By Shafaat Yar Khan
The Pakistan Democratic Movement (PDM) government is under fire for its handling of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) protests in Islamabad on November 26, facing both domestic and international criticism for alleged human rights violations. Foreign Office spokesperson Mumtaz Zahra Baloch, in an attempt to address growing concerns, stated, “We have seen some external commentary on recent developments in Pakistan. We believe that much of this commentary is based on an inaccurate and incomplete understanding of the situation.” Despite this defense, the global backlash has painted the government’s actions in a negative light, raising questions about its commitment to democratic norms and human rights.
The protests in Islamabad, marked by violence, fatalities, and widespread arrests, have been met with an aggressive response by the state. The government initially denied any deaths, but Interior Adviser Rana Sanaullah later admitted in a television interview that five protestors had died. Information Minister Ata Tarar strongly defended the government’s actions, stating, “The truth of the matter is that the PTI protestors, who brought AK-47 rifles with them, kept firing at law enforcement personnel. On the other hand, not a single bullet was fired at the PTI protestors.” However, international observers remain unconvinced, criticizing the government for excessive force and suppression of civil liberties.
The situation drew sharp rebukes from global rights organizations and foreign officials. The European Union (EU) envoy, Riina Kionka, referenced Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which guarantees the right to freedom of speech and assembly. Kionka also linked Pakistan’s actions to its eligibility for the Generalised Scheme of Preferences Plus (GSP+), an EU trade incentive program. With exports worth over nine billion euros tied to GSP+, the economic stakes are high for Pakistan, which must adhere to 27 international conventions, including human rights-related agreements, to maintain its preferential trade status.
Adding to international condemnation, Amnesty International issued a strong statement calling for “a prompt, thorough, impartial, effective, and transparent investigation” into the deaths and injuries during the protests. The organization criticized the restrictions on assembly, communication, and movement as violations of fundamental freedoms. Meanwhile, U.S. Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib termed the government’s response “brutal repression” and accused it of using political violence to suppress democracy. Lawmakers from Canada, Australia, and the UK echoed these concerns, further isolating Pakistan on the international stage.
Domestically, the arrest of investigative journalist Matiullah Jan added to the government’s woes. Jan was reportedly detained by security personnel from a city hospital and later charged with terrorism and narcotics possession, charges widely dismissed as baseless. His arrest sparked outrage within Pakistan and abroad, with activists and human rights organizations condemning the move as an attack on press freedom. The EU envoy explicitly asked, “Where is @Matiullahjan919?” on social media, further amplifying international scrutiny.
As these events unfolded, the PDM government appeared more focused on controlling dissent in Islamabad than addressing broader issues of national significance, such as the worsening security situation in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Critics argue that the government’s reactive approach highlights its failure to adopt a holistic governance strategy. Former ambassador Maleeha Lodhi cautioned, “If there is bloodshed on the streets of the capital, the situation is going to go to a point of no return.”
Planning Minister Ahsan Iqbal also attempted to defend the government’s actions, emphasizing that the state had to respond decisively to a procession of armed protestors. “A procession of armed men engaging in violence couldn’t have been welcomed with a red carpet,” he remarked. However, this rhetoric has failed to quell both domestic and international concerns, with many viewing the government’s narrative as an attempt to deflect responsibility.
The fallout from these events extends beyond the immediate political crisis. Pakistan’s reliance on international goodwill for trade and financial assistance means that the ongoing criticism could have far-reaching consequences. The GSP+ program, which provides crucial economic relief, now hangs in the balance as the EU scrutinizes Pakistan’s human rights record. Amnesty International’s calls for accountability, coupled with criticism from Western lawmakers, further underscore the reputational damage the country has incurred.
The protests have also highlighted a deeper crisis within Pakistan’s democratic framework. The government’s inability to tolerate dissent and its reliance on heavy-handed measures expose the fragility of its political institutions. This has not only deepened divisions within the country but also eroded its standing on the global stage. Amnesty International’s observations on excessive force, arbitrary detentions, and restrictions on freedoms underscore the urgent need for reforms to align Pakistan with international democratic standards.
The PDM government faces an uphill battle to regain credibility and stabilize the political landscape. The international community’s focus on Pakistan’s human rights record, coupled with domestic unrest, leaves the government with limited room for maneuver. If it fails to address these issues effectively, Pakistan risks further isolation, with potentially devastating economic and political consequences.
The events of November 26 and their aftermath reflect a broader trend of governance challenges under the PDM administration. From the heavy-handed crackdown on protests to the growing international outcry, the government’s actions have revealed significant gaps in its ability to manage dissent and uphold democratic norms. Moving forward, the government must prioritize dialogue and reforms to restore trust both domestically and internationally, or risk deeper political and economic crises.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Coverpage’s editorial stance.
