01

Time for Action!

By: Riaz Fatyana, MNA, Chairman, PCHR

 Having risen from the masses through sheer hard work, devotion and public service, my sensitivity towards the problems faced by the common man is thus quite natural and understandable. Instead of working in a haphazard way, I however always wanted to give institutional strength to my efforts. Fortunately enough from amongst the Parliament, which came into being as a result of general elections held in 2002, I found many likeminded colleagues. All of us had a clear understanding that as elected representatives, we had a special responsibility to protect and promote the rights of those people we claimed to represent. This is how Parliamentarians Commission For Human Rights came into being. Almost whole of the first year went to the establishing PCHR, equipping it with manpower, setting the work patterns, generating sources of funding for it, comprehending the dynamics behind the human rights issues in Pakistan, and devising strategies to tackle problems related to them. During this busy schedule, the invitation by British Council to attend an international seminar in Ireland was no less than a breeze of fresh air. This was indeed the first official recognition of our work at international level. The energetic team of British council in Pakistan readily made the arrangements of the visit and one fine morning our plane touched the airport of Belfast—the capital of Ireland. A hectic schedule of the seminar was waiting for us in the days to come.

The theme of the seminar was “National Human Rights Commissions: effective or just existing?.” Actually, over the past decade there had been a remarkable growth in National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs), such as human rights commissions and ombudsmen. The United Nations itself had encouraged the development of such institutions and sought to provide guidelines for how should they operate. However, several of those that had been established came under criticism from governments as well as human rights activists, and there remained wide spread uncertainty over what exactly they expected to achieve. This seminar was therefore designed in a way to draw a range of international experience, including recent research studies, to explore the question of how could be best ensured that NHRIs play an effective role in the promotion and protection of human rights. The topics included the organization of NHRIs, funding and staffing, working with the legislature, working with NGOs, using litigation effectively, working with the media, investigations, and legislation and education. The primary focus of the event was on discussions, debates and sharing of experiences among more than 30 participants that included prominent parliamentarians, politicians and civil society representatives from 25 countries. Pakistan was represented by me and Mr. Masood Khan, Additional District and Session Judge, Peshawar High Court.

Most working sessions of the seminar took place in the Canada Room at Queen’s University, Belfast. All the events were designed to be interactive and participative, and those attending were encouraged to contribute in their own personal capacity. An interesting feature of the seminar was the observance of ‘Chatham House Rule.’ The rule meant that the participants were free to use the information and views received during the event, but that no individual contributor or participant was to be quoted or his identity or affiliation revealed without express permission. The sessions and discussions were as informal and inclusive as possible. Rather the whole seminar provided the participants with the opportunities to contribute to the discussions, to network with one another and to share experiences. In the second leg of my tour, I proceeded to London to attend a one day international conference on National Human Rights Institutions organised by Human Rights Centre, Queen’s University in collaboration with the Human Rights Centre of the University of Essex and Centre for Civil and Human Rights, Notre Dame University Law School. The Conference covered some of the same topics earlier covered at Belfast, but with some different perspective and with some very high level speakers and a lot of additional UK participants. During the conferences, I presented Pakistani point of view on global human rights issues. I also introduced to the participants the vision behind the establishment of PCHR and its modus operandi. The participants were particularly interested in knowing about the liberal policies followed by President Pervez Musharaf at home and abroad. Keeping their interest in view, I dwelt upon the role of his policies in detail and told them that how had they gone a long way in improving the human rights situation in Pakistan.

