THE Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) has questioned the government’s approach to the repatriation of Afghan refugees and also criticized the conduct of counter-terrorism operations.
This misplaced criticism on state policies related to such sensitive matters has raised a question that why the watchdogs like HRCP mostly neglect the very ground realities shaping up the security environment and inexcusably use high sounding terms like alleged extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances and the misuse of anti-terrorism? Ethnically motivated groups are involved in hardcore terrorist actions against the non-combatant civilians as well as security forces. Combo of terrorism and separatist agenda is violation of UNO Charter.
Surprisingly, HRCP has never probed the financial trails of terrorist groups and their sympathizers who operate using the mask of political activism. Complex issue of foreign- funded terrorism and misleading advocacy of pressure groups should not be viewed only with the lens of human rights. The HRCP’s demands for security operations to adhere strictly to human rights guidelines sound reasonable in theory, but they are divorced from the harsh realities of terror-affected areas. Security forces face immediate threats, often with incomplete intelligence and must make rapid decisions with limited resources. Requiring them to operate under ideal, peaceful conditions is impractical.
The refusal by the HRCP to acknowledge Pakistan’s challenging security landscape makes their critique seem disconnected from the actual situation on the ground. Similarly, the HRCP’s advocacy for Afghan refugees presents only the humanitarian side, ignoring the decades-long security, economic and social pressures Pakistan has absorbed. The state’s recent repatriation policy was a response to serious national security threats including intelligence findings of rising attacks by groups operating from Afghan territory and the Afghan Interim Government’s failure to cooperate on counter-terrorism. No responsible government can permit undocumented individuals to stay indefinitely amidst such risks.
The Government of Pakistan regularly highlights that the repatriation of undocumented immigrants is driven with the serious security threats amid decades long unprecedented negligent leniency. The repatriation of undocumented immigrants is being carried out under existing immigration laws and in line with court judgments. The whole process is intended to be “humane, phased and orderly”. Imbalance in the stance of HRCP is obvious amid one sided advocacy without considering the government’s primary obligation to protect all citizens from terrorists and illegal immigrants. Criticism from HRCP on counter-terrorism bodies like the Counter-Terrorism Department (CTD) and Countering Violent Extremism Directorate (CCD) seems misplaced as it obviously ignored the immense pressure, hazards and complexities being confronted by these institutions in discharge of duties. They operate under stressful conditions with hostile actors actively trying to exploit procedural delays and legal loopholes.
While errors and excesses must be addressed, reducing the entire counter-terrorism framework to mere allegations without engaging with these operational realities does not enhance human rights; it undermines the state’s capacity to protect its people. Watchdogs, especially HRCP, should not neglect a few important pieces of larger mosaic like terror proxies under Indian patronage operating from Afghanistan, unrecognized status of TTA regime and unprecedented sacrifices o Pakistan in war against terrorism.
—The writer is contributing columnist.
