ENFORCED disappearances remain one of the most debated and misunderstood phenomena in Pakistan’s socio-political landscape. Historically, societies worldwide have grappled with the complex interplay of state authority, individual freedoms and human rights, particularly concerning missing persons. Pakistan, a country of diverse social and geopolitical challenges, has often been criticized for alleged involvement of its security forces in abductions. In recent years, it has become popular to believe that security forces or intelligence agencies are responsible for locating all missing persons, which often overshadows the complex facts of the situation. This oversimplified myth not only maintains a misleading narrative, but also draws attention away from the complex reasons of disappearances. A critical examination based on data, historical context and institutional reactions is required to dispel these myths and give a balanced perspective.
The complex nature of missing persons’ cases reflects the diverse origins of many of them which are not related to state actions. The majority of such cases involve voluntary disappearances which are triggered by personal, professional or legal factors. According to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, approximately 28,000 Pakistanis are imprisoned abroad, with their families sometimes unaware of their whereabouts. This underlines migrants’ socioeconomic disadvantages as well as communication gaps within transnational networks. Domestically, social organizations like as Edhi and Chhipa have buried nearly 35,000 unidentified bodies since 2005, demonstrating society’s mistreatment of the marginalized. Furthermore, many people elude law enforcement due to criminal activity, resulting in an overlapping space between the legal and illegal domains. This multiplicity of situations calls into question the blanket attribution of disappearances to state institutions, indicating a more complex web of reasons.
The state has addressed enforced disappearances in multiple ways, with the Commission of Inquiry on Enforced Disappearances playing an essential role. Since its inception in 2010, the Commission has handled 10,405 cases, resolving 8,144 (78%), and is now investigating 2,261 more. This resolution rate demonstrates the Commission’s ability in resolving disputes, refuting claims of institutional inertia. A thorough examination of ongoing cases reveals the employment of sophisticated investigation techniques such as cross-referencing family tree updates, SIM card issuances, vaccine registrations and overseas trip records. For example, in 1,183 studied cases, authorities identified 369 people using official records, including 35 surveillance system hits, 17 verified fatalities and 11 overseas trip cases. These findings dispel the idea of systemic state abductions by demonstrating diligent efforts to clarify uncertainties.
Pakistan manages 1,292 detainees—925 in internment facilities and 367 in rehabilitation programs—ensuring full legal rights, including family visits, legal representation and due process. This commitment to rehabilitation counters claims of extrajudicial imprisonment. In Balochistan, where missing persons’ cases are often highlighted, official records show 2,911 registered cases, with 2,459 (84%) resolved and 452 under investigation. Among the resolved cases, 2,049 individuals returned home, 26 were found in prisons and 47 were confirmed deceased. Notably, 277 cases were reclassified as non-enforced disappearances, demonstrating a thorough vetting process. Claims of “Baloch genocide” are refuted by evidence, such as cases where individuals killed in anti-terror operations in Iran were falsely included in missing persons’ protests. Comparatively, global statistics show that the issue of missing persons is not unique to Pakistan. For example, the US reports over 600,000 missing persons annually, while India records 64,851 cases monthly, underscoring the broader, more complex nature of the problem.
Missing persons advocacy, despite facing scrutiny, has significantly raised awareness. Activists like Mama Qadeer, Nasrullah Baloch, and Amina Masood Janjua continue their efforts, with access to high-ranking officials, including the prime minister and cabinet ministers, indicating the government’s openness to diverse views. This challenges claims of suppressed dissent and highlights Pakistan’s commitment to democratic discourse. Additionally, the Commission of Inquiry on Enforced Disappearances (CoIoED) collaborates with international organizations like the OHCHR and UNWGEID, aligning with global human rights standards and strengthening its legitimacy. The CoIoED’s institutional role mirrors international models such as the U.S. NCIC and the U.K.’s MPU, promoting accountability and addressing family concerns. While some advocate for a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, it should complement existing structures. The CoIoED’s success in resolving issues, including those raised by Akhtar Mengal, demonstrates the importance of enhancing, rather than replacing, these processes.
Addressing the issue of missing persons requires a nuanced understanding of its socio-economic, legal, and institutional dimensions. Simplistic narratives based on falsehoods and biased interpretations not only mislead the public, but also weaken the credibility of advocacy campaigns. Stakeholders may encourage a more informed and fair discourse by appreciating the complexities of these instances and the progress made by governmental institutions. Advocacy and accountability must coexist with evidence-based conversations to provide justice for victims and their families while also protecting national security and the rule of law. The effort to resolve the missing persons issue is ongoing, but progress is dependent on teamwork, transparency, and a shared commitment to the truth.
—The author is an independent researcher focused on national and regional security issues.
