The carnage in Islamabad this week — a suicide blast that extinguished twelve lives and wounded dozens more — is not an event to be filed under “tragic news” and forgotten. It is a summons. When violence strikes at the heart of our capital, amid international conferences and public life, it exposes a brutal reality: Pakistan is under sustained assault, and the normal rhythms of politics and diplomacy cannot be allowed to mask that fact.

Defence Minister Khawaja Asif’s blunt assertion that Pakistan is “in a state of war” may discomfort those who prefer softer language, but it names the danger for what it is. Terrorist networks, empowered by safe havens, cross-border support and modern hybrid tactics, are waging an asymmetric campaign designed to destabilize our state, intimidate our citizens, and derail our recovery. Words of condolence will never be enough. What is required now is an iron will matched by clear command structures and institutional reform.

The evidence is stark. Security briefings and statements from officials indicate that thousands of militants have slipped into Pakistan from across the western frontier; a substantial proportion of those neutralised in operations were foreign nationals. The simultaneous incidents in Islamabad and the siege at Cadet College Wana are not random; they form part of a coordinated pattern intended to create fear, provoke overreaction, and sap national confidence. This pattern cannot be countered by improvised responses or by bureaucratic dithering.

That is why structural reform matters. Tactical victories against individual cells are necessary but insufficient. To dismantle the networks that plan, fund and shelter terrorism, Pakistan must modernise its defence and security architecture so it moves as fast as the threat it faces. The proposed 27th Constitutional Amendment — which seeks to streamline command, sharpen coordination and clarify accountability — is precisely the kind of reform that turns good intentions into operational success.

At the heart of the amendment is the recognition that modern conflict is multidomain and rapid. Counterterrorism today demands unified planning across land, air, sea, cyber and intelligence communities. A Chief of Defence Forces with a clear mandate to integrate joint operations does not mean militarisation of politics; it means preparedness, speed and a single point of strategic responsibility when seconds count. Such clarity reduces duplication, speeds decision-making and improves the chances of preventing attacks before they occur.

Modernisation, however, is more than restructuring hierarchies. It requires capability-building: advanced surveillance and persistent aerial reconnaissance, robust border monitoring systems, precision strike options, secure communications, and intelligence fusion centres that connect civilian agencies and the military without turf wars. It requires specialised counterterrorism units trained in urban and rural interdiction, and cyber teams that can disrupt terrorist finances and communications. It requires legal reforms that enable swift and fair prosecution of terrorists, victim-centred support services, and witness protection mechanisms that make convictions possible.

Equally important is the diplomatic dimension. For too long, restraint has been misread as weakness. Pakistan’s preference for dialogue and regional cooperation remains steadfast, but diplomacy cannot substitute for security when chairs and classrooms are bombed. If states or non-state actors tolerate or facilitate sanctuaries for militants, protecting the homeland becomes a sovereign obligation. The international community — especially neighbours who share borders — must understand that Pakistan will not indefinitely absorb attacks originating from beyond its frontiers. Limited, focused operations against identified sanctuaries may, regrettably, become a necessity if diplomacy and counter-terror cooperation fail.

Such steps are not warmongering. They are self-defence. They are a message that a nation will protect its people and that attacks on civilians will have consequences. But military action without reform is temporary; reform without resolve is impotent. Both are needed: a legal and structural framework that empowers a timely response, and the political will to use that framework decisively and lawfully.

There is also an economic imperative. Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif is right to link security with development: peace is the precondition for sustained growth, foreign investment, and social progress. A disrupted, frightened society cannot attract capital or sustain reform. Likewise, a government that tolerates persistent terror risks diverting scarce resources away from schools and hospitals into perpetual crisis management. The true test of leadership is to end cycles of violence so that recovery becomes real and durable.

Finally, we must reject the politics of panic. Criticism is necessary in a democracy, but misrepresentation and fear-mongering only help the enemies of the state. 

Twelve dead in Islamabad. A cadet college under siege. Families grieving. This is our moment of choice. Pakistan can respond with half measures, filing yet another report and returning to business as usual — or it can choose a different path: to modernise its security architecture, to coordinate intelligence and operations effectively, and to wield state power with resolve and legal restraint.

If we combine iron will with institutional clarity, Pakistan can move from surviving attacks to preventing them, from mourning victims to securing a future where our children go to school without fear.

The time for ambiguity has passed. The time for clarity, courage and action is now.