In London, I also had the opportunity to visit House of Commons and have one to one meetings with a number of prominent Members of Parliament there. My meetings with Mr. Donald Anderson, Chairman Foreign Affairs Committee, Professor David Feldman, Legal Adviser Joint Committee on Human Rights, Ms. Ann Clwyd, Special Envoy to the Prime Minister on Human Rights in Iraq, Sir John Stanley, Mr. Ernie Ross and Mr. Muhammad Sarwar were particularly informative and enriching. We also agreed to find out ways and means for future collaboration between British MP’s and Parliamentarians Commission For Human Rights, Pakistan. The two way interaction led to greater awareness about each others’ points of views regarding the human rights issues faced by the world in general these days. I was taken aback by their knowledge of human rights violations in Pakistan. Mr. Anderson was particularly concerned about state of minority rights in Pakistan. Mr. Muhammad Sarwar expressed his desire to benefit his motherland and talked in length on his ongoing project of building a hospital in Toba Tek Singh. My meeting with Mr. Ross was particularly interesting. He was being elected uninterruptedly for last 24 years and shared with me the factors behind his successful political career.

Now that the visit is over, what I felt everywhere in UK was that there were a lot of apprehensions regarding the state of human rights, especially the minorities’ rights, in Pakistan. Similarly many eye brows were raised while talking about the observance of Blasphemy Law in Pakistan. I clarified many of the apprehensions expressed and told them how a PCHR subcommittee was working to prevent the misuse of the law. I must however admit that although there were some misunderstandings too, yet most of their concerns were well founded. Actions, and not words, are thus needed if we want Pakistan to stand proudly among the comity of nations.

02

Role of Parliament and Parliamentarians in Promotion & Protection of Human Rights

By: Shafique Chaudhry

Chief Coordinator, PCHR, Presented at the workshop on Human Right in Abuja on the 23rd of March, 2004

Preamble:

Although democracy and human rights are often taken as two separate concepts, yet they have striking commonalties, which merges these two concepts to a greater extent of inseparability. This can be seen very clearly mentioned in Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) 1948 that" the, will of the people shall be expressed in periodic and genuine election which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held in secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures, "

But, infact, the links between human rights and Democracy go deeper than this. Respect for human rights contributes to the democratisation process and is also largely a prerequisite for this process. While, Democratic decision making processes reinforce the protection of Human rights. So, Human rights and democracy have mutually re-inforcing relationship. If Human rights at as building block for Democracy then at same time democracy is vanguard for Human rights.

Today more and more people are living in democracies. More people than ever before have a legal right to elect government. Democracy as a concept is the best guarantor of fundamental rights of all groups of society. Democracy has various roots and takes different forms in different countries and cultures.

In past there used to be debates that which form of government is the best one to rule the people. But now the debate is " which form of government is the best for the promotion and protection of human rights".

I will try to analyse that how an active and informed parliament can playa significant role in promotion and protection of Human rights.

PARLIAMENT AND HUMAN RIGHTS

Parliament is the key '"institution in Democracy. It is the apex organization that alone can safeguard the basic rights of citizens.

Major function of the parliament is to deliver legislation and governance that really protect people's fundamental rights.

Legislatures represent masses, shape laws and exercise a degree of oversight or control over executive and hence can function or perform as best governing partners and thus contribute to good government by increasing its capacity to monitor and respond to public needs, by playing a part in passing legislation capable of withstanding critical scrutiny, and serving as a vehicle for improving standard of probity, efficiency, and responsiveness in the administration of laws.

PAKISTAN'S CASE

Pakistan unfortunately has a mix history of democratic and authoritarian governments. Democracy has never found strong footholds in our institutions. National Assembly, being the country's highest legislative institution has seen frequent ups and downs in a short history of half a century. Pakistan's record of parliamentary democracy may be checkered but its return to this form after each pause and break more than vindicates the fact that democratic tradition are deep - rooted in Pakistan's polity.

Our Parliament does not always receive sufficient information and sometimes does not determine questions that are important for the country, such as military budgets or structural adjustment programmes.

Some of our parliamentary members have their roots and/or affiliations in the Feudal class. Unfortunately, (though a few one) those members want to maintain the states quo or are unaware and have a disregard for the human rights violations. Some conservatives oppose human rights promotion just because they prefer and take pride in their traditional practices vis-a-vis human rights standards as in the care of honour killings.

