Reassessing the BYC Arrests and HRD’s Open Letter

The recent open letter signed by the International Non-Governmental Organization (INGO) Human Rights Defender (HRD) to Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif concerning the arrest of the Baloch Yakjehti Committee (BYC) leadership is a troubling display of ignorance and misinterpretation of the legal Pakistani state and the actual situation in Balochistan. Reassessing the BYC Arrests and HRD’s Open Letter HRD allegedly promotes human rights under the Constitution of Pakistan and international law, but their statement openly disregards the important facts and the legitimate framework in which the actions in question were undertaken.
The fact of the matter is that the BYC leaders, including Mahrang Baloch, Sammi Deen Baloch, Shah Jee Sibghat Ullah, Gulzadi Baloch and others, were not taken into custody because of their peaceful activism or expression of their free speech, rather they were arrested because they broke the law that is there to keep the peace, safety and freedom of other people in the country. A case in point that justifies these measures in the recent times is the 20-day sit-in by Akhtar Mengal and the BYC leadership in Mastung district.
This protest fully shut down the RCD Highway, one of the main trade and travel routes in Pakistan connecting Quetta and Karachi, not only disrupting traffic but also damaging local businesses extensively, hindering the delivery of basic supplies, and causing economic losses to the province of Balochistan and the national economy as a whole.
This is much more than the accepted realm of peaceful protest; this is moving into the realm of activities that are having a negative impact on millions of ordinary citizens, businesses and traders whose livelihoods rely on this vital highway and no responsible state can allow such continued blockage of its key economic lifelines in the name of protest. In the letter, HRD conveniently forgets that in democratic states, protests have legal restrictions. Although it is true that the right to peaceful assembly is recognized in the Constitution of Pakistan in Article 16, the said right cannot be used to block highways, paralyze the economy of the country, and put the general population under the shadow of fear and instability.
Freedom of speech is secured in Article 19 of the Constitution, though, it is clearly stated that this Article does not preserve the right to hate speech, violence incitement, and other actions that endanger national security and public order. BYC leadership and its sympathizers crossed these constitutional lines when their protests turned into planned and illegal interference with civil life. They were not individual, random actions but actions that were well planned to disrupt law and order, cause blockage of key facilities and create political pressure by inflicting pain on the common man.
The suggestion that such arrests have been conducted in order to suppress dissent or muzzle human rights defenders is factually inaccurate as well as a reactionary simplification. An example of this would be Mahrang Baloch and Sammi Deen Baloch, who were not arrested on account of their ethnic or political affiliation but rather due to their one-on-one role in engaging in activities that led to the disruption of public order such as causing mayhem and disorder at Civil Hospital Quetta where they desecrated the premises in which medical treatment and mourning was taking place thereby escalating an already volatile situation. It also needs to be said that the narrative used by the HRD does not take into account the international scenario where even the most developed democracies put limits on the protests that disrupt the work of essential infrastructure or the national interests.
In other countries such as the United States, United Kingdom, and Germany, where the protestors attempt to block major highways or other means of transport, legal proceedings are initiated instantly to ensure that the protestors do not cause any damage to the lives of people and the economy.
Likewise, the temporary blocking of the internet and digital surveillance efforts implemented in Balochistan were not the capricious attempts at suppression but rather a measured reaction to the necessity to stop the circulation of false news and extremist calls to action or organization of illegal actions, which are also observed in most Western countries when the same situation occurs. Additionally, the HRD does not appreciate the fact that the use of foreign-funded activists and organisations under the guise of human rights advocacy is becoming an instrument to promote politically motivated agenda against Pakistan especially in highly strategic provinces like Balochistan. This does not just exist in the realm of speculation, this can be seen in the manner in which selective indignation is given to certain groups that begin to point towards grievances without noting the violent, disruptive, illegal actions undertaken by those they begin to victimize. This selective advocacy does not take into consideration the rights of the majority- millions of law-abiding citizens whose right to free movement, livelihood and safe existence in the society was threatened by the illegal operations of BYC.
Human rights are a sensitive area, which however cannot be permitted to be utilized as a proxy by those with an anti-Pakistan agenda to hide behind the banner of activism. When the leadership of protests turns into the instrument of foreign forces aiming to disrupt Balochistan or undermine national integrity of Pakistan, the state has to take measures not against the protest as such but against the activities that threaten the majority and the national independence.
In the presented circumstances of Shah Jee Sibghat Ullah and Gulzadi Baloch, the two were lawfully arrested because they participated in activities that presented reasonable chances of disturbing peace and tranquillity. These were not arbitrary or political arrests but evidence-based acts that were reviewed in accordance with the law. As a matter of fact, the Pakistani judicial system has proved to be impartial and effective in many ways as it has awarded many activists bail where deserved as this shows the legal procedure is not only in place but it is also monitored and answerable. The categorical denunciation of these arrests by the HRD overlooks this fact and presents a partial and inaccurate impression. In addition, their open letter does not acknowledge that the rights of the peaceful citizens who want stability, security and normalcy of the economy are equally valid and supported by the Constitution as the rights of people who want to protest.
When balancing these conflicting rights, the state should make sure that the freedom of no one group should be purchased at the unreasonable cost of safety and well-being of another. It is not a rule applicable in Pakistan only but in all democracies. It also deserves mentions that the use of laws like the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA) by Pakistan is with the aim of containing the abuse of digital platforms in relation to incitement, hate speech, and sharing of false information; which actions directly lead to the creation of unrest and disorder among the people.
The Pakistani state has always been respectful of Women Human Rights Defenders (WHRDs) and journalists; nevertheless, when these functions are abused to serve the interests of proscribed or anti-state organizations, prosecution is not only acceptable but mandatory to the integrity of the nation. In its open letter, the HRD does not make a distinction between legitimate human rights activity and actions that secretly feed the interests of forces that are opposed to the stability of Pakistan.