Pakistan’s security landscape remains deeply entwined with the role of the military, a fact underscored once again by the recent statement of Army Chief General Syed Asim Munir. His emphasis on improving governance and transforming Pakistan into a “hard state” reflects an ongoing struggle against terrorism, internal instability, and governance failures. Addressing the Parliamentary Committee on National Security, he asserted that no agenda, movement, or individual could be more important than national security, reinforcing the military’s central role in shaping Pakistan’s security policies. However, his remarks also raise critical questions about the absence of independent parliamentary voices in this debate, as civilian leadership continues to play a subdued role in shaping national security strategy.
The meeting was attended by members of the ruling coalition, including representatives from the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP), and Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (JUI-F). However, the session was boycotted by Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), which cited concerns over the government’s alleged failure to address political victimization and the perceived lack of transparency in security policies. This division within the political sphere highlights the ongoing polarization in Pakistan’s governance, where security matters often become entangled in partisan conflicts.
Recent months have witnessed a troubling surge in violence across Pakistan, particularly in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) and Balochistan, where terrorist groups have stepped up their attacks against security personnel and civilians alike. The wave of violence has resulted in significant casualties, with security forces losing dozens of personnel in coordinated assaults by militants. Civilians, too, have borne the brunt of these attacks, including targeted bombings and assassinations that have created an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty. Official statistics indicate that over 300 security personnel and civilians have been killed in terrorist attacks in the past six months alone, with hundreds more injured. The resurgence of terrorist activity has been attributed to various factors, including the re-emergence of Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and separatist insurgents in Balochistan, fueled by regional instability and alleged external support.
Two of the most heinous incidents in recent months include the hijacking of a train in Balochistan, where militants held passengers hostage for several hours before security forces intervened, resulting in a deadly gunfight. Another significant attack occurred in KP, where a suicide bombing targeted a police convoy, killing multiple officers and injuring dozens of civilians. These brazen acts of violence highlight the evolving tactics of militant groups and their ability to strike high-profile targets despite ongoing counterterrorism operations.
The response by Pakistan’s armed forces has been swift but comes with its own challenges. Military operations have been ramped up in volatile regions, leading to numerous high-profile encounters that have resulted in the elimination of key militant figures. Security forces have launched intelligence-based operations, airstrikes, and search-and-destroy missions aimed at dismantling terrorist networks. However, despite these efforts, the persistence of violent attacks suggests that the security threat is far from neutralized. The armed forces have repeatedly stressed the need for coordinated action, not only on the battlefield but also through systemic governance reforms and counterterrorism policies.
One of the critical aspects missing from this equation is the role of the civilian government and parliamentarians in countering this rising tide of extremism. The National Security Committee meeting, where General Munir made his statement, notably lacked substantial input from elected representatives, who remain largely reactive rather than proactive in shaping security policies. The absence of strong political leadership in this domain has resulted in an over-reliance on the military, reinforcing a long-standing imbalance in Pakistan’s governance structure. Political parties, often embroiled in internal conflicts and power struggles, have yet to present a cohesive strategy to address the security crisis. Their failure to assert a robust role in national security discussions raises concerns about the sustainability of counterterrorism efforts, as long-term stability requires a whole-of-government approach rather than an exclusively military-driven one.
Central to the ongoing security discourse is the National Action Plan (NAP), which was originally agreed upon in 2014 following the tragic Army Public School attack in Peshawar. The plan laid out a comprehensive framework to counter terrorism, extremism, and organized crime. It included measures such as cracking down on terrorist financing, strengthening counterterrorism institutions, regulating madrassas, and ensuring swift prosecution of terror suspects. However, in the decade since its inception, implementation has remained inconsistent. While certain aspects, such as military operations and crackdowns on extremist networks, have been enforced with urgency, other crucial elements—such as political and judicial reforms—have lagged behind. The renewed call for NAP’s implementation in the recent security meeting highlights this gap and suggests an acknowledgment that the plan has yet to fully materialize.
One of the key directives from the meeting was the need to expose and counter extremist narratives, particularly those propagated by groups labeled as Khawarij. General Munir’s urging of Ulema to take an active role in challenging distorted interpretations of Islam reflects a growing recognition that counterterrorism is not solely a military battle but also an ideological one. However, the effectiveness of this approach depends on how well it is implemented. Without a clear strategy to engage religious scholars and integrate counter-extremism efforts into educational and community programs, such initiatives risk remaining symbolic rather than substantive.
The immediate security concerns facing Pakistan are deeply rooted in structural and governance issues. The persistence of terrorist networks, their ability to regroup, and the rising attacks on security forces indicate that military operations alone cannot provide a lasting solution. Effective governance, political consensus, and judicial reforms must work in tandem with security measures to break the cycle of violence. The military’s emphasis on transforming Pakistan into a “hard state” suggests a push toward a stronger security apparatus, but this approach must be balanced with democratic governance and civilian oversight to ensure long-term stability.
As Pakistan grapples with these security challenges, the coming months will be crucial in determining whether the renewed emphasis on counterterrorism and governance reforms translates into meaningful action. While the military remains at the forefront, a more assertive role from parliamentarians and the civilian leadership is essential to achieving a sustainable solution to the country’s security crisis. The question remains: will Pakistan’s political leadership rise to the occasion, or will national security continue to be a domain dominated by the military?
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Coverpage’s editorial stance.
