WHILE visiting the British parliament a few years ago, I was struck by the tradition —observed by prime ministers — of paying homage and expressing gratitude at the start of the weekly question time session to British armed forces personnel who had been killed or injured in action. It was the time of the Afghan war and British troops were stationed in Afghanistan.

I thought it was a great tradition that reminded everyone of the sacrifices made by the soldiers and sent a powerful message to the troops that their countrymen had the highest regard for them and their sacrifices.

Although Pakistan follows the British parliamentary system, almost all Pakistani prime ministers have avoided personally answering questions in parliament. As prime minister, Yousuf Raza Gilani used to answer many supplementary questions himself when he was in the House — but that was not a part of the set parliamentary procedure.

Imran Khan had promised to follow this British tradition when he was prime minister and personally answer questions. However, he neither tried to change the parliamentary rules nor did he ever answer any questions in parliament.

Both Houses and the provincial assemblies observe question hour but there is no parliamentary tradition of routinely acknowledging the sacrifices of the country’s shuhda and ghazis.

The president, prime minister, ministers and senior civil and military officers do issue statements, and legislatures occasionally pass resolutions honouring those fighting a bloody war against terrorism; but the possibility of a weekly tribute did cross my mind. After all, hardly a day passes without hearing of security personnel — in the armed forces, paramilitaries, police and other security bodies — who have lost their lives in the line of duty.

We need committees that are more active in debating national security.

Almost all sources of information show that the number of violent terrorist incidents, casualties and fatalities in Pakistan have reached their highest level in a decade. In fact, 2025 was the bloodiest year since 2014. According to the South Asian Terrorism Portal, the number of violent terrorist incidents in 2025 was 1,077 with fatalities among the forces and civilians touching 1,229 and 655 respectively during the year.

The data gathered for 2026 points to even higher figures when compared to the average monthly figures for 2025. For example, the number of terrorism incidents increased to a monthly average of 118, compared to 90 in 2025.

Similarly, average monthly fatalities of civilian and security forces personnel in the first nine months of 2026 (up to Sept 21) have increased to 74 from 55 last year and to 114 from 102, respectively. These figures indicate a steep spike in attacks, particularly carried out by two major terrorist groups that the state aptly refers to as Fitna al-Khawarij and Fitna al-Hindustan.

We do not see the level of concern and debate within democratic institutions that is warranted by the rise in acts of terrorism. We have four key standing committees relating to the issue in parliament — separate Senate and National Assembly standing committees on defence and two other committees of the Senate and National Assembly on the interior.

In addition, each of the four provincial assemblies has a standing committee on home affairs. Whatever little record is available on these legislatures’ official websites does not indicate that the committees have been often and actively debating the rising incidence of terrorism in the country — especially in KP and Balochistan —in detail, which should have been done in view of the situation.

The plenaries of the six national and provincial legislatures have debated the issue on and off, and passed resolutions too. I am sure that more frequent discussions in the legislative bodies would not only contribute to finding more effective ways in which the menace of terrorism can be combated at the people’s level, but the attention given by the legislators to this issue would further boost security personnel’s morale.

In 2019, the Speaker of the National Assembly had constituted a joint (National Assembly and Senate) committee on national security under his own chairmanship and included the senior-most parliamentarians and ministers.

But since the last election in 2024, the committee has apparently ceased to exist. It doesn’t necessarily mean that we need a parliamentary committee on national security while the committees on defence and interior already exist. However, what we need are committees that are more active in debating national security.

The public should be confident that national security issues are being discussed and timely decisions being made at the appropriate forum. In this context, it is difficult to understand the relatively inactive state of the National Security Committee, which was created in 2013.

The Committee, which brings together the top civil and military leadership under the chairmanship of the prime minister, has not met even once during the current calendar year. Given the prevailing circumstances and the mandate of the NSC, it should meet more regularly, preferably on a monthly basis. Just for comparison, Britain’s National Security Council meets every week under the prime minister although the UK has far fewer security issues than Pakistan.

It is hoped that the National Counter Terrorism Authority — a very important body especially in the present context — will not only become more active under its new national coordinator Maj-Gen Faisal Naseer but will also attempt to raise its public profile by, for example, sharing at least a sanitised version of the progress on the implementation of the National Action Plan with the people, their representatives and the media. Extending its outreach will bolster public trust.

The writer is president of the Pakistan-based think tank Pildat.

[email protected]

X: @ABMPildat

Published in Dawn, September 26th, 2026