Thomas Hobbes once reminded the world that the first responsibility of any government is to protect society from falling into chaos, and Niccolò Machiavelli observed that the preservation of the state must come before every other political consideration. These reflections are not distant philosophical abstractions. They speak directly to nations that have endured instability, conflict, and external pressure. They remind us that without a secure and stable state, debates about policy, ideology, or political preference lose their meaning. When a country faces a moment of serious testing, emotion must be guided by reason, and partisan loyalty must give way to national survival.
As far as our public, its sentiments, and its behaviour are concerned, it is essential to understand that Pakistan must remain the foremost priority beyond personal emotions and political attachments. Every citizen has the right to hold political opinions and to support a party of choice. However, the foundation upon which all these differences stand is the state itself. If the state is weakened or destabilised, then prosperity, liberty, and justice cannot flourish. Security is not a rhetorical device. It is the condition that makes ordinary life possible. Pakistan launched strikes inside Afghanistan, stating that terrorist elements operating from Afghan soil were responsible for attacks within Pakistan. According to official claims, these networks have received external assistance and funding, including alleged support linked to India. These assertions carry serious diplomatic and regional implications. They must therefore be evaluated with sobriety and strategic awareness. If the state determines that cross-border terrorist infrastructure poses an immediate threat to its citizens, and if prior diplomatic efforts have failed to produce effective restraint, then decisive action becomes part of its security calculus.
The core issue is not the geography of the operation but the principle of protection. For decades Pakistan has suffered from terrorism. Thousands of families have lost loved ones. Economic development has been repeatedly disrupted. National morale has been tested. When threats originate beyond borders and translate into violence within them, the state faces a difficult choice between passive endurance and preventive action. Such decisions are rarely simple. They require intelligence assessments, military judgment, and diplomatic calculation. Yet they must ultimately be measured against one standard which is the safety of Pakistani citizens.
In response to these recent strikes, segments of the public, including many supporters of a major political party, have expressed sympathy for Afghanistan or criticised the operation. Political disagreement is a legitimate part of democratic life. However, when national security actions are under scrutiny, criticism must remain anchored in facts and national interest rather than reflexive opposition. Labelling fellow citizens or questioning their patriotism does not strengthen the country. At the same time, public discourse must not lose sight of the primary issue, which is whether Pakistan is acting to neutralise threats that endanger its people. Terrorism does not operate in isolation. It depends on financiers, facilitators, and ideological sympathisers. A serious strategy against extremism must therefore address both armed militants and the networks that sustain them. This is not about suppressing dissent. It is about preventing violence and preserving constitutional order. There is a clear difference between political disagreement conducted within democratic norms and conduct that materially assists those who seek to destabilise the state.
The rule of law must remain central. Due process, transparency, and constitutional safeguards are essential to maintaining legitimacy. When the state takes action against individuals or organisations accused of supporting extremist agendas, those actions must conform to legal standards. Yet legal rigour does not imply strategic hesitation. If credible evidence indicates that certain groups or actors undermine national security, then inaction may carry greater risk than a firm response. Public unity in such moments enhances deterrence and reinforces the message that violence will not find protection under political ambiguity. This reasoning extends to domestic political dynamics. Democracy thrives on disagreement, criticism, and electoral competition. However, no democratic system can tolerate activities that aim to erode constitutional order or align with hostile external agendas. The challenge lies in distinguishing between legitimate opposition and actions that cross into destabilisation. Once that distinction is made within constitutional frameworks, citizens must judge events through the lens of national continuity rather than party allegiance. John Locke argued that governments exist to safeguard life, liberty, and property. When these are threatened by organised violence or coordinated destabilisation, the state carries the burden of response. Supporting the state in such circumstances does not negate democratic principles. It affirms the very structure that enables democratic debate to exist.
Foreign policy must also be assessed with similar discipline. The international system is characterised by shifting alliances and competing interests. No country can afford isolation. Trade relationships, regional partnerships, and diplomatic engagements are instruments of national advancement. When Pakistan seeks to strengthen relations with Middle Eastern states or recalibrate ties with other global actors, these efforts should be evaluated in terms of economic stability, energy security, and strategic balance.
If engagement with certain countries enhances trade flows, secures energy supplies, or generates employment for overseas Pakistanis, then it contributes directly to national resilience. Public support for such policies should arise from an understanding of long-term interest rather than ideological rigidity. In a competitive global environment, economic strength and diplomatic flexibility are as vital as military capability. Trust in institutions also matters. Governments operate with access to intelligence and strategic assessments not always visible to the broader public. While scrutiny and accountability remain essential, reflexive distrust can weaken national coherence. Constructive criticism strengthens governance. Persistent fragmentation weakens it. The objective should not be uniformity of opinion but unity of purpose on fundamental issues of survival and sovereignty.
History demonstrates that states falter when internal divisions overshadow collective identity. Prolonged instability erodes economic growth, weakens institutions, and invites external interference. Pakistan has endured periods of volatility and economic strain. Development gains have often been fragile. Infrastructure, education, and industrial progress depend upon a stable environment. When the state acts to fortify security or adjust foreign policy to secure national interests, public alignment becomes a strategic resource. Putting Pakistan first is not a slogan driven by emotion. It is a disciplined framework for civic reasoning. It requires citizens to ask whether a particular action enhances security, preserves constitutional order, and advances long-term prosperity. It demands that political loyalty never outweigh commitment to national continuity. It acknowledges disagreement yet rejects fragmentation on matters of survival. In times marked by regional tension and global uncertainty, nations that endure are those whose citizens understand the gravity of state integrity. Sentiment has a place in democratic life, but it cannot override the foundational requirement of sovereignty and stability. If Pakistan remains secure and sovereign, political competition and reform can continue. If it weakens, all aspirations become uncertain.
To stand with Pakistan when it acts against terrorism, confronts destabilising networks, or advances its strategic interests is not to abandon critical thought. It is to recognise that without a secure state, no political vision can be realised. Beyond emotions and beyond partisan divides, the enduring principle remains that Pakistan must be the top priority. In unity on matters of national survival lies the only sustainable path toward peace, stability, and development.
The writer is a PhD (Media and Crime), Founder of CASRO (Crime Analytics and Security Research Organisation), and can be reached at dr.nasirkhan.jasak @gmail.com