In Pakistan, the human rights voices in the Parliament have been heard only recently, especially with the efforts of members of Parliamentarians commission for Human Rights. Keeping in view the low literacy rate in Pakistan, it was no surprise that majority of parliamentarians in the part had a limited knowledge especially in the field of human rights. However, the new parliament has a whole lot of able men and women who can make a difference. They are well educated and are well aware of the human rights conditions prevailing in the country. This is evident froni the fact that they raised different human rights issues in the parliament and for that they organised themselves as Parliamentarians Commission for Human Rights.

We believe that this commission has a unique opportunity to breathe life into Pakistan's democracy by taking up human rights issues. The challenge that members of the commission has accepted is to demonstrate that Parliament can indeed, practically protect the rights of its citizens and make a significant positive difference in the society. By pushing human rights to the centre of the parliamentary agenda, we hope to contribute to restoration of faith in parliamentary democracy as the effective safeguard of Human rights.

(ROLE OF PARLIAMENTARIANS)

Parliamentarians have four major roles. Firstly they are public representatives, which have direct mandate from various interest groups to represent them; secondly, they are legislators, charged with making and amending national laws and policies. Thirdly, they are scrutinizers, exercising oversight to hold the government (executive) accountable for all it does, and fourthly, having immense influence over masses they are the social reformed, helping mould society and national institutions to the challenges of the world.
In every aspect of the parliamentarian's role you can find an accumulated backlog of work that needs to be done to safeguard citizen's rights.

AS PUBLIC REPRESENTATIVES

As representatives, parliamentarians are first and foremost, representative institutions. An efficient parliament that does not relate to its constituents is not an effective legislature. But when citizens knowledgeably engage in the legislative process, the legislature is legitimised as a law making institution. Actually, where they function, Legislatures are useful "nerve endings of the polity", because Parliamentarians typically operate with greater transparency, or at least with less secrecy. as compared to the judicial or executive agencies. They are diverse in their memberships (usually designed to represent a broader range of interest /characteristics / places) from which a first hearing and early support maybe gained. Constituents have greater access and often are more likely to feel that they have a claim on a representative than on other government officials. And legislative proceedings are often organised to maximise public attention to particular controversies and to offer participation opportunities ranging from contacting individual representatives to organised hearings. So, honouring the people's claim over their representatives we are treating public complaints also as a constituency work. We register and appraise complaints and try to refer the complainants to sources of relief, often using the good offices of our respected members to open doors in departments that should have entertained the complaint in the first place.

AS LEGISLATORS

While, coming to Law-making functions.

I must add that representing the public means more than articulating citizen preferences; it also involves having a role in translating preferences into policy through enacting legislation. The representative and law-making function co-exist in an uneasy but necessary relationship. Law making requires reconciling of differences once articulated, as well as pressing the legislatures claim to power against the executives and other power - holders, such as political parties. This requires extensive parliamentary debate and discussion and also involvement of general public in that process through a systemised effort. In Pakistan, over the last two decades, law making by ordinance, and with neither public nor parliamentary debate, has become the practical, as successive National Assemblies have failed to proceed with legislative programmes. There are many instances of the ways in which human rights have suffered in the process. For example, Pakistan now has twenty years of experience of implementation of the Hudood Ordinances. There is general recognition that the Zina Ordinances has been used as tool in domestic disputes, leading to incarceration of large number of women, in a way unanticipated by the drafters of the law. But in 20years, we have not had a parliament that could impartially review this law and agree on how to protect the rights of those currently suffer from arbitrary powers conferred by the ordinance. This is basically our challenge.

The commission have launched work on human rights legislation, by consulting with civil society groups, the law commission and other experts on the laws and amendments required to tackle issue such as protection of refugees, freedom of information, minority rights and restriction of death sentence.

