The federal government’s invocation of Articles 232 and 234 of the Constitution to impose Governor’s Rule in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP), alongside a state of emergency across 12 districts, has brought the nation’s counter-terrorism debate to a critical juncture. While federal ministers justify this drastic intervention by citing a surge in terror incidents and an alleged breakdown in provincial cooperation, an objective look at empirical security data reveals a deeply selective policy.

Since the Taliban’s takeover of Kabul in August 2021, Pakistan’s security crisis has been overwhelmingly concentrated in two provinces: Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan. Comprehensive casualty data spanning from 2021 through September 2026 reveals that out of 12,299 total fatalities nationwide, KP suffered 7,282 fatalities (59.2%), while Balochistan accounted for 4,176 fatalities (33.95%). Together, these two provinces represent a staggering 93.16% of all terrorism-related fatalities in the country over the last six years, leaving all other provinces combined with less than 7%.

If severe security threats and rising fatalities were the sole criteria for suspending provincial autonomy, a glaring question emerges: Why was Governor’s Rule imposed exclusively in KP and not in Balochistan? While KP has borne the heaviest overall burden of casualties over the six-year period, Balochistan experienced an even higher surge in fatalities in 2026 alone (1,510 deaths compared to KP's 1,324). The selective application of constitutional emergency provisions strongly indicates that the federal decision was driven less by a pure security imperative and more by political confrontation between the federal center and the opposition-led administration in Peshawar. 

At the same time, the former provincial leadership in KP cannot escape scrutiny. While citizens across the province face daily threats to........

© The Friday Times