logo
Independence - dreams deferred?

Independence - dreams deferred?

Express Tribune2 days ago
The writer is a former Secretary to Government, Home and Tribal Affairs Department and a retired IGP. He can be reached at syed_shah94@yahoo.com
Independence Day on 14th August passed amidst jubilation, military parades, patriotic songs and dazzling illuminations. Seventy-eight years on, we continue to mark this day with great fervour. The very word independence evokes a sense of fresh breathing, of casting off the shackles that once bound us. All nations take pride in their independence, for it is supposed to signify dignity, self-determination and collective ownership of destiny.
But have we ever paused to ask ourselves: Why did we seek independence? What does it truly mean in the life of a nation?
Before 14 August 1947, we had our mosques, offered our prayers and revered our shrines, many of which were - and still are - in India. Millions of Muslims continue to live there today. Our inheritance, marriages and other personal matters were governed under Muslim personal law. Then why was there such a powerful demand for a separate homeland?
The leaders of the Pakistan Movement argued that in a Hindu-majority India, Muslims would be politically marginalised and economically disadvantaged. Their voices would be drowned, their talents stifled. They feared that without political autonomy, Muslims would remain underdogs - destined for poverty, exploitation and denial of fundamental rights. The dream was of emancipation from the yoke of subjugation - of a state where the rights of all citizens would be safeguarded, where justice would prevail, and where every individual could flourish regardless of creed, caste or class.
Yet, as we look around today, the picture is starkly different from what was envisioned. Extreme poverty engulfs nearly half of our population. The Pakistan Bureau of Statistics and independent economic surveys repeatedly warn of widening inequality. Millions of children remain out of school; malnutrition and stunted growth plague our future generations; the doctor-to-patient ratio remains critically low; and basic health facilities are beyond the reach of the common man.
Fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution - freedom of speech, assembly, movement and association - are often curtailed in practice. Political freedoms have been repeatedly subjected to arbitrary restrictions, and dissent is often treated not as a democratic necessity but as a threat to state security.
The constitutional journey, too, has been tumultuous. The 1973 Constitution, envisaged as a consensual social contract, has been subjected to repeated suspensions, abrogations and distortions. Rather than serving as the supreme law binding all institutions to democratic norms, it has too often been bent to serve the expediencies of those in power. The 26th Amendment and other constitutional manoeuvres have often reflected power struggles rather than principled reform. The spirit of constitutionalism - the guarantee that no one is above the law - remains fragile.
What is even more troubling is the misuse of laws meant for national security. The Anti-Terrorism Act, enacted in the 1990s to combat genuine threats to public safety, has been weaponised against political leaders and parties. Peaceful protests, sit-ins and rallies - hallmarks of a functioning democracy - are painted with the same brush as acts of terrorism. Such practices not only undermine democracy but also corrode public trust in state institutions.
Due process of law, a cornerstone of justice, is often ignored. Political opponents are detained without fair trial; investigations become tools of harassment; and the presumption of innocence - a basic principle of law - is eroded. In several recent instances, prolonged detention without conviction has become the norm, effectively punishing individuals before any court has declared them guilty. This is not merely a political problem - it is a deep constitutional wound.
In his haunting poem Subh-e-Azadi, written in the aftermath of Partition, Faiz Ahmad Faiz captured the disillusionment of a people who had gained political freedom but not the promised social and economic justice:
"This stained light, this night-bitten dawn
This is not the dawn we longed for;
This is not the dawn for which we set out
Hoping to find, somewhere in the desert of the sky,
The final destination of the stars' night."
Faiz's lament was not a rejection of freedom itself, but a painful recognition that the journey towards true independence - independence from hunger, fear, exploitation and injustice - was far from over. Sadly, his words still resonate today.
True independence is not merely the absence of foreign rule; it is the presence of justice, equality and opportunity. It is a system where the weak can challenge the strong and still win, where the law protects without prejudice, and where the state serves its citizens rather than ruling over them. It is a social contract binding rulers to act as trustees of the people's welfare.
Seventy-eight years on, we must ask ourselves: Have we honoured that contract? Have we upheld the ideals for which sacrifices were made, lives were lost and dreams were kindled? Or have we replaced one form of subjugation with another - swapping foreign masters for domestic elites who treat the state as their personal estate?
Our economic woes, human rights violations and governance failures are not inevitable. They are the product of choices - choices to prioritise short-term political gains over long-term institutional reform; to silence dissent instead of engaging it; to centralise power rather than distribute it.
If we continue to drift away from constitutional governance, allow poverty to deepen and permit the erosion of rights, then the celebrations each August will ring hollow. The parades, the songs and the fireworks will be but a veneer over a deeper national unease. Independence will remain an unfulfilled promise - an anthem sung without meaning, a flag raised without purpose.
The dream of Pakistan was never simply about a piece of land; it was about creating a society grounded in dignity, justice and equality. Until we realise that vision, Faiz's "night-bitten dawn" will continue to haunt our mornings.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Forces regain extended detention powers with Senate nod
Forces regain extended detention powers with Senate nod

