The federal government has imposed emergency and governor’s rule in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa under Articles 232 and 234, citing a sharp rise in militant violence, police shortages and the PTI provincial administration’s focus on agitation rather than counter-terrorism cooperation.

The article notes that both measures are time-limited, require parliamentary approval and have historical precedents in Pakistan and abroad, where direct federal control restored order only when paired with a political process and local trust.

It argues that success will depend on intelligence-led operations, a properly resourced police force, unified command, border diplomacy with Kabul, local reconciliation and a clear sunset clause returning power to an elected government.

The imposition of an emergency and governor’s rule in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa is not a step any federation should welcome. It sets aside the working of an elected provincial government, and in a polarized country it carries political costs. But the question is not whether the measure is desirable. It is whether it is constitutional and whether the circumstances justify it. The federal government’s answer to both is yes, and the Constitution gives it the tools to make that case.

KP sits on the front line of Pakistan’s counter-terrorism struggle. According to the federal government’s briefing, militant violence has risen sharply over the past two years, with KP accounting for the largest share of the country’s violent deaths and hundreds of police personnel killed. Officials also say residents of a dozen districts are effectively confined after dark. The province’s Law Enforcement Agencies, who bear the brunt of the fighting, face severe shortages of funds, vacancies and equipment. The federal side says........

© Eurasia Review