Independence Day is an apt occasion to take stock of where a nation stands in terms of assuring social and political rights of its people. Despite the constitutional promise of a welfare and rights-based state, Pakistan has witnessed a deep erosion of social and political rights of its people. It is instructive to reflect on how this came about.

At the time of Independence, both India and Pakistan were dominions like Canada, Sri Lanka, South Africa and New Zealand. As such, they were not entirely free in pursuit of foreign policy and some other areas which were in the hands of the British government. On March 23, 1956, when the first constitution was adopted, Pakistan became a republic. It was decided to celebrate March 23 as Youm-i-Jamhooriah (Republic Day). For two years, in 1956 and 1957, Republic Day was celebrated to mark the adoption of the constitution.

In 1958, Ayub Khan imposed the martial law. The Republic Day was renamed as Pakistan Day. This appears to have been done to erase from the public mind the significance of ‘republic’ and ‘constitution’—ideas associated with government of the people. It was claimed that the call for Pakistan was contained in the Lahore Resolution of 1940 and that it had been decided therefore to celebrate March 23 as Pakistan Day. However, the claim that Pakistan was established on the basis of Lahore Resolution of March 23, 1940, was a historical distortion. The demand for Pakistan was first contained in the resolution adopted by the central and provincial legislators of the All India Muslim League at their convention in Delhi on April 9, 1946.

Pakistan’s journey into a security mould began soon after the death of Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah when the Safety Ordinance, 1948, was adopted. It permitted detention by security forces without trial. Jinnah had rejected an earlier draft calling it a “black law.”

The foundations for the militarisation of the state and society laid by Ayub Khan were strengthened by Gen Zia-ul Haq.

Freedom of expression, association and assembly; equality before law; the right to organise politically; the right to a fair trial—indeed all social and political rights—can flourish only in a genuinely democratic order. When democratic order is trumped by concern for security, so are these rights.

The consequences of this shift have been profound. These have resulted in the weakening of the parliament, fragmentation and manipulation of political parties and undermining of the judiciary. The bureaucracy increasingly looks towards unelected and unaccountable centres of authority. The unrest witnessed today in Balochistan and Azad Jammu and Kashmir can be traced to this reality.

Recent constitutional and legislative developments and the way they were brought about illustrate the danger. Whatever view one takes of the so-called reforms, the larger issue is that constitutional and legislative engineering have weakened the principle of separation of powers and consequently, the protection of fundamental rights.

The 27th Constitutional Amendment of November 2025 not only restructured the higher judiciary but also altered the constitutional architecture of military command besides granting constitutional immunity to some state functionaries. These provisions diminished judicial independence and accountability mechanisms.

In May 2025, a Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court validated military trials of civilians. Its significance extends beyond the individuals involved in the events of May 9, 2023, as pointed out in the dissenting opinions. When security becomes the organising principle of the state, liberty, social and political rights recede into the background as they become conditional upon security.

The recent legislation permitting security forces to detain anyone for 90 days in Balochistan without question and the opaque internment centres in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa are akin to legalising enforced disappearances. The aborted attempt recently in the Punjab Assembly to pass a draconian legislation curtailing human rights on the basis of intelligence reports, too, has raised questions that have not been answered.

Restrictions on speech and assembly are now justified in the name of security; political activity has been curtailed in Balochistan and Azad Jammu and Kashmir in the name of stability; and peaceful protest is called a threat to public order; dissent is viewed as disloyalty.

The writer, a former senator, is a council member of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan.