Sexual violence on the rise in Pakistan: over 2 000 gang rapes reported in a year
Pakistan reported a disturbing increase in violent crimes over the past year, with official data revealing 2 142 cases of gang rape, 4 472 incidents of rape, and 11 074 murders nationwide.
The alarming statistics point to a worsening security and justice situation, particularly in Punjab and Islamabad, where the majority of cases were documented. Punjab, Pakistan's most populous province, recorded the highest number of violent crimes, including 2 046 gang rapes and 4 908 murders.
These figures account for nearly half of the country's reported cases, highlighting the region's growing struggle with lawlessness and ineffective enforcement. The nation's capital, Islamabad, has also emerged as a hotspot for sexual crimes, despite the presence of strict legal frameworks, including Sharia-based laws.
Rights groups and legal analysts argue that the frequency of such incidents indicates a gap between legislation and its implementation.
Under Sharia law, punishments for sexual violence can include lashes or even the death penalty, but conviction rates remain low.
The increase in reported cases has prompted concerns over the safety of women and girls across the country, particularly in vulnerable communities. Human rights advocates say that systemic issues — including underreporting, victim-blaming, and slow judicial processes — contribute to the persistence of sexual violence. 'Laws exist, but their enforcement is inconsistent,' said a representative of a women's rights organisation based in Lahore.
'Victims often face immense social stigma and legal hurdles, which discourage them from coming forward. Meanwhile, perpetrators exploit these weaknesses.'
The numbers also raise alarms about the security of minority communities, with activists warning that women from Hindu and Sikh backgrounds face even higher risks, both from criminal acts and from discriminatory neglect by law enforcement.
Experts emphasise the need for comprehensive reform, including faster prosecution of sexual crimes, better victim support systems, and public education to challenge societal taboos surrounding sexual violence.
The troubling trend has sparked calls from both civil society and some political figures for a national action plan to combat gender-based violence.
As the country reckons with rising crime rates, many are demanding that authorities take urgent and meaningful steps to restore public trust and ensure the safety of all citizens, regardless of gender, class, or religion.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
12 hours ago
- IOL News
MTN backs Starlink's South African operations, contingent on B-BBEE compliance
EFF rejects Minister Malatsi's unlawful attempt to bypass South Africa's 30% local ownership law for Elon Musk's Starlink, saying legal compliance and transformation must be upheld to protect jobs, sovereignty, and national security. Image: AP Photo/Francois Mori Giant digital communication network service provider, MTN, whose chairperson is South Africa's special envoy to the United States of America, Mcebisi Jonas, has expressed support for Starlink being licensed to operate in the country. However, this is only if one of the world's richest men, Elon Musk's satellite internet service licence, complies with black economic empowerment regulations. The company, which is originally from South Africa but operates in various countries across the continent, described US-based Starlink as one of the Low Earth Orbit (LEO) communication providers that could significantly accelerate connectivity, 'particularly in rural and underserved areas where terrestrial infrastructure is limited or costly to deploy'. 'By providing high-speed, low-latency internet, leveraging LEO capabilities could bridge the digital divide, supporting South Africa's national goals of broader digital inclusion, economic development, and innovation,' said MTN Group Chief Sustainability and Corporate Affairs Officer Nompilo Morafo. MTN advocates for partnerships with LEO communication providers, including Starlink, as these can enhance service resilience, extend reach, and improve customer experience, especially in challenging geographical areas. 'MTN welcomes cooperation and competition in the telecommunications space, provided there is regulatory parity,' said Morafo. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ It has been reported that Starlink currently operates in 18 of the 54 countries in Africa, and it would expand to 10 more states before the end of the year. MTN's Digital Infrastructure Chief Executive Officer, Mazen Mroué, had, on December 14, 2023, while he was still the group's chief technology and information officer, revealed that there were engagements with SpaceX's Starlink, with enterprise-grade trials under way in Rwanda and Nigeria. When asked if those MTN engagements with Starlink had been expanded to involve the latter coming to South Africa, the group said it did not comment on confidential market-specific discussions. 'MTN embraces the value of LEO satellite systems and remains open to partnerships that support the extension of connectivity across Africa, including South Africa, in compliance with applicable regulations,' Morafo said. It was reported in 2013 that President Cyril Ramaphosa's Shanduka Group had paid $335 million for a stake in MTN's Nigerian business. Soon before being appointed state deputy president, Ramaphosa disinvested from Shanduka to focus on his government responsibilities to avoid a conflict of interest. Former finance deputy minister Jonas was appointed MTN Group chairperson on June 1, 2018, and on April 14, 2025, Ramaphosa appointed him as his special envoy to the United States of America with the responsibility of advancing South Africa's diplomatic, trade, and bilateral priorities. This entailed fostering strategic partnerships and engaging with US government officials and