![](https://globalnationalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/In-Pakistan-seeking-peace-and-accountability-ends-in-disappearance-600x337-1.jpg")
A gathering aimed at promoting dialogue and peace in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa ended in controversy this month after two student activists attending the event went missing, fueling renewed criticism of Pakistan’s handling of political dissent and human rights.
On November 12, 2025, a “peace jirga” brought together tribal elders, clerics, civil society figures, and students in Peshawar to discuss rising security concerns amid tensions along the Afghan border. According to eyewitness accounts, Khubaib Wazir and Adnan Wazir, both members of the Waziristan Students’ Society, left the event but never returned to their hostel. Local reports indicate the two were intercepted by men in plain clothes believed to be linked to state security forces and have not been seen since. Neither their families nor authorities have provided any official information on their whereabouts.
Human rights organisations have long documented enforced disappearances in Pakistan — a practice in which individuals are taken into custody without legal process or acknowledgment by state agencies. Families of missing persons and rights groups argue that this tactic is used not only against armed militants but increasingly against activists, students, and critics of military and security policies.
Official data from Pakistan’s Commission of Inquiry on Enforced Disappearances shows more than 10,000 cases recorded between 2011 and 2025, including thousands in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan. Independent estimates suggest that hundreds more cases go unreported due to fear or lack of legal recourse. Activists and civil society organisations note that enforced disappearances have been especially prevalent in regions with long‑standing tensions, where security operations and counter‑insurgency measures historically intersect with political grievances and ethnic identity struggles.
Recent months have also seen a surge in activism around the issue, particularly in Balochistan, where campaigns against enforced disappearances have been organised to highlight the plight of missing persons. Civil society groups have documented cases involving both men and women, calling for accountability and transparency from state institutions. Protests have included efforts to spotlight the disappearance of entire families and symbolic actions to challenge state indifference. In some instances, demonstrations have even impacted major transportation routes. Local communities in Balochistan blocked portions of the China‑Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) to protest the rise in disappearances, underscoring the depth of frustration over unresolved cases and the lack of official responses.
Human rights organisations both inside and outside Pakistan have repeatedly called for an end to enforced disappearances and for meaningful investigations into reported cases. Critics argue that conflating peaceful activism with security threats undermines civil liberties and fuels mistrust between communities and the state. Rights advocates say that families of missing persons are often left in limbo, forced to navigate lengthy legal processes while facing silence from authorities and little recourse through the courts. They call for stronger institutional safeguards, accountability for security personnel, and legal reforms to prevent future abuses.
Pakistani officials have generally maintained that security operations are necessary for maintaining order amid complex regional conflicts, but they deny systemic abuses. Government representatives often assert that any cases of disappearance are matters of national security and subject to legal review. However, persistent reports from rights groups and families suggest a gap between official rhetoric and public experience. The incident involving the two student activists has reinvigorated debate about the limits of civic engagement in Pakistan. Critics of enforced disappearances argue that silencing dissent through abductions not only violates fundamental rights but also stifles legitimate dialogue on peace and accountability — ironically targeting those who seek those very outcomes.
Pakistan’s military under Field Marshal Asim Munir has drawn widespread attention both domestically and internationally amid what analysts describe as an assertive doctrine of power consolidation that some commentators liken to the controversial “Thick Face, Black Heart” ethos — a philosophy emphasizing relentless ambition and emotional detachment in pursuit of strategic goals.
Asim Munir, elevated to the rare rank of Field Marshal and now serving as Pakistan’s top military leader with expanded authority across all branches of the armed forces, has increasingly been portrayed as the central figure in the country’s power matrix. This perception follows a series of constitutional, policy and institutional shifts that have strengthened the military’s role in governance and national decision‑making while civilian authority appears weakened in practice.
Analysts say the “Thick Face, Black Heart” description — originally a controversial management/philosophy concept suggesting ruthless focus on one’s own objectives — has been applied by observers to illustrate how Pakistan’s military leadership under Munir navigates political opposition, dissent and strategic competition with little regard for conventional political constraints or public criticism. Supporters of this view argue that it reflects a pragmatic effort to stabilise a deeply fractured nation; critics warn that it risks undermining democratic norms and civil liberties.