AS SCRUTINISERS/MONITORS

Oversight occurs after a law is passed and involves monitoring executives for efficiency, probity, and fidelity. While most parliamentarians have some formal oversight powers, effective monitoring is difficult to exercise because it requires information about executive branch activities, the legislative capacity to process that information, legislative will to act, and the power to backup demands for improvement! access/responsiveness. Oversight even more than lawmaking put the parliamentarians into an adversarial relationship with some portion of the executive. Among the most useful oversight powers and capacities found in effective parliamentarians are:

a. The power to get information from the executive (through assembly questions, notices etc)

b.  The effective use of parliamentary practical tools such as motions, resolutions, call attention notices etc. to compel executive to respond to parliament positively.

c.  The effect use of power of the purse and a functioning committee system capable of knowledgeably monitoring and assessing executive branch behaviour.

All are useful in themselves and as ways of indirectly compelling the executive branch to heed legislative concern.

Our members have already been pioneering the use of parliamentary questions and resolutions as a way of scrutinising the government's performance on protecting citizen's rights. We are trying to breakout of the old pattern whereby members of parliament mainly used question time to lobby for gas and electricity connection. Our members have submitted parliamentary questions on rights issues such as progress in police reforms, reform of the justice system, violence against women and abuse of the blasphemy law. We believe that successful monitoring or oversight in turn, can feed back into better law-making as experience gained in implementing post laws can be incorporated into future laws, and in better representation when legislators become more adept at shaping the administration of laws to consider impacts on constituents.

AS SOCIAL REFORMERS

We are well aware and fully cognisant of the fact that Pakistan has lagged behind expanding the fundamental rights enjoyed by its citizens. Few countries have committed themselves to few international human rights treaties so as Pakistan. We have started to play our role as social reformers, pushing open the boundaries of open debate and reform. In a small way, this is what we have done in taking the debate of honour killing and protection of women to the floor of parliament. We are trying to take advantage of the opportunity provided by the participation of members from all major political parties, to subject once taboo subjects to parliamentary debate. We believe that parliament has an obligation to challenge every law or institution that usurps rather than protects rights. By conducting consultation and research on Access to Justice, performance of the police and prisons, media and freedom of expression, violence against women, the blasphemy law and poverty, our parliamentarians have already shown their interest in a wide - ranging reform agenda. As we are moving into the second year of the current parliament we now have to prove our credentials as reformers who can. achieve real change.

COOPERATION BETWEEN TREASURY AND OPPOSITION MEMBERS

We are conscious of the significance of the cross-party nature of our commission. A functional democracy depends upon the existence of credible, competing, political parties that can advocate alternative policies and hold each other to account. But promotion of Human rights is an area in which there is scope for cross-party co-operation. For example, in the Westminster system, the Human Rights Committee includes members from treasury and opposition and is specifically charged with reviewing legislation to identify arbitrary powers or potential for undermining of fundamental rights. The committee's mandate is to stand back from the government's political objectives in proposing any law, and consider only human rights implications. This is an attractive model for Pakistan's parliamentary development, a way to combine principled co-operation on rights, with legitimate political opposition on policy.

We believe that we have made a good start, but we have along way to go in demonstrating what parliament can do to expand the rights enjoyed by the people of Pakistan.

03

Low Prevalence but High Risk

By: Kashmala Tariq, MNA, Executive Director, PCHR

Low Prevalence but High Risk: This is how Pakistan has been categorized in comity of nations in terms of AIDS. Another World Aids Day passed by with usual rituals of statements and seminars. Apart from disease statistics, spreading figures, existing trends, dismal efforts and occasional high points, one aspect neglected in terms of AIDS is significant number of expatriates Pakistanis returning back to homeland after being deported and sent back from all parts of the globe especially after 9/11 possibly exposed to AIDS much more than local population. By conservative estimates number of such forced home-returnees runs into around half a million during last two years. These expatriates side by side with other tourists, whatever fewer do come to Pakistan, should be mandatory tested for communicable diseases as populace of ‘liberal and open societies’ of developed world is more at risk from this deadly disease than average Pakistanis. But regrettably there is no mechanism of certifying disease free status of immigrants to Pakistan conversely Pakistani expatriates have to undergo rigorous medical testing prior to embarkation and visa obtaining. It is high time that state initiative is taken.

