OF late there has been a flurry of legislation in Pakistan that has drawn censure for its seemingly heavy-handed approach to fighting terrorism. The KP government, however, appears to be taking a different tack in some respects by placing the onus for security on the citizens themselves. The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Sensitive and Vulnerable Establishments and Places (Security) Ordinance, 2014, which was promulgated by the governor in February, and has now been referred to a provincial assembly select committee, designates as vulnerable almost every public place, including shops, bazaars, petrol stations, commercial streets and shopping arcades and makes citizens responsible for putting in place security arrangements to protect themselves. These arrangements include those of both the physical and technical variety, including CCTV cameras, biometric systems, walkthrough gates, security alarms and modern gadgetry.

The ordinance was raked over the coals in the KP Assembly recently, and with good reason. The province, given its proximity to the tribal areas where most of the militant sanctuaries are located, is directly in the line of fire. Acts of terrorism are an ever-present threat for its people. Attacks on cinemas, bazaars and places of worship have engendered a siege mentality. The state as the overarching authority must send the message that it is determined to stand firm in the face of militancy instead of abdicating its responsibility at this critical juncture. Citizens can and should play a role in bolstering security by keeping their eyes and ears open for suspicious activity, and the proposal to hold property owners responsible if their tenants are found to have terrorist links is based on this. But it’s the state’s duty to provide security to the citizens and maintain law and order through its instruments of law-enforcement. By contemplating legislation along the lines of the above ordinance, the KP government is conveying to the citizenry that it has given up the battle against forces inimical to the state, which will result in demoralisation; the message will also serve to embolden those bent on violence. Moreover, legislation of this nature will set a dangerous precedent in which the state looks for expedient ways in which to absolve itself of consequences that result from its own shortcomings and lack of clarity.