Unlocking the Mystery of the Missing Persons Crisis (International Edition: Part I)
In Pakistan, on April 23rd, the matter of individuals who have gone missing has emerged as one of the most delicate and intricate human rights issues within the country, notably in Balochistan. This situation signifies more than just a legal and political dilemma; it is profoundly personal for countless families. These households find themselves ensnared in an ongoing loop of sorrow, doubt, and quiet despair—uncertain about what happened to their relatives. Despite frequently being sidelined in nationwide discussions, tackling this crisis over missing persons holds potential to be pivotal in finding solutions to the larger questions surrounding Balochistan.
Notably, the issue of forced disappearances did not initially emerge in Balochistan. This problem first surfaced in Punjab and various other areas following September 11th, as Pakistan adjusted its domestic security policies to align with global anti-terrorism standards. Nevertheless, Balochistan has now become the focal point for this crisis—primarily because of its longstanding insurgencies, lack of development, and perceived detachment from the central government’s focus.
Despite common perceptions, most instances of forced disappearances do not stem from official policies. Often, people become victims of such occurrences because of flaws within Pakistan’s judicial framework. The two major issues include inadequate investigation procedures and ineffective or poorly funded public prosecutors. Frequently, arrests occur with insufficient proof. Police forces frequently pursue leads based on fragmented information rather than solidifying charges into viable legal arguments. Although some accused might be detained, factors like deficient readiness, subpar instruction, and governmental influence can cause these cases to crumble during trials.
Consequently, rather than adhering to due process, government officials might opt for unauthorized tactics—to gather intelligence or neutralize potential risks—thus further undermining the legal system and diminishing public confidence.
It’s crucial to recognize an oft-overlooked truth: not all those labeled “missing” have been victims of forced disappearances. Many people, particularly young men, choose to depart from their residences seeking improved circumstances overseas—sometimes without notifying their relatives—due to limited economic options or private motivations. Over time, some may come back home, whereas others settle abroad indefinitely. During this period, their kin endure torment and doubt, becoming susceptible to exploitation. Malicious actors frequently leverage these feelings of sorrow and disorientation, employing them as tools for rallying public opinion against governmental bodies and amplifying misinformation efforts that twist realities and exacerbate divisions.
To disrupt this cycle, we need to tackle the underlying issues within our judicial framework: enhance the investigatory abilities of both police forces and anti-terrorism units; educate prosecutors to manage critical national security cases with professionalism; and guarantee that all detained individuals appear before a court of law within the time limits set forth by constitutional guidelines.
The current Commission of Inquiry on Enforced Disappearances, established in 2011, has not managed to gain trust. The commission’s restricted authority, unclear procedures, and alleged partiality have rendered it incapable of addressing cases effectively or providing justice.
(To be continued)