private-sector leaders to promote South Africa. Currently, Starlink does not have an operating licence in South Africa after its attempts to get one failed due to Musk's disagreement with the Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment (B-BBEE) requirement that foreign telecommunication companies must sell 30% of their stake to local historically disadvantaged groups for them to operate in the country. Trump signed an Executive Order on February 7, which sought to isolate South Africa, following allegations that white Afrikaners were subjected to orchestrated genocide and anti-white black employment policies, and that South Africa had taken a hostile stance against the US and its allies, including Israel. This was attributed to Musk's fightback against B-BBEE regulations using Trump. Ramaphosa led the delegation to Washington to negotiate with Trump on May 21 to save South Africa/US trade agreements and recruit new investors. The Presidency had listed Jonas as among the delegation, but he did not go due to his business commitments, although he had contributed to the preparation of that meeting. Before the two leaders held a private meeting at the White House, there was a media briefing in which the issue of genocide and crime was discussed. It was in that briefing that South African billionaire Johann Rupert pleaded with Trump to assist South Africa with modern technology to fight crime and even suggested, in the presence of Musk, that Starlink should come to the country. The negotiation took place before it was reported that Trump had fired Musk as his senior advisor and Department of Government Efficiency head. When asked if Jonas had in any way participated in negotiations to bring Starlink to the country, Morafo said 'no'. 'In his capacity as MTN Group chairperson, Mr Mcebisi Jonas does not participate in operational negotiations relating to Starlink or any other specific vendor or technology partner. 'His responsibilities are focused on providing strategic oversight and governance at the MTN Group level, in line with the role of a non-executive chairperson,' she said. When called, Jonas declined to comment, saying he does not talk to the media as he works in the background. Communications and Digital Technologies Minister Solly Malatsi raised eyebrows when, on May 23, two days after the White House meeting, issued a statement announcing the relaxation of the B-BBEE Act in the Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) sector to 'allow qualifying multinationals to meet empowerment obligations through alternatives to 30% ownership'. This opened the floodgates of reaction, including from politicians and civil society groups who believed that Malatsi was facilitating the licensing of Starlink by bypassing B-BBEE requirements. MTN said all communication companies should be treated the same and without favour. 'We advocate for a regulatory framework based on the principle of 'same service, same rules'. 'All service providers, whether terrestrial or non-terrestrial, should adhere to the same legal, regulatory, and socio-economic obligations, including those relating to customer registration, data protection, localisation, spectrum access, lawful interception, rural coverage, and B-BBEE compliance,' Morafo said.
TimesLIVE
13 hours ago
- TimesLIVE
US mulls giving millions to controversial Gaza aid foundation, sources say
The US state department is weighing giving $500m (R8.8bn) to the new foundation providing aid to war-shattered Gaza, according to two knowledgeable sources and two former US officials, a move that would involve the US more deeply in a controversial aid effort that has been beset by violence and chaos. The sources and former US officials, all of whom requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter, said that money for Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) would come from the US Agency for International Development (USAID), which is being folded into the US State Department. The plan has met resistance from some US officials concerned with the deadly shootings of Palestinians near aid distribution sites and the competence of the GHF, the two sources said. The GHF, which has been fiercely criticised by humanitarian organisations, including the UN, for an alleged lack of neutrality, began distributing aid last week amid warnings that most of Gaza's 2.3-million population is at risk of famine after an 11-week Israeli aid blockade, which was lifted on May 19 when limited deliveries were allowed to resume. The foundation has seen senior personnel quit and had to pause handouts twice this week after crowds overwhelmed its distribution hubs. The state department and GHF did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Reuters has been unable to establish who is funding the GHF operations, which began in Gaza last week. The GHF uses private US security and logistics companies to transport aid into Gaza for distribution at so-called secure distribution sites. On Thursday, Reuters reported that a Chicago-based private equity firm, McNally Capital, has an 'economic interest' in the for-profit US contractor overseeing the logistics and security of GHF's aid distribution hubs in the enclave. While US President Donald Trump's administration and Israel say they don't finance the GHF operation, both have been pressing the UN and international aid groups to work with it. The US and Israel argue that aid distributed by a long-established UN aid network was diverted to Hamas. Hamas has denied that. USAID has been all but dismantled. Some 80% of its programmes have been cancelled and its staff face termination as part of Trump's drive to align US foreign policy with his 'America First' agenda. One source with knowledge of the matter and one former senior official said the proposal to give the $500m to GHF has been championed by acting deputy USAID administrator Ken Jackson, who has helped oversee the agency's dismemberment.