Figures quoted by state does not reflect the kind of danger and devastation faced by some ‘high prevalence’ countries but authenticity and genuineness of such figures keeping in view state mechanism and infrastructure are doubted by certain quarters. There is definitely a need for proper data collection, maintenance and dissemination mechanism being consistently demanded of our state by many international organizations.

Funding to combat this menace is also a tricky preposition. State kitty having already in red is least likely to contribute significantly for this purpose. Keeping up with past traditions and trends international donors, being the ‘whistle-blowers, are expected to pour in some financial ‘aid’ to combat ‘AIDS’. But due across the horizon/nationality spread and prevalence of this deadly disease even in most developed countries significant financial contribution is expected from international donors. These developed countries being themselves the donees and controlling international donor organizations would definitely give priority to their own populace and are likely to dole out peanuts to developing world (including Pakistan) for the purpose. Being considered ‘low prevalence’, Pakistan figures quite low on the list of countries especially the ‘high prevalence’ countries in terms of getting financial support. Scenario seems depressing but from self-sufficiency and self-reliance perspective could be an eye opener for slumbering state and citizens.

Need of the moment is an all out effective mass media campaign. To undertake this task, state is suitably equipped when one recalls giant-sized-full-page-state-sponsored-ads depicting yearly, 100 days progress and education campaigns of Punjab Government. Not to forget mechanism of local bodies and around 50 TV channels, devising and launching an effective result oriented mass awareness campaign is within the reach and competence of state. But this campaign must maintain delicate balance and right mix of Islamic values and traditions coupled with awareness and precautionary material. It must avoid outrageously liberal and open messages (like Agha Khan Board style surveys for school girls) alienating mostly religiously minded population of the country living in countryside. As regards, the already affected AIDS populace, for the time being, humanities is helpless and could just pray. Fortunately, major sources of AIDS in Pakistan e.g. sex-workers, drug/syringe users and expatriates/tourists are not only identifiable but also manageable and controllable.

Joining the war against AIDS, on behalf of Parliamentarian’s Commission on Human Rights this scribe and Senator Dr. Shahzad Waseem chaired sessions of First Asia-Pacific Women, Girls and HIV/AIDS Best Practices Conference and actively participated in drafting and finalizing ‘Islamabad Agenda for Change 2004’ to kick off a war against this crippling disease.

This low prevalence but high risk has placed Pakistan on policy cross roads whether to brush this under the carpet or openly face it by breaking the taboo over talking about sex. Former having failed in most of the countries, latter is gaining rapidly gaining currency around the world nowadays. It is quite evident that state alone is not capable of handling such gigantic task keeping in view existing infrastructure, priorities, financial crunch and other socio-cultural dimensions hence needs active supplementation and complementation of civil society in war against AIDS which must commence without any further delay.

This year’s Human Rights day’s resolve would also be to educate and sensitize humans of our part of globe to understand their rights to safe and healthy life as other rights are off-shoots of basic existence which is greatly endangered by AIDS.

Now is the time to check and finish off this epidemic in streets before it enters our bedrooms.

Writer is a Member National Assembly and Executive Director of Parliamentarians Commission on Human Rights

04

OPPOSITION, FOR THE SAKE OF WHAT?

By: Dr. Shahzad Waseem, State Minister for Interior

 There is a political opposition in every democratic country and it confines its activities to opposing the policies of the ruling party on important internal issues and how the day-to-day government should proceed for the good of the people. Generally it does not voice its difference of opinion with the ruling party on sensitive aspects of foreign policy, specially so on matters that concern the stability and integrity of the country. Looking at our political scene of today, it seems that our opposition parties do not believe in these noble principles. One wonders which country of the world they are following as an example.

