English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Russian
Spanish
Urdu
The issue is not whether human rights should be discussed internationally—they should. The issue is whether a state can selectively invoke human rights as a geopolitical tool while ignoring serious concerns within its own borders.
Pakistan’s recent claim before the European Union that it raised concerns regarding human rights in India has once again exposed a familiar contradiction in Islamabad’s foreign policy. According to media reports, Pakistani officials used their engagement with the EU to highlight alleged human rights issues in India and to revive discussions on Kashmir.Every sovereign nation has a responsibility to protect human rights, and no democracy is beyond scrutiny. However, credibility matters in international diplomacy. Before lecturing others on rights, freedoms, and democratic values, a country must first examine its own record. Pakistan’s attempt to position itself as a guardian of human rights appears increasingly unconvincing when viewed against the backdrop of recent developments in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) and Balochistan.
The most striking example comes from Pakistan-administered Kashmir itself. Over the past year, the region has witnessed repeated protests over governance, economic hardships, political representation, and local rights. Demonstrations intensified after controversial decisions relating to reserved legislative seats and broader concerns regarding political participation. Reports indicate that protests led to deadly clashes, arrests, internet shutdowns, detentions, and a heavy security crackdown. Amnesty International and other observers have expressed concern over the situation and the treatment of protesters.Recent reports suggest that several protesters were killed during clashes and subsequent security operations. Authorities reportedly issued arrest warrants against protest leaders, banned organizations involved in the movement, and imposed communication restrictions. Entire cities observed shutdowns, reflecting the depth of public anger and frustration.
One cannot help but ask: if Pakistan is genuinely concerned about human rights, why are peaceful protesters in territories under its control facing arrests, restrictions, and forceful suppression? Why are demands for political rights and representation being met with crackdowns rather than dialogue?The situation becomes even more troubling when one examines developments in Balochistan. For years, the province has been at the center of allegations involving enforced disappearances, extrajudicial killings, arbitrary detentions, and restrictions on civil liberties. Multiple human rights organizations and advocacy groups have documented alarming figures related to missing persons and custodial abuses. Reports published in 2026 recorded dozens of killings and hundreds of alleged enforced disappearances in a single month, including cases involving students and teenagers.
Human rights organizations have repeatedly highlighted a pattern in which individuals disappear after raids or detentions, only for families to spend months or years searching for answers. Reports have also described allegations of torture, prolonged detention, and unlawful killings.The persistence of these allegations has led to continuous protests by families of missing persons. Demonstrations demanding information about disappeared relatives have continued for years, becoming one of the longest-running human rights campaigns in the region.
Recent reports further indicate an escalation of tensions in Balochistan, with allegations of military operations, house raids, curfews, arbitrary detentions, and civilian casualties. Human rights defenders have warned of a worsening environment for civil liberties and dissent.These realities raise serious questions about Pakistan’s moral authority to accuse others of rights violations. The issue is not whether human rights should be discussed internationally—they should. The issue is whether a state can selectively invoke human rights as a geopolitical tool while ignoring serious concerns within its own borders.The irony becomes even sharper when Pakistan invokes Kashmir. For decades, Islamabad has sought to portray itself as a champion of Kashmiri rights. Yet the voices emerging from Pakistan-occupied Kashmir increasingly tell a different story. Protesters there are not merely demanding economic relief; many are asking for accountability, representation, better governance, and respect for local aspirations. The recurring unrest indicates that significant sections of the population feel unheard and underserved.Human rights are universal. They cannot be defended selectively. A government cannot demand accountability from others while avoiding accountability for its own actions. Nor can it claim to represent the interests of Kashmiris while suppressing protests and dissent in the territories under its occupation.
The international community, including the European Union, should therefore approach Pakistan’s rhetoric with caution. Any discussion on human rights must be comprehensive, balanced, and rooted in facts rather than political convenience. The plight of families searching for disappeared loved ones in Balochistan deserves attention. The concerns of protesters in Pakistan occupied Kashmir deserve attention. The restrictions on political dissent, allegations of excessive force, and recurring reports of rights violations deserve attention.A nation that seeks credibility on human rights must first demonstrate respect for those rights at home. The path to moral authority does not lie in pointing fingers across borders. It lies in addressing domestic grievances, ensuring justice for victims, protecting freedom of expression, and upholding the rule of law.If Pakistan truly wishes to be taken seriously on human rights, it should begin not in Brussels, New York, or Geneva, but in Muzaffarabad, Rawalakot, Quetta, Turbat, and Gwadar. Human rights begin at home. Until Islamabad confronts the troubling realities unfolding in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir and Balochistan, its criticism of others will continue to sound less like a principled stand and more like a political distraction.
(aatiflonekashmir@gmail.com)