Under Munir’s command, Pakistan’s military has expanded its influence beyond core security functions into economic, legal and political domains. Constitutional changes adopted in recent months have formalised the military’s institutional reach and provided legal protections for its leadership, raising concerns among human rights advocates, religious scholars and political opponents about accountability and the balance of power. Critics argue that such measures create a near‑imperial position for the army chief, insulated from civilian oversight or judicial review.
The assertiveness of Munir’s leadership is reflected in the military’s public posture on key national issues, including counterterrorism operations, foreign relations, and domestic order. Statements from the armed forces emphasise national unity against external threats while framing internal dissent as destabilising “digital terrorism,” a term used by military officials to describe what they see as coordinated efforts to erode public confidence in the army.
Within Pakistan, reactions to Munir’s approach are sharply divided. Supporters within the establishment credit him with restoring stability after years of political volatility and with guiding the country through complex regional security challenges. They point to the army’s increased public approval and recent strategic achievements as evidence of effective leadership.
At the same time, political figures and civil society voices remain highly critical. Some legislators and religious leaders have publicly questioned the unaccountable powers granted to the military leadership, arguing they exceed constitutional norms and contradict the principles of democratic governance. A noticeable rift has also emerged with segments of the religious establishment that oppose lifetime legal immunity and other protections afforded to Munir under recent constitutional amendments — labeling such privileges as both legally and ethically indefensible.
Beyond internal politics, Pakistan’s strategic posture under Munir remains assertive. Military statements emphasise readiness to respond decisively to any perceived threats, reinforcing Islamabad’s hardline stance on longstanding tensions with neighbouring states and militant groups. This has coincided with broader defence cooperation agreements with regional partners, efforts to expand military exports, and high‑level engagements with international counterparts.
Observers say this blend of strategic assertiveness and political control suggests a doctrine in which military priorities — and the personalities driving them — play a defining role in setting Pakistan’s national agenda. Whether this model will produce long‑term stability or deepen democratic deficits in a nuclear‑armed nation facing significant economic, social and geopolitical challenges remains a key question for analysts watching developments in South Asia.
Concerns are growing within Pakistan and among international observers following a sharp escalation in rhetoric from the country’s military establishment regarding former Prime Minister Imran Khan, who has remained in custody since 2023 amid multiple legal cases. Recent public statements by military officials have framed Khan as a serious threat to national stability, marking a notable shift from earlier messaging that portrayed him primarily as a political adversary. Analysts say this change in tone has heightened fears about the direction of Pakistan’s civil-military relations and the broader political environment.
Observers note that the military’s recent characterisation of Khan goes beyond political criticism, instead invoking national security concerns and allegations of destabilisation. Such language, critics argue, risks further polarising the country at a time when political tensions are already high. Human rights advocates and political analysts caution that portraying a detained political leader as an existential threat to the state can undermine legal safeguards and due process, particularly in a system where the military wields significant influence.
Imran Khan, a former international cricket star turned politician, served as Pakistan’s prime minister from 2018 until his removal through a parliamentary vote in 2022. Since then, he has faced multiple convictions and legal proceedings, which he and his supporters describe as politically motivated. Despite being imprisoned, Khan continues to command substantial public support, especially among younger voters. His party, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), has faced arrests, restrictions and political pressure, further intensifying the confrontation between civilian political forces and the establishment.
Supporters of Khan view the military’s statements as an attempt to justify harsher measures against him and his party. They warn that escalating rhetoric could deepen instability and erode democratic norms. Political commentators have urged restraint, stressing the importance of constitutional processes and judicial independence. Several analysts have also warned that excessive use of security narratives against political opponents risks long-term damage to Pakistan’s democratic framework.
The situation has drawn attention from international observers, who have repeatedly called for respect for human rights, rule of law and fair legal processes. Pakistan’s political trajectory remains under close scrutiny as it balances internal political challenges with regional and economic pressures.
As Pakistan navigates an increasingly tense political climate, the fate of Imran Khan remains a central issue. How state institutions handle the situation is likely to have lasting implications for civil liberties, political stability and democratic governance in the country. For now, analysts say, de-escalation, transparency and adherence to legal norms will be critical to preventing further deterioration of trust between the state and the public.