It could not be India where, on questions of foreign policy and on preserving the sanctity and sovereignty of parliament, the ruling congress and the opposition BJP are one. A study of leading Indian newspapers shows that they give the impression of a single mind and single voice on these questions. Particular understanding is witnessed in the matter of Kashmir that for India is a political matter. With us, in Pakistan, Kashmir is always described as a matter of life and death, but the opposition parties to beat the government with always use it. They are never satisfied with what is being done for it internationally.

For example, look at the recent statement of President Pervez Musharraf about Kashmir that was more of loud thinking than a statement of policy on behalf of the government in power. Without deviating one whit from Pakistan’s principled stand on Kashmir it voiced certain options and considerations which could be kept in mind by the contending countries in the present atmosphere of accommodation between them. But the reaction of the opposition was as if he had handed over Kashmir to India on a platter. Mind you there was no comment, as one would expect from an intelligent opposition, on the pros and cons of the options, which could show that the matter had been carefully studied. There was only a loud outcry. That’s all, Opposition for the sake of opposition.

It is moments like this that serve as a testing time for the opposition’s political sagacity. Nobody doubts the fact that the people elected members of the opposition parties. However, experience shows that it is not necessary that their voters also endorse the politics that they practice. In advanced democratic countries, members of parliament frequently go back to the people to gauge their opinion on contentious issues. Here, in Pakistan, we do not see them doing so. They do address public rallies, but that is a different matter, a one-sided affair. In any case, the masses in this country go to these rallies to enjoy the fun, the raunaq mela, particularly if the speaker has the reputation of being hard-hitting!

The Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal has threatened to launch a movement against the government by the end of this month. Just to keep in tandem, so that they are not taken to be inactive the ARD parties have announced that they too will thrown in their lot. Let us see what form this movement takes. If they think that the people will turn out on the streets in lakhs they are sadly mistaken. For what cause should they turn out? Whether the President should wear a uniform or not? The people are more concerned with the present state of prices of everyday commodities that anything else. Will the opposition leaders tell them that as soon as the President takes off his uniform the prices will come down? Actually the people should ask them this question. But how can they say that they are opposing the government for the sake of opposition?

The opposition parties claim stridently that all their activities are aimed at strengthening parliament. By which of their acts do they try to prove that contention? By walking out every day and hindering the process of legislation? Statistics can show that our political parties have walked out of parliament more often than all the opposition parties in all the democratic countries of the world put together. In fact in some advanced countries there has never been a walkout in living memory. This is so because everywhere except in Pakistan, opposition parties feel that they can achieve more in parliament by participating in the proceedings that by walking out and leaving the field open to the ruling party.

The trouble is that our opposition parties want parliament to be run the way they want and that is why they are constantly after the Speaker’s blood. The parliamentary form of government means that the ruling party has the upper hand in the elected house by virtue of its majority. How is it possible that the Speaker should ignore the will of the majority and conduct the house in keeping with the whims of the opposition minority? That would be a spectacle the world of parliamentary government has never seen. This too falls under the heading of opposition for the sake of opposition.

There are other issues too, in which the opposition parties find themselves on a weak wicket but refuse to see reality. Offhand one can cite an aspect of terrorism. There is unanimity in Pakistan that terrorist activities are the greatest danger to the common people and constitute the most vicious threat to their peace and safety. While condemning terrorism the opposition parties want to make an exception of Waziristan where certain foreign nationals are engaged in terrorism ostensibly in Afghanistan. These parties want the government to leave these foreigners to do their dirty work just because they are Muslims. One of the most shocking things heard in this connection was the shameful admission by a Mehsud renegade that he and his companions had also been responsible for some acts of terrorism within Pakistan. Who was killed in those acts? Only Pakistani Muslims and certainly not Jews or foreign no-Muslims. No one from the opposition condemned him for this heinous claim.

