In the global discourse on human rights, impartiality, evidence-based reporting, and ethical advocacy are expected hallmarks. Yet, Amnesty International’s recent statement targeting Pakistan exposes a glaring absence of all three. Once again, the organization has revealed a blatant, agenda-driven bias, spotlighting selective narratives while ignoring the harsh realities Pakistan faces daily in its relentless struggle against terrorism. The sacrifices of over 94,000 Pakistani martyrs, who laid down their lives defending the homeland against internationally recognized terrorist groups, are conveniently erased from Amnesty’s account. In stark contrast, the organization elevates the Pashtun Tahafuz Movement, whose leadership openly amplifies anti-state rhetoric, echoes foreign narratives, and indirectly shields adversaries undermining Pakistan’s sovereignty.
Amnesty International’s selective outrage is less about human rights and more about political optics disguised as advocacy. While Pakistan mourns families torn apart by suicide bombers, soldiers ambushed along the border, and children massacred in attacks such as the APS tragedy, Amnesty’s lens remains narrowly fixed on PTM activists. The PTM leadership, far from acting as a neutral political entity, actively channels narratives aligned with RAW-backed propaganda networks, glorifies sanctuaries for cross-border terrorists, and persistently undermines the very institutions safeguarding Pakistan. By amplifying these voices while ignoring Pakistan’s colossal human cost, Amnesty not only diminishes its credibility but also reveals the political motivations behind its so-called “advocacy.”
The organization frequently raises the spectre of “enforced disappearances,” yet remains conspicuously silent on PTM leaders who openly shield extremist elements and propagate foreign-sponsored misinformation designed to destabilize Pakistan. When human rights advocacy becomes a vehicle for advancing foreign agendas, impartiality is sacrificed on the altar of politics. Amnesty’s selective lens transforms genuine human suffering into a political tool— a weapon to vilify Pakistan while absolving hostile networks of accountability.
Pakistan’s security forces operate in an environment where intelligence-driven counterterrorism is a daily necessity. From dismantling sleeper cells to intercepting suicide bombers infiltrating across the border, their operations safeguard millions of ordinary citizens. Yet, Amnesty’s statements barely acknowledge these relentless sacrifices. Its silence on foreign-financed efforts that bolster PTM’s anti-state agenda is not accidental— it is deliberate, revealing the organization’s role as a megaphone for networks operating from New Delhi and Kabul.
The PTM’s political theatre revolves around magnifying every narrative critical of Pakistan while ignoring the devastation wrought by terrorism. Schools, mosques, tribal jirgas, and police personnel are frequent targets of violent attacks, yet PTM diverts attention to vilify Pakistan’s security forces.
For international observers, policymakers, and media platforms, the imperative is clear: discern genuine advocacy from orchestrated campaigns. Pakistan’s struggle against extremism, its enormous sacrifices, and its commitment to safeguarding its citizens must not be obscured in a tide of selective outrage, foreign manipulation, and political theatrics.
Notably, neither Amnesty International nor PTM condemned terrorist attacks in Islamabad, the Cadet College Wana in Waziristan, or the Federal Constabulary headquarters in Peshawar. Their silence in the face of such atrocities exposes a troubling complicity, underscoring that their selective activism is driven not by principles but by agendas aligned with foreign interests. By uncritically echoing PTM propaganda, Amnesty aligns itself with these anti-Pakistan campaigns, rendering its claims hollow and exposing its advocacy as politically motivated.
No organization that disregards 94,000 martyrs, children slaughtered in schools, tribal elders executed by terrorists, and soldiers guarding Pakistan’s frontiers has the moral authority to lecture Pakistan on human rights. Amnesty’s hypocrisy is glaring, and its credibility erodes with every statement that prioritizes foreign narratives over ground realities. Pakistan, in contrast, has both the right and the duty to investigate extremist-linked organizations, foreign-sponsored networks, and individuals operating under the aegis of hostile intelligence agencies. The PTM has repeatedly crossed red lines by promoting narratives that coincide with adversarial agendas, and Amnesty’s defence of such actions serves as a thinly veiled shield for foreign strategic interests.
Amnesty International’s concern appears exclusively when PTM activists face scrutiny, yet it remains conspicuously silent when ordinary Pakistanis fall victim to IEDs, ambushes, or cross-border attacks. This selective advocacy is not human rights work; it is a politically motivated operation masquerading as moral authority. By exposing these double standards, Pakistan underscores a vital truth: advocacy that ignores context, sacrifices, and national security is not justice— it is complicity in eroding the state’s foundations.
Moreover, the organization’s repeated emphasis on PTM narratives creates a dangerous precedent. It provides international platforms for foreign-sponsored propaganda that glorifies extremism and undermines Pakistan’s sovereignty. The global community must recognize that genuine human rights advocacy cannot be selective, politically driven, or exploited as a weapon against a nation actively fighting terrorism. Otherwise, the narrative of victimhood is manipulated to serve strategic interests, while the real victims— Pakistan’s martyrs, security forces, and innocent civilians— remain unacknowledged.
In conclusion, Amnesty International’s biased reporting and PTM’s foreign-backed agenda represent two sides of the same coin. While Pakistan continues its relentless battle against terrorism, sacrificing citizens and soldiers alike, these entities weaponize human rights narratives to serve agendas far removed from reality. Silence in the face of attacks on Islamabad, Wana, and Peshawar further underscores their complicity.
For international observers, policymakers, and media platforms, the imperative is clear: discern genuine advocacy from orchestrated campaigns. Pakistan’s struggle against extremism, its enormous sacrifices, and its commitment to safeguarding its citizens must not be obscured in a tide of selective outrage, foreign manipulation, and political theatrics.
