintained that the provincial administration had failed to contain the growing threat of militancy and terrorism, particularly in areas bordering Afghanistan along the Durand Line.
The security situation is undoubtedly serious. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa has experienced a resurgence of militant violence in recent years, with Pakistani authorities repeatedly accusing armed groups operating from Afghan territory of conducting attacks inside Pakistan. Islamabad has also criticised PTI leaders for what it describes as an inadequate response to the deteriorating situation.
Yet the timing of the emergency declaration has raised significant questions about the government’s intentions. The decision comes as PTI prepares major demonstrations demanding Imran Khan’s release. Despite years of imprisonment, Khan remains one of Pakistan’s most influential political figures. Reuters has reported that hundreds of PTI activists, along with several of Khan’s relatives and associates, were detained ahead of planned protests. These arrests have intensified allegations that security concerns are being used to restrict political opposition.
For many in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, the controversy extends beyond the rivalry between Islamabad and PTI. It touches on a longer history of political marginalisation, military operations, displacement and insecurity in Pakistan’s Pashtun borderlands. Communities across the former Federally Administered Tribal Areas and neighbouring districts have endured decades of conflict, with civilians repeatedly bearing the consequences of militant violence and counterterrorism campaigns. The region’s experience has consequently shaped deep sensitivities around centralised authority, military intervention and democratic representation.
PTI has condemned the emergency measures in unequivocal terms. Party spokesman Zulfikar Bukhari described the move as a “coup disguised as emergency,” arguing that it would deepen instability and potentially lead to further bloodshed rather than restore peace. The party maintains that the federal government is exploiting the security crisis to displace an elected provincial administration and weaken one of its strongest political constituencies.
Former parliamentarian Mohsin Dawar has offered a particularly forceful criticism, accusing Islamabad of continuing to pursue “colonial” policies towards Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. He argued that decisions affecting the province were once again being imposed without a democratic mandate and warned that emergency rule could push the region “into further darkness.” Dawar also criticised proposals reportedly associated with administrative restructuring, suggesting that such measures could further isolate the province and revive concerns about policies historically applied to the former tribal areas.
Veteran Pashtun nationalist leader Afrasiab Khattak has expressed similar concerns. In comments on social media, he argued that imposing emergency rule on a province already devastated by decades of conflict amounted to another experiment in authoritarian governance. He questioned whether Pashtuns should interpret the decision as further evidence that they are treated as subjects of a colony rather than equal citizens of Pakistan’s federation.
These objections reflect a wider debate over the relationship between the Pakistani state and its Pashtun population. For decades, questions of representation, civil liberties, security policy and the authority of elected institutions have remained central to political discourse in the region. Against this background, any move that concentrates power in federal hands risks intensifying existing grievances, particularly if local communities perceive that their voices have been excluded from decisions affecting their future.
The implications also extend beyond Pakistan’s borders, attracting attention in Afghanistan and across the wider region.
Former Afghan ambassador to Pakistan Atif Mashal has argued that the emergency cannot be understood exclusively through the lens of domestic politics. While PTI protests may provide a public justification for the decision, he suggested that broader regional and strategic calculations could also be involved. Mashal raised concerns that elements within Pakistan’s security establishment might favour greater militarisation of the frontier region in pursuit of wider strategic objectives.
He also cautioned against attempts to revive the proxy-war dynamics that have influenced regional politics for decades. The current environment, he argued, is considerably more complicated than in the past. Pakistan faces multiple internal challenges, while China, Russia, Iran and the Central Asian states have their own security priorities and may be increasingly reluctant to tolerate prolonged regional instability.
Former Afghan deputy defence minister Shah Mahmood Miakhel advanced an even more critical interpretation. Responding to allegations that political actors have supported militancy, Miakhel argued that successive Pakistani governments and security institutions had, over several decades, cultivated and used extremist groups to advance strategic interests. From his perspective, Pakistan is now confronting the consequences of policies that treated militancy as an instrument of statecraft.
These are contested political assessments, rather than universally established explanations for the emergency declaration. Nevertheless, they highlight a persistent argument among critics of Pakistan’s security policies: that the country’s present difficulties cannot be separated entirely from the decisions and strategic choices made over previous decades.
Ultimately, the emergency declaration represents far more than an administrative intervention. It brings together three interconnected crises: escalating militancy, deepening political polarisation and unresolved questions about the governance of Pakistan’s Pashtun borderlands.
Supporters of the decision argue that extraordinary circumstances demand decisive action to restore security. Opponents warn that suspending elected provincial authority establishes a dangerous precedent, allowing counterterrorism to become a justification for weakening democratic institutions.
For the people of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, the stakes are especially high. They have endured years of violence, displacement and uncertainty, and their demand for security cannot be separated from their expectations of political representation, dignity and equal citizenship. Lasting peace will require more than troop deployments or administrative control; it will also depend on public trust, accountable governance and meaningful engagement with the communities most affected by conflict.
As federal authorities assume greater control and troops move into the province, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa once again finds itself at the centre of Pakistan’s defining political dilemma: whether security can be strengthened through democratic institutions or whether emergency powers will continue to undermine the very freedoms and representative structures they are supposed to protect.
Farooq K (pseudonym) is a researcher and lecturer at one of the private universities in Kabul.
Note: The contents of the article are the sole responsibility of the author. Truth Global is not responsible for any incorrect statements in the articles.