Aside from Legislation

             Regardless matter what one may think of Shahbaz Gill, he should not be tortured. Nobody ought to. It is against international law, human rights, and all accepted standards of decency and morality. However, it is not expressly forbidden in Pakistan.

 

Even if it were (and one hopes it soon will be), the sociopolitical environment of the nation affords little reason to believe that the widespread use of torture could be curbed.

 

Imran Khan claims that Gill has endured sexual assault in addition to physical and emotional abuse. Unfortunately, he won't be the first or last person in Pakistani detention to experience such. Torture in custody is pervasive and can take the most terrible and humiliating forms. It is particularly widespread in Punjab, and minorities often bear the brunt.

 

Torture is not only used by the police. There is growing evidence that the military and intelligence agencies use similar tactics in detention facilities as a result of the current surge in enforced disappearances. Indeed, the current lack of anti-torture laws is probably due to these later organizations’ increased engagement in the practice.

 

The Senate is currently reviewing the most recent version of an anti-torture measure, which would clearly define and criminalize torture, custodial death, and custodial rape and provide compensation for victims. It's way past due.

 

Both in 2008 and 2010, Pakistan ratified the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

 

Since 2015, there have been intermittent attempts to pass anti-torture laws that have been thwarted by a lack of political will. Given Gill's experience, PTI lawmakers are now justified in questioning the state's intentionality about the 2022 bill.

 

Once the bill is passed, nobody anticipates that torture will disappear immediately. It is too deeply rooted, both structurally and culturally, in Pakistani law enforcement. Worse yet, given Pakistan's current sociopolitical climate, it is far less likely that any future anti-torture statute will be effectively implemented than it would be if the normal offenders of lax enforcement and lax accountability were at work.

 

The ethically purist claim that torture is always bad is not one that most governments choose to accept. The use of torture is frequently presented as a conundrum, with states contending that there are specific situations in which it is acceptable. The allegations of torture made against American and British troops over the past ten years show that even nations with strict anti-torture laws and better accountability can fall prey to the fallacy that, despite being abhorrent, torture is sometimes necessary, such as when gathering sensitive information to prevent terrorist attacks or to protect innocent civilians.

 

Additionally, there is always a concern that other nations that conduct inhumane behavior will have an advantage, if not strategically, then morally, in terms of information access.

 

Before torture is approved under these circumstances, there is a moral barrier to be cleared or a moral decision to be taken. But when the use of torture is thoroughly dehumanized and demonized, that exercise in moral justification is simply dismissed. That is Pakistan's current predicament: notwithstanding the enactment of any legislation, rampant justification of the use of torture would be encouraged by profound polarization and the normalization of hate politics.

 

When you call someone a "chor," a "Daku," a "kafir," a "khaddar," a "liberal-fascist," or a "foreign agent," you dehumanize them to the point where torture becomes ethically permissible. Torture appears less like a dilemma or a breach of rights and more like a moral requirement if someone else's political, religious, or ethnic heritage is reframed not only as an offense but as a negation of your own.

 

To end this deeply ingrained, vicious polarization, more will be required than just law. To combat the use of torture, however, tackling these sociopolitical perversions will be more important than using conventional strategies like strict legislation, police training, oversight, accountability, and the abolition of impunity for those who use torture.

 

More often than not, the West has cracked down on torture out of concern for national or international prestige or for moral reasons. However, reputations are only in danger in situations where there are detractors, such as the free press, human rights, or other civil society organizations. Another motivator is the worry of being exposed as hypocritical at international forums like the UN or G20 summits.

 

However, Pakistan places less value on its reputation and does not perceive media or civil society as a danger. Furthermore, its radical sociopolitical dynamics are likely to encourage rather than forbid the use of torture in the future. Sadly, until we reweave our national fabric, torture is likely to continue as a national disgrace regardless of what rules are eventually written down.