Like most years in the country, 2024 was not a good one for human rights in Pakistan. The state has always had, at best, a tenuous commitment to guaranteeing the fundamental rights of its people and has usually failed to uphold them when faced with radical elements or powerful political and business interests. If anything was unusual about last year, it was that the state ditched its customary apathy towards human rights and appeared to commence an onslaught against dissent. According to the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP)’s State of Human Rights in 2024 report, its annual review of the state of human rights in the country, the year under review exposed how fragile fundamental rights remain in Pakistan. Civic spaces shrunk and women, children and minorities continued to face entrenched discrimination and climate-induced disasters underscored the link between environmental neglect and human rights violations. Pakistanis have never exactly been spoiled for spaces where they can raise their voice freely. But in 2024 the state seemed to crackdown on what few spaces they had left. As per the HRCP, in addition to the weaponisation of existing laws, new laws were enacted to suppress dissent and gag orders were enforced by unseen state forces, such as the ban on the social media platform X soon after the election and the establishment of a national firewall.
Much of this onslaught against dissent resulted from the fallout of the 2024 general elections and was geared towards digital platforms, one of the last havens Pakistanis had left to speak and access information freely. There were at least 19 instances of internet, mobile connectivity and social media platform disruptions, including the ban on X, violating people’s right to information. There was also the Punjab Defamation Act 2024, which the HRCP argues allows legitimate criticism to be framed as defamation. Meanwhile, more traditional forums of information, dissent and critique fared little better. Between January and December, the Pakistan Press Foundation documented at least 162 attacks on journalists and media professionals in connection with their work and attempts to regulate free expression either through punitive measures or regulations. Where the state was not an active participant in the suppression of fundamental rights it remained a passive observer, particularly when it came to the issue of mob lynching and persecution of minorities, failing to take on increasingly radicalised mobs or those radicalising them.
In summary, one sees a government that is broadly struggling to uphold most human rights and is increasingly hostile to some of them, with the right to dissent seemingly falling out of favour the most. Among the few positive developments on the rights front is the inclusion of Article 9A in the 26th Amendment, establishing the right to clean air and a healthy environment as a fundamental right. While it is great to see a progressive stance towards environmental rights, one must wonder what the point is if there is a risk of being arrested for criticising the government’s record on these rights. Could naming and shaming politicians and others involved in urban developments that destroy what green spaces we have left result in prosecution? If so, these new rights will remain precarious. The state has to realise that citizens and civil society is there to help them uphold fundamental rights and laws in general and that dissent is the vehicle through which this is achieved. One simply cannot protect the rights of the citizen while making it harder for them to raise their voices at the same time. And without an environment where fundamental rights are secure, progress on other fronts like the economy and national security only becomes harder.