The voters sent up members of the opposition parties to the National Assembly to do something for the good of the masses. The only way for these members to do so is to participate wholeheartedly in the proceedings of the house and to influence government policies by their sincerity and vision. They have both in plenty but somehow both are being misdirected towards issues that find no echo in the hearts and minds of the people. Unfortunately for Pakistan, a tradition has been set in the past that the opposition exists only for criticizing and berating the party in power and that this is the only reason for its existence. In the interest of the parliamentary form of government the sooner the opposition parties get rid of this wrong notion the better it will be for the country.

The writer is minister of state for interior.

05

Relativity of Religion & Universality of Human Rights:

By: Qaiser Munir, Senior Research Officer, PCHR  

The implementation of international human rights norms and values in any society requires thoughtful and well-informed engagement of religion because of its strong influence on human belief systems and behavior. While it is true that the behavior of believers is not always motivated by total fidelity to their faith, religious considerations are too important for the majority of people and for advocates to continue to dismiss them simply as irrelevant, insignificant or problematic.

In emphasizing the need for advocates of human rights to seriously engage religion, there is neither immediate compatibility nor permanent contradiction between human rights and any religion. This paradox is often depicted in terms of the polar extremes posed by the universality of human rights and the relativity of religion. Certainly, to posit such a dichotomy is misleading because of the interdependence between the two. While the universality of human rights cannot be realized among believers unless they accept it as consistent with their religious beliefs, the integrity of religious faith and its relevance to the lives of its adherents is dependent on the effective protection of human rights. Accordingly, it is more useful to see this relationship in terms of synergy and mutual influence, than to envision it as one of permanent antagonism.

Failing to distinguish between the two meanings of human rights, there is a tendency among Muslims that historical formulations of sharia have always secured human rights in theory, though such a situation may not have materialized in practice. However, by securing a relatively advanced degree of protection for the rights of women and non-Muslims, historical formulations of sharia did provide for better protection of human rights than other normative systems in the past. For example, from the very beginning, sharia was understood to require an independent legal personality for women, and the protection of certain minimum rights for them in inheritance and family relations, beyond what was possible under other major normative systems until the nineteenth century. Similarly, sharia guarantees specific rights for the People of the Book (mainly Christians and Jews) more than what had been provided for under other major normative systems in the past. However, since the rights of women and non-Muslims under sharia are not equal to those of men and Muslims, respectively, the level of protection of rights under sharia is not sufficient when judged by the standards set by the UDHR, which require equal rights for all human beings, without distinction on such grounds as sex, religion or belief. On the basis of above analysis, one can assume that neither there is complete compatibility nor contradiction between Islamic conception of human rights and contemporary universal standards and practices of human rights.

A possible response to this criticism of sharia is the argument that Muslims (and other believers) should strive to live by the dictates of their religion, not according to some fallible, humanly devised set of human rights norms. However, since divine commands are always understood and applied by human beings, the contrast between orthodox perceptions of "the dictates of religion" and new or unorthodox views on the matter is really between two human understandings of what the religion requires of its adherents. Accordingly, a reinterpretation of Islamic sources that demonstrates agreement with human rights norms should be considered on its own terms, rather than dismissed as un-Islamic because it is inconsistent with previously established human understandings of sharia. For Muslims, a reinterpretation should be accepted or rejected in terms of its own foundation in Islamic sources, instead of being rejected simply because it is new or unorthodox.

In fact, the post-cold war era has indeed been a period of new dynamism in the field of human rights. Perhaps most significantly, the popular conception of what constitutes human rights is evolving and broadening, creating new challenges as well as opportunities. The survival issues of the next century are significantly interrelated with economic, social, and cultural issues. In this post-Cold War era, developments that include economic globalization, rising population, environmental concerns, structural adjustment policies, understanding of women's rights as human rights, and expanding grassroots activism in the Southern world have elevated the importance of those rights, which were once considered as second-generation rights or less important.

The historic focus on the protection of civil and political rights is now broadening in response to new trends. What is emerging, a more thorough understanding and appreciation of the need to promote and protect the full spectrum of individual human rights—civil, political, social, economic, and cultural—which have been embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights all along. Worldwide, there is a growing perception that human beings are part of a global community. Increasingly, people see themselves as "global citizens," empowered to effect change at the national and international level.

