The state should disclose facts and information when it learns of such instances rather than obscuring a divisive topic with what appear to be unsubstantiated charges.
A person in a position of authority, which entails significant social responsibilities, could not be expected to make such absurd, irresponsible claims. Riaz Pirzada, the PML-human N’s rights minister, claimed in a recent TV appearance that certain missing people had been “engaged” by hostile foreign actors, including the imprisoned Indian spy Kulbhushan Jadhav.
In the same interview, he also seemed to justify the militaristic methods used by security personnel in counterterrorism operations, whining that people had only begun to demonstrate and “raise the missing persons issue” after the government acted in response to terrorist attacks in Quetta. The minister didn’t appear to want to use his position as a shield against cruel practises, preferring instead to let other ministries and agencies handle pressing human rights concerns while disregarding the fact that the security apparatus is mostly to blame for situations like enforced disappearances. It is surprising why Mr. Pirzada has the human rights portfolio when his indifference to urgent issues is so blatant.
His callous comments regarding missing people are the most recent illustration of the state victimising relatives of missing people rather than providing them with specific information about their whereabouts.
While it may be true that some people have allied themselves with opposing forces, the state should disclose facts and information when it learns of such instances rather than obscuring a divisive topic with what appear to be unsubstantiated charges. It is important to consider why such information isn’t shared: Is it simply because the state’s position would be undermined by the actual numbers? The public has a right to information. The minister insisted repeatedly during the interview that his department was helpless and had no choice but to serve as a conduit between the people and the government in order to address serious issues with human rights.
Every time we advance in resolving our concerns, we cannot then take two steps back. All citizens are given safeguards by the Constitution, which is the foundation of our state.
No person or entity of the state may willfully decide to act against its requirements. The minister would be well to reconsider his position before the struggle for civil rights suffers further harm.
A significant disservice is done to people who are battling for a better future by caving in to strong interests and giving them carte blanche to maintain a climate of impunity.
The minister didn’t appear to want to use his position as a shield against cruel practises, preferring instead to let other ministries and agencies handle pressing human rights concerns while disregarding the fact that the security apparatus is mostly to blame for situations like enforced disappearances.
