Many people in Pakistan have been accused of being involved in anti-state activities and labelled as traitors; the targeted people are not given a chance to defend themselves, and live the rest of their lives with stigma, regardless of whether the allegations are proven in the court.

What do the constitution of Pakistan and the laws say on this issue? And what important procedures must be adopted to establish a person’s involvement in an anti-state activity?

Senior lawyer, Abid Hassan Minto, maintains that the constitution of Pakistan clearly defines what treason it - that, according to Article 6, any person who abrogates or subverts or suspends or holds in abeyance, or attempts or conspires to abrogate or subvert or suspend or hold in abeyance, the constitution by use of force or show of force or by any other unconstitutional means shall be guilty of high treason. Therefore, he says, "all the martial laws imposed in the country can be called acts of treason according to the constitution."

He adds criticising the consitution, government and state policies do not fall in the definition of treason as citizens have the right to express themselves in a democratic system. "Treason cannot be established if there is no use of force or other unconstitutional means to abrogate the constitution or hold it in abeyance have not been used."

He criticises the practice of calling every person who challenges the status quo or asks questions from the state traitor and believes that democracies empower people to ask such questions.

Referring to the tragic bombing incident in Quetta, Minto says, "Achakzai had not done anything wrong by demanding explanation from the security agencies about why could they not secure a place where so many lawyers had gathered. How can this demand be termed an act of terrorism?"

He points out that Pervez Musharraf imposed martial law but he did not use this term and also claimed the constitution was not held in abeyance and that day to day affairs would function as before. "This he did to avoid being tried for treason, maybe on the advice of some adviser."

Read also: Troll the traitor

Minto laments that all those who have committed the act of high treason have remained untouched and the political dissidents, rights activists, nationalists and member of deprived communities have been labelled as traitors.

He says Article 5 talks about loyalty to the state and obedience to the constitution and law. "This is a basic principle that one has to follow and there is no exact description of which acts fall in the category of treason and which not," he adds.

Pakistani laws do declare certain acts as offences against the state. "For example, Pakistan Penal Code terms acts such as waging or attempting to wage war or abetting waging of war against Pakistan, conspiracy to commit such offences, collecting arms, etc., with intention of waging war against Pakistan, condemnation of the creation of the State, and advocacy of abolition of its sovereignty defiling or unauthorisedly removing the national flag of Pakistan from government building, etc, as crimes against the state of Pakistan. Then there is the Anti Terrorism Act (ATA), laws on hate speech, etc, that talk about anti-state activities," he informs.

Lawyer and human rights activist, Hina Jilani, says that having a law does not mean that anybody can be charged, targeted and punished with whatever crime. "Article 10A talks about the right to fair trial of person and states. For the determination of his civil rights and obligations or in any criminal charge against him a person shall be entitled to a fair trial and due process."

Jilani says if somebody talks against the state, he or she should be proceeded against according to the law. "The state should not break law to punish someone as it would be a huge blunder."

She refers to the demolition of the MQM’s offices in Karachi, adding that there is Political Parties Act that explains procedure and conditions to shut down a political party. "Why can’t a proper way be adopted other than using brute force?"

Minto adds that most of the laws about being anti-state, treason, etc were introduced when monarchies were in place and democratic systems had not strengthened. "Those were the times when any dissent with monarchy was taken as an act against the state. But this is not the case anymore. Under true democratic systems, citizens can criticise its state and state machinery if they are not serving the masses properly."

He says the even in developed countries, where rights movements are in full force, people are not deprived of this right. "Even parts of Spain and Scotland are centres of such movements but they are given space in the wider narrative."

Whether a mere expression or action is enough to establish an anti-state act? Umar Daraz, a boy in Okara, was charged under Pakistan’s penal code for acting against Pakistan’s sovereignty by hoisting the Indian flag on his house. Though he explained that he did that to celebrate the Indian cricketer Virat Kohli‘s innings, he was arrested and tried.