Express Tribune

time7 hours ago

  • Express Tribune

Forces regain extended detention powers with Senate nod

The Pakistan armed forces reiterated their commitment to eradicating terrorism, emphasising their solidarity with the nation in this ongoing fight. SCREENGRAB Following its passage in the National Assembly, the Senate on Tuesday approved the Anti-Terrorism (Amendment) Bill 2025, restoring powers that allow law enforcement agencies and the armed forces to detain suspects for up to three months, a move that sparked uproar from the opposition benches. Minister of State for Interior and Narcotics Control Muhammad Talal Badar tabled the bill, which amends sub-section (1) of Section 11EEEE of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. According to the amendment, "the government or, where the provisions of Section 4 have been invoked, the armed forces or civil armed forces for a period not exceeding three months and after recording reasons thereof, issue order for the preventative detention of any person." The bill states that persons suspected of activities against national security, including target killing, kidnapping for ransom and extortion, can be detained for three months, adding that it applies "against whom sufficient grounds exist of his having been so concerned, for purpose of inquiry". Detentions extending beyond this threshold will be subject to Article 10 of the Constitution, which provides safeguards with respect to arrest and detention. Under the new arrangement, if a detention order is issued by the army or civil forces, the investigation will be handled by a joint investigation team. "The inquiry will be conducted by no police officer below the rank of Superintendent of Police, Intelligence agencies, civil armed forces, armed forces, and other law enforcing agencies," the bill adds. While JUI-F's Senator Kamran Murtaza attempted to move amendments, they were rejected by majority vote as the House passed the law clause-by-clause. According to its statement of objects, the current security outlook requires "a robust response that goes beyond the existing legal framework". The bill explains that previous powers under Section 11EEEE, which lapsed in 2016 due to a sunset clause, needed to be "re-inserted to empower the government, Armed Forces and Civil Armed Forces with the necessary authority to detain individuals who pose a significant threat to national security". The government contends the provision would allow for preventive detention based on credible information or reasonable suspicion, enabling authorities to disrupt terror plots before they mature. 'Urgency must not eclipse wisdom' Defending the legislation, Law Minister Azam Nazeer Tarar told senators, "Currently, the country is facing the menace of terrorism and amendments proposed by Syed Naveed Qamar have already been incorporated to make it more effective." He pointed out the bill had passed judicial scrutiny and included a three-year sunset clause. He further clarified that under Clause 2 of the amendment, the detainee would have presented before the Magistrate within 24 hours. However, PTI's Barrister Syed Ali Zafar urged caution, stating: "Some of its clauses are against the law and Constitution, so the bill should be referred to the committee." "Today we are being asked to amend one of the most powerful — and most controversial — laws in our statute book: the Anti-Terrorism Act," the opposition lawmaker said, adding that the law first came into being under extraordinary circumstances to protect Pakistan from extraordinary threats. "But as lawmakers, we must always remember: every extraordinary power given to the state can both be used and misused," he cautioned. He acknowledged that the anti-terrorism act was made to get rid of the menace of terrorism, which had destroyed the peace of the nation. "There is no doubt that we have to eradicate terrorism from the country and punish the terrorists. There is also no doubt that we will fight against terrorism till the last and that together we will win this battle." However, he cautioned that "urgency must not eclipse wisdom". Barrister Ali Zafar further pointed out that the Supreme Court had examined the provisions of the existing anti-terrorism act and decided that many of its provisions were against the constitution. "It was only after that that the present law was passed, and hence there is no room for any changes in it. By adding any provision in the existing law and making it more draconian, it will only become unconstitutional." He lamented that the amendment proposes that even an SHO and detain anybody for a period of three months in prison, and the person in prison will have no recourse to the courts. "The government can call anyone a terrorist on the grounds of public order and imprison them," he warned. "We must ask ourselves: will this amendment make Pakistan safer, or will it weaken the constitutional rights we swore an oath to protect?" "Our duty is twofold: on the one hand, to protect the lives of our citizens from the scourge of terrorism; on the other, to defend those constitutional freedoms without which Pakistan cannot remain a democratic state," he stressed. "We have to do a balancing act. Security will have to be balanced against liberty and power against accountability," he added. 'No softness toward militancy' PML-N Senator Irfanul Haque Siddiqui argued that no softness could be shown toward armed militancy. "We do not want terrorists roaming freely while innocent people are slaughtered... These acts weaken our federation and create mistrust between the people and the state." He said lawmakers must either surrender to militants or legislate to resist them, arguing such measures can "prevent crime and also curb forced disappearances and arbitrary detentions". Siddiqui appealed for viewing anti-terror legislation in good faith rather than as a political stick, stressing the need for transparent government-opposition communication with the public and media.

