Abdullah Umar
The HRCP press release on “Judicial independence, freedoms and safety under siege” once again highlights a familiar issue: the organisation continues to interpret Pakistan’s security and governance challenges through a narrow, theoretical lens that does not match the reality on the ground. Its commentary is framed as if the country is functioning under stable, predictable conditions where routine administrative norms are enough to manage risks. In truth, Pakistan is navigating an environment marked by resurging terrorism, organised subversion, cross-border interference and the pressures of a hostile information landscape.
Under such circumstances, governments cannot rely on idealised procedures or textbook notions of governance; they must take measures that keep citizens, institutions and the state secure. HRCP argues that the 27th Constitutional Amendment undermines judicial independence, but this reading is incomplete. Judicial autonomy remains intact; the reform attempts to address long-standing gaps in accountability, procedural delays and structural inefficiencies that have eroded public trust in the justice system.
Coordination among state institutions becomes essential when national security is under strain, and the public expects quicker, more responsive justice mechanisms. Instead of recognising that the amendment responds to institutional imbalances and public frustration, HRCP depicts it as an encroachment of power. This approach reduces a complex constitutional debate to a simplified narrative crafted without considering current pressures. The same issue appears when HRCP comments on operations in KP and Balochistan.
It criticises security measures and internet restrictions without acknowledging that these are terrorism affected zones where militants exploit digital platforms for coordination, recruitment and misinformation. No state fighting terrorism of this scale offers unrestricted digital access to areas where hostile elements operate freely. Globally, even long-standing democracies impose targeted restrictions during high-alert situations. Presenting temporary operational decisions as blanket attacks on freedom ignores the stakes and trivialises the sacrifices of communities and security personnel confronting daily threats.
HRCP’s demands for “rights-respecting security measures” sound reasonable only to those far removed from terror-affected zones. Security forces have to respond to real-time threats, often with incomplete intelligence and limited resources. Expecting them to operate as if they are in a peaceful suburb is unrealistic. Pakistan’s security landscape requires flexibility and rapid decision-making. HRCP’s refusal to acknowledge this makes its critique appear disconnected from the environment it seeks to influence. This pattern reappears in HRCP’s position on Afghan refugees. The organisation paints a one-sided picture that focuses entirely on the humanitarian dimension without acknowledging the security, economic and social strains Pakistan has endured while hosting millions of Afghans for decades.
The state’s recent repatriation policy did not emerge from nowhere; it followed serious intelligence findings, rising attacks linked to groups operating from Afghan soil and the refusal of the Afghan Interim Government to cooperate on counter-terrorism. No responsible government allows undocumented individuals to remain indefinitely when national security is at risk.
HRCP’s insistence on presenting only half the picture creates an imbalanced narrative that overlooks the state’s core responsibility to protect its own citizens. Similarly, HRCP frequently criticises counter-terrorism agencies such as CTD and CCD while offering little recognition of the pressures, risks and complexities those institutions face. These are the same agencies that prevent attacks in markets, schools, places of worship and public institutions. They operate under stressful conditions with hostile actors actively seeking to exploit procedural delays and legal gaps. Errors and excesses must be addressed, but reducing the entire counter-terrorism framework to allegations without engaging with the operational realities does not strengthen rights – it weakens the state’s ability to protect them.
This is the broader issue: HRCP discusses rights and governance as if they exist outside the circumstances that shape them. Pakistan’s institutions are not operating in a vacuum. They are dealing with extraordinary challenges that demand extraordinary responses. Advocating for Scandinavian-level freedoms in a region facing cross-border terrorism, digital warfare, extremist propaganda and political volatility ignores the fundamental prerequisite for rights to flourish: stability. Even the most advanced democracies restrict certain freedoms during periods of heightened threat. Expecting Pakistan to behave otherwise reflects an unrealistic, almost detached, idealism. Independent oversight is essential in any country.
Constructive criticism has value. But for oversight to be meaningful, it must reflect an understanding of the environment in which state institutions operate. HRCP’s current approach – aloof, rigid and heavily reliant on theoretical frameworks – risks making its interventions irrelevant to actual policy needs. When commentary repeatedly ignores the reality that frontline personnel, administrators and local communities face, it becomes commentary for optics rather than substance. HRCP must widen its lens. It must look beyond conference halls and academic reports and engage with the complexities and dangers that shape decision-making inside Pakistan. Rights advocacy does not lose credibility by acknowledging the need for extraordinary measures during extraordinary times.
It gains credibility by recognising that rights and security are interconnected and that dismissing the pressures faced by the state only undermines the environment required for rights to exist meaningfully. Pakistan needs voices that hold institutions accountable, but it also needs those voices to understand the terrain. Criticism that refuses to acknowledge context ends up weakening public confidence, feeding misinformation and giving hostile actors convenient talking points against the country. The state is dealing with threats that demand quick, decisive and sometimes uncomfortable decisions. HRCP’s insistence on ignoring this does not strengthen democracy; it undermines the very structures that protect it.
Beyond the substance, the timing of HRCP’s intervention raises serious questions about its intent. Its own report came out in May 2025. Yet the press release repeating and amplifying these themes is dated 23 November 2025, just one day before the arrival of the EU review mission on GSP+ on 24 November 2025. One can call this a coincidence; in the current context, it looks far closer to a calculated move. When an organisation chooses that exact moment to circulate a sweeping indictment of Pakistan’s constitutional framework, security policies and institutional conduct, it is difficult to pretend that the message is not being curated for external consumption.
At a minimum, HRCP appears indifferent to the diplomatic and economic consequences of such timing. At worst, it suggests a deliberate attempt to influence or prejudice the international review process against Pakistan at a particularly sensitive juncture. Either way, it undermines the claim that this is a neutral, good-faith human rights intervention. For HRCP to remain relevant and constructive, it must recalibrate its perspective. The country is not in ordinary times, and expecting ordinary procedures to succeed is a disservice to both governance and rights. Until HRCP grounds its analysis in the realities Pakistan faces today, its observations will continue to sound detached from the challenges shaping the country’s security and governance landscape.
The writer is a freelance columnist.