International Human Rights Standards & Pakistan:

Historically, governments have found it expedient to take recourse to Islamic rhetoric in the hope of gaining popularity and legitimacy. Innocuous as it might sound, each such step has meant an incremental increase in dogmatic official discourse with direct implications for the constitution and legal systems of Pakistan.

It seems that once the origin or basis of a law or a rule is claimed to be Islamic, governments and political leaders dare not repeal them. The political costs of defying such a stricture are too high and most of the time governments simply do not act, or act inconsistently.

Thus signing or ratifying international human rights treaties remains virtually a symbolic act and many treaties even when signed can be ignored with impunity. Despite all the media attention, human rights remain peripheral to the actual politics of our times. The struggle for human rights is therefore an uphill task, but the struggle to emancipate human beings from all forms of oppression must go on. In fact, a civilized society can only exist when the citizens of the state know their rights and fulfill their own obligation to society. It therefore follows that knowledge of human rights and dignity is the very basic of a civilized and democratic state.

Government of Pakistan is obliged to promote and protect human rights (HR) in the country under the obligation of its Constitutional framework. It should be keep in mind that number of Articles relating to basic human rights in the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 as 20. However, ground realities differ from the ideal situation of human rights in the country. Whereas, various political and military regimes have been found reluctant to sign and ratify the very fundamental international Conventions on human rights, they, often, didn’t comply in letter and sprit with those standards which were signed and ratified. For instance, even the current government is disinclined to sign Covenant on Civil and political Rights. The Covenant which is deem necessary for the growth of democratic culture and institutions in the country.

However, the signing and ratification of international conventions compel the respective governments to a certain level to amend the existing legislation, formulate policy-measures and sensitize its decision-makers according to the requirements. However, often this ideal situation lacks from the world of real-politics, where the nation-states always maneuver to maximize their national interests. While, by denial of these international standards of human rights to its citizen, no state can be able to promote long-term development of its society. It is generally acknowledged that provision and protection of human rights by the state contribute towards growth of democracy and democratic institutions. From the statistics provided by the RAND Corporation (U.S.A), the growth of democratic countries was much faster as compare to close societies during the last fifty years. This economic growth provides adequate means to improve the living standards of common citizens. Therefore, provision, protection and awareness of human rights by the state can guarantee the long-term development of any society.

Developing Mechanism for Compatibility:

Since there is no reliable international mechanism for "enforcing" human rights standards against the will of national governments,)the crucial question is how to encourage governments to ratify human rights treaties, and motivate them to comply with the obligation to protect these rights within their respective territories. An effective and sustainable way of doing this is to generate a local constituency to advocate the ratification and implementation of human rights within the national context. Even if the elite in control of government want to respect some human rights; it is unlikely to do so against the wishes of its own people. For such a local constituency to emerge and be effective in its advocacy of human rights, these rights must be seen by the general public as consistent with their own religious beliefs. In other words, international human rights norms are dubious to be accepted by governments as legally binding, and respected in practice, without strong legitimization within the realm of national politics. Popular perceptions of human rights as consistent with the religious beliefs of the people are essential for these rights legitimization in each country.

In this context, public representatives have a unique role to deliver this concept and take certain practical measures to establish this constituency. In fact, currently Parliament in Pakistan is a mixture of moderate and religious people, governed by enlighten heads of government and state. This mixture of religious and moderate elements in the Parliament is in a better position to deliver the concept of ‘local constituency’ to create awareness among the people of Pakistan. Through this sustainable way, establishment and people in our country can really harness the concept of international standards of human rights by maintaining their religious beliefs intact. Therefore, efforts should be concentrated on sensitization of Parliamentarians through an effective advocacy to achieve desired results. It is also necessary because the traditional religious community couldn’t effectively engage itself for desired practice of ‘Ijtehad’ and de-linking cultural practices from religious beliefs.