JCP to finalise criteria for HC judges, CBs
JCP to finalise criteria for HC judges, CBs

Express Tribune

time10 hours ago

  • Express Tribune

JCP to finalise criteria for HC judges, CBs

Meetings of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) subcommittees led by Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail have been scheduled for August 21 to prepare draft rules for the annual judicial performance evaluation of high court judges, as well as criteria for the selection of judges for constitutional benches. Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Yahya Afridi had earlier formed two committees led by Justice Mandokhail. Other members include Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Awan, Senator Farooq H Naek (from treasury benches), Senator Ali Zafar (from opposition benches), and Pakistan Bar Council representative Ahsan Bhoon. The first committee was to draft proposed rules to establish effective standards for the annual performance evaluation of high court judges under Article 175A(20) of the Constitution, inserted through the 26th Constitutional Amendment. The CJP had constituted this committee during the JCP meeting on June 19. Earlier, CJP Afridi had also formed a committee comprising the same members to draft an objective criterion for selecting judges for constitutional benches. A notification issued in this regard stated that, in light of the chairperson's decisions during three JCP meetings held on February 28, the committee was tasked with drafting objective criteria for the appointment of judges under Clause (4) of Article 175A of the Constitution and for the selection of judges for constitutional benches under Articles 191-A and 202-A. Interestingly, the JCP had decided to form a rules committee in January, and CJP Yahya Afridi issued its notification on March 4. However, the committee has not held any meeting for the last five months. Legal experts have since questioned why the committee was not constituted immediately after the passage of the 26th Amendment. Since its enactment, judges for the Supreme Court and Sindh High Court's constitutional benches have been appointed without a structured selection process. The government, however, has been fully satisfied with the performance of the Supreme Court's constitutional benches, which endorsed the trial of civilians in military courts, approved the transfer of judges from different high courts to the Islamabad High Court, and annulled the reserved seats decision that had declared the PTI entitled to reserved seats after the 2024 general elections. Meanwhile, the constitutional bench has yet to take up petitions challenging its very creation. Lawyers have also raised questions about the wisdom and logic behind the nomination of a particular set of judges for constitutional benches, pointing out that judges perceived as critical of the present regime are often excluded. Advocate Rida Hosain expressed surprise that a judge elevated only a few days ago could be nominated to a constitutional bench, while several senior Supreme Court judges with extensive constitutional expertise were not. In the absence of clear criteria, she noted, such nominations appear arbitrary. Soon after the passage of the 26th Constitutional Amendment, SC senior puisne judge Syed Mansoor Ali Shah had called for establishing clear guidelines for nominating and determining the number of judges on constitutional benches. "The commission has already nominated and determined a number of judges of the Supreme Court and the Sindh High Court for the CBs in the absence of any mechanism or criteria in place," Justice Shah wrote in a nine-page letter to the JCP secretary in December last year. "Therefore, there has been no logic or reason backing the nomination and determination of the number of judges for the CBs." Justice Shah stressed that nominations under Articles 191A and 202A of the Constitution cannot be made in a vacuum, and that the JCP must first establish objective criteria through the proposed rules. He suggested that such criteria could include the number of reported constitutional judgments authored by a judge, including dissents or additional notes, while serving on larger benches that heard significant constitutional cases.

Pakistan streets 'zones of fear' for minorities
Pakistan streets 'zones of fear' for minorities

Express Tribune

time10 hours ago

  • Express Tribune

Pakistan streets 'zones of fear' for minorities

The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) has welcomed certain government measures as positive steps, including the enactment of the Child Marriage Restraint Act 2025 and the establishment of provincial research centres to counter violent extremism. According to the commission, the initiatives mark important progress toward safeguarding religious freedom and minority rights. In its latest report, "Streets of Fear: Freedom of Religion or Belief in 2024/25", HRCP revealed a disturbing rise in violence against religious minorities over the past year. The report highlighted incidents of targeted killings, the demolition of places of worship, the forced conversion and marriage of underage Hindu and Christian girls and an increase in hate speech, warning that the trends pose serious threats to religious freedom in Pakistan. The report expressed alarm over two cases of "extrajudicial killings" by police, describing them as "deeply chilling". In both cases, individuals accused of blasphemy sought protection from violent mobs, only to be shot dead by law enforcement officers themselves. HRCP said such incidents underline the urgent need for police reforms and stronger accountability mechanisms.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store