IOL News
16 hours ago
- IOL News
How Ukraine's drone attacks jeopardise peace efforts with Russia
Since the outbreak of the war, the US has been the biggest supporter of Ukraine through military hardware, capital injection and international diplomatic offensive that has seen Ukraine's now acting President Volodymyr Zelensky treated with pomp and ceremony across many capitals, particularly in Europe. Image: Tetiana Dzhafarova / AFP IN a much-anticipated telephone call this week, US President Donald Trump was at pains explaining to his Russian counterpart, President Vladimir Putin, that Washington absolutely had nothing to do with Ukraine's astoundingly provocative drone attacks on five Russian airbases. The airbases, attacked simultaneously, house Russia's strategic bomber fleet. The attacks appear to put a spanner in the works for Trump's strenuous efforts to broker a peace deal between Moscow and Kyiv. The timing is also curious. The well-orchestrated drone attacks took place at a time when the light at the end of the tunnel was beginning to beam with brightness. Despite the deep-seated mistrust and tension between the two next-door neighbours who've been at war since February 2022, the latest round of rare face-to-face talks between the two nations has taken place in the Turkish capital, Istanbul. Trump had been visibly encouraged by their direct negotiations, which resulted in the mass exchange of prisoners of war. A leading German-based civil society organisation, the Schiller Institute, has been vehemently campaigning for an end to the war, actively supporting dialogue in an effort to give peace a chance. Responding to Ukraine's provocative attack on Russia on June 1, Dennis Small of the Schiller Institute wrote: 'Whether 40% or only 10% of Russia's airborne nuclear capability was destroyed in the attack is irrelevant; the fact is that whoever prepared, trained and gave the final green light for Kiev's drone operation was itching to unleash a nuclear-strategic conflict between the world's two greatest nuclear weapons superpowers.' Trump told Putin that the White House was not even given any prior warning about the attacks. Therefore, like most of the international community, Washington was caught off guard, totally taken by surprise. Now, since the outbreak of the war, the US has been the biggest supporter of Ukraine through military hardware, capital injection and international diplomatic offensive that has seen Ukraine's now acting President Volodymyr Zelensky treated with pomp and ceremony across many capitals, particularly in Europe. NATO has also been visible and loud in defence of Ukraine, supplying intelligence and weaponry to Kyiv, among others. All this support was provided on the back of the imposition of an unprecedented barrage of economic sanctions on Moscow. As things were, the entire script was written by Trump's predecessor, Joe Biden, who had vowed that the West would support Ukraine 'for as long as it takes'. When Biden and his Democrats lost the elections last November, Trump's Republican Party was determined to end the war in Ukraine. 'This is a war that would never have started if I were in office,' Trump has said repeatedly. It is therefore no wonder that since assuming office at the beginning of 2025, Trump has prioritised peace in Ukraine. He came into office at a time of great antagonism and mistrust between Washington and Moscow. In the midst of it all, he managed to re-establish contact with the Kremlin, leading to the accentuation of bilateral diplomacy between the two nuclear powers. Through it all, some in Europe had not been too pleased about the looming brokering of peace between Ukraine and Russia. Key EU powers in the form of the UK, France and Germany have publicly displayed displeasure at Trump's approach and efforts. As Washington was pushing too hard to bring a reluctant Zelensky to the negotiating table, the three European powers stated above were actively mobilising for an 'alternative' approach. They birthed a curious idea labelled a 'Coalition of the Willing', a military force to be deployed to Ukraine in the event Trump succeeded with his peace mission. Their rationale is premised on their deep mistrust of Russia that borders on downright Russophobia. They claim that their mooted indefinite military presence inside Ukraine would deter Russia from attacking Ukraine again. The EU's biggest powers are trapped in the Joe Biden war-mongering era that has passed. They speak of no approach to peace, nor how they could engage with Russia at the negotiating table to reach an amicable settlement to the war. Of great interest, the pro-war EU states want Trump's US to guarantee what they call a back-stop, some military assurance that in an event of confrontation with Russia, whilst 'guarding' Ukraine, the US would jump in to defend their Coalition of the Willing. Of course, Trump has already disappointed most of the war-mongering European powers by expressing no taste for military activities inside Ukraine post-war. Trump's offer of a guarantee for the protection of Ukraine will instead come in the form of the economic deal between Kyiv and Washington that includes rare earth minerals. The minerals would contribute toward Ukraine repaying the US for the unconditional assistance Zelensky received during the tenure of Biden, which totalled several billions of dollars. Ukraine's audacious drone attacks of recent days beg for more questions. For instance, where does Zelensky get the guts to launch such a sensitive attack on Russia without informing the White House? As the Schiller Institute puts it: 'Who has the (usurped) power to launch an attack targeting the nuclear deterrent forces of the planet's leading nuclear weapons nation, without telling the of the United States?' Clearly, and surely, an attack of that kind and magnitude would inevitably and logically trigger a response? The Zelensky regime is not politically naive to be unaware of the consequential ramifications of their actions, but then, what is the end-game? The Schiller Institute's conclusion is rather ominous. It read: 'The world may have dodged the bullet of nuclear war — for the moment. But that gun is still loaded, and it is still being wielded by the British and American intelligence circles that are intent on driving a permanent wedge between Trump and Putin, and who are prepared to stage a coup d'état and even assassinate both heads of state, as well as launch another nuclear provocation.' I believe that the UK, France and Germany, that is now under the war-mongering Chancellor Friedrich Merz, need to be confronted by Washington to come out clean about their role in ordering or advising Kiev to attack Russia in this manner. Trump and Putin spoke by phone for one hour and 15 minutes in the aftermath of the attacks. Trump said afterwards: 'We discussed the attack on Russia's docked aeroplanes, by Ukraine,' he posted on his Truth Social account on June 4, adding: 'It was a good conversation, but not a conversation that will lead to immediate Peace. Putin did say, and very strongly, that he will have to respond to the recent attack on the airfields.' In my book, that's the scary part indeed!
