EDITORIAL: In the wake of the recent suicide bombing in Islamabad, the government has rushed to introduce new security measures aimed at preventing future attacks. Speaking at a press conference on Thursday, State Minister for Interior Talal Chaudhry announced a “Secure Neighbourhood Survey” to be conducted jointly by the district administration and the police.
The survey, he explained, is intended to compile accurate data on all residents — owners as well as tenants — across the federal capital. The assumption is that maintaining a comprehensive, updated record of permanent and temporary occupants will enhance security preparedness while also aiding long-term urban planning and the provision of essential services. While the intention may be sound, the approach raises serious questions.
The proposed framework seems to treat data collection as a panacea for terrorism, as though the mere possession of a detailed citizen database could preempt attacks. The minister further declared that all motorcycles and cars entering Islamabad will be required to carry an e-tag, a measure that will roll out alongside the survey beginning November 17. But, as is often the case with reactive policymaking, little meaningful improvement is likely to follow. Terrorist networks do not operate within the neat boundaries of residential records or vehicle registration systems. Their foot soldiers, handlers, and facilitators can come from any part of the country — or beyond. The recent bombing itself underscores this reality: the suicide attacker arrived at the target using a ride-sharing company’s motorcycle. Although the motorcyclist who provided the ride — quite likely, unaware of the bomber’s intentions — has been traced and detained, the new measures would not have prevented such an incident. This points to a deeper problem. A heavy reliance on documentation and tagging systems risks becoming bureaucratic busywork unless supported by robust intelligence mechanisms. Terrorist attacks typically exploit intelligence gaps, operational lapses, and inadequate coordination among intelligence agencies. Under its new plan, the federal government appears to be directing resources towards the wrong threat vector — essentially, barking up the wrong tree.
It bears noting that nearly 12 years have passed since the establishment of the National Counterterrorism Authority (NACTA), envisioned as the country’s central coordinating hub for counterterrorism intelligence. Yet, NACTA continues to struggle with fostering meaningful collaboration between civilian and military intelligence agencies, as well as law-enforcement bodies. Without stronger coordination, timely information sharing, and clearly defined operational mandates, measures such as neighbourhood surveys and mandatory e-tags will do little to meet the security challenges at hand.
What is urgently needed, therefore, is enhanced intelligence-gathering capacity, deeper inter-agency trust, and proactive surveillance of genuine threats — not additional layers of regulation that burden citizens while leaving entrenched security failures unaddressed.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025