Pakistan’s security-first approach has increasingly drawn scrutiny over its human-rights record. Across parts of the country, allegations of enforced disappearances, civilian casualties, restrictions on dissent and pressure on journalists and activists have remained persistent concerns raised by rights groups and international observers.
The central issue is not simply the existence of security challenges. Pakistan faces genuine threats from militant violence and instability. The difficult question is how a state responds to those threats while maintaining legal safeguards and protecting civilian rights.
In Balochistan, allegations surrounding enforced disappearances and extrajudicial killings have become particularly contentious. Families of missing persons and rights organisations have repeatedly called for information about detainees, independent investigations and accountability. Pakistani authorities have disputed some allegations and have argued that counterterrorism operations are necessary to confront armed groups.
Civilian harm has also become a major concern in areas affected by security operations and militant violence. When civilians bear the consequences of conflict, transparency and accountability become essential—not optional.
The pressure extends beyond conflict zones. Restrictions on political activity, protests, media freedom and civil society have prompted criticism from domestic and international rights advocates. Such measures may be defended by authorities on grounds of national security, but broad restrictions can deepen public distrust if citizens believe legal protections are being weakened.
Security and human rights should not be treated as mutually exclusive. A state can confront terrorism while respecting due process, investigating alleged abuses and providing families with answers about missing relatives.
Pakistan’s credibility therefore depends not only on how effectively it addresses security threats, but also on whether its institutions are willing to scrutinise their own conduct.
Counterterrorism can protect a state only when it protects the rights of the people it claims to defend. Accountability is not a threat to security—it is part of legitimate security governance.
