Lonely battles

TALKING about human rights in Pakistan has been both hazardous and controversial. This is not only true for those who live within the country.

If one is drawing attention to the issue outside Pakistan, it is not much easier even if it might be safer in some ways. Those who do so must be prepared for disapproval, along with more. At the very least, these ‘troublemakers’ (within and without) are accused of washing their dirty linen in public and at worst, of being ‘unpatriotic’. ‘Treacherous’ is also a word that gets thrown around.

As the last two adjectives have become rather popular of late, one needs to be careful all the time. Indeed, these days, anything short of fulsome praise can and does fall under the category of unpatriotic activities. But I digress.

This ‘old, old’ debate was highlighted once again as Imran Khan’s sons (along with the PTI) were ‘troublesome’ enough to bring up Pakistan’s human rights record in Geneva and then criticised for putting Pakistan’s GSP-Plus status in danger.

GSP-Plus is a scheme where preferential access to Pakistani exports is provided in exchange for the government committing to a human rights agenda. And because this helps increase exports, which in turn provides employment, we are told no one should complain about the country’s human rights record. But people (including Khan’s party and family) did, and as a result, necklaces were clutched and much horror expressed. It was ‘unpatriotic’ and ‘treacherous’ and so on.

Those who are expressing shock and horror seem to be so innocent in some ways. It is as if they genuinely believe that if the PTI wallahs hadn’t gone and spoken there, those sitting in Europe would not know what is happening in Pakistan.

Because not only would European decision-makers not have known of the treatment meted out to the PTI, they would also not have heard of others such as Imaan Mazari-Hazir. The lawyer-activist has now spent two months in prison and appears to have been forgotten — because coverage of her on the idiot box is a no-no.

Anything short of fulsome praise falls under the category of unpatriotic activities.

Those based in Europe or elsewhere also would not know of Mahrang Baloch who has spent so many months behind bars that we have lost count. Or Ali Wazir, who spent years in prison, was released recently and promptly rearrested. And they would not have heard of the plans to throw the poor and vulnerable out of slums and katchi bastis near and in Islamabad. Apparently, these are all very well-kept secrets and made public only because of troublemakers with vested agendas.

At times, it seems that some of us in Pakistan are living in mediaeval times because of the behaviour of our rulers; even the latter believe this; because they think as long as news is kept away from the mainstream media, it also stays hidden from prying eyes outside the country.

And that their high-handed treatment is not seen as such till someone calls it out, like the child who called out the emperor’s lack of attire. But more so, those who make all kinds of promises with reference to ‘our’ human rights should be allowed to do so and then ignore these commitments brazenly; to ask them about these violations is where not being patriotic begins.

This, however, is not just about our approach to human rights and how to ensure them in Pakistan. What the debate also does is to give far too much credence to the idea that powers in the West can influence the state on rights matters. This might be too simplistic.

Many countries to the west of Suez have found it easy to turn a blind eye on fundamental rights when the state had something to offer, strategically. From a role in Afghanistan, more than once, to supporting Ukraine to warm relations with the White House, there is so much it can offer in concrete terms in exchange for a little less emphasis on abstract ideas of human rights and the welfare of the poor.

Ziaul Haq’s laws such as the Hudood Ordinance and the treatment of women or Gen Pervez Musharraf who encouraged the rise of religiously motivated parties, enforced disappearances and led a crackdown in Balochistan — all of this happened while the country enjoyed warm relations with Western powers. One can even go back further in history for more examples.

In most cases, change came in Pakistan despite Western support to the rulers rather than its assistance for the people. The people in this country have generally pushed back against human rights violations without much support and whatever victories that have come their way have done so at great sacrifice domestically. This time around is proving no different.

Those of us who worry about Imaan and her husband Hadi Ali Chattha (along with others from Balochistan or the PTI) being behind bars can worry silently but will not find it easy to speak up or agitate. This is but just one example of the tactics many face. Limits on freedom of expression (the drugs case on Matiullah Jan is a case in point) or surveillance or lawfare to intimidate are other examples. And there is little that the world will do or say to pressure Islamabad.

At best, there will be some pressure for an individual or two but for the rest, these are battles for Pakistanis to fight on their own, as in the past. For this is a war that has been fought for long and there is no quick end to it. But for those in the trenches, they are not counting on outside help, as they haven’t in the past.

The writer is a journalist.

Published in Dawn, March 31st, 2026