Talk:Human rights in Pakistan/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

Don't you smell a biasedness here? Human rights in India India article's tone is optimistic and positive whereas Pakistan's article give a gloomy & pessimistic picture.

Moreover, in India's article, only two lines are written specifying that Human Rights Watch has criticized India for its human rights record and then 15-20 lines are written to prove that whatever Human Rights Watch said was bullshit.

There is no mention of reforms and steps taken by the government to protect human rights. Throughout the article, the tone is very negative. Even, the links of related articles & external links are pointing towards negative picture of human rights in Pakistan. This article is misleading and a less-knowledgeable person will have an unrealistic impression of Pakistan.

---

I agree.The article makes no mention of seat reservations for minorities in the national and provincial assemblies.Furthermore,the articles on human rights in India produce half-truths and,quite shockingly so,seem to shift most of the blame for religious violence in India on Muslims...Including the 2002 Gujarat massacres!Also,the issue of human rights in Indian Administered Kashmir are downplayed.All of the incidences of rape,burning down of villages and massacres of innocent civilians are summarized as follows;

"Several international agencies and the UN have reported human rights violations in Indian-administered Kashmir. In a recent press release the OHCHR spokesmen stated 'The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights is concerned about the recent violent protests in Indian-administered Kashmir that have reportedly led to civilian casualties as well as restrictions to the right to freedom of assembly and expression.'"

THERE IS NO MENTION OF VIOLENCE COMMITTED ON PART OF THE INDIAN ARMY AGAINST THE KASHMIRIS!!!

Sadly,we can't edit these articles,update them or make them more realistic.That is,to remove the facade of peace and tolerance the 'socialist' republic of India displays,and the unfair imagery of Pakistan being a hostile state wherein minorities have no rights.This is no fair,even though we can produce proper references and verifiable sources,including UN reports.Also,the article says that pogroms were initiated against the muhajirs,which is wrong.If it is referring to the 1992 operation against MQM then they should know that MQM and Muhajirs are two different things,one being a party and the other being Muslims forced to leave India by the Hindus.Similarly,the article implies that all Balochis are separatists and fails to mention the human rights violations committed by the Balochistan Liberation Army,including doing harm to "its own" people.Squeezing the entire story into one pitiful sentence leads to,as in its Indian counterpart,implied misinformation.the only difference in between the two being that the Pakistani article damages the country's reputation unlike in the Indian article,wherein it honeys the country's reputation and the implied information is misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hassanyusufmian (talk • contribs) 17:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we should focus on the individual merits and demerits of this article. If there are problems with other articles, then they should be discussed on the talk pages of those articles, or taken to mediation... Anyway, all objective observers recognize that the human rights situation in Pakistan is to some degree bad, and we should be able to summarize the conclusions of such observers without making this article an object of struggle between competing anti-Pakistani and pro-Pakistani nationalisms. -- AnonMoos (talk) 06:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Add this?

This is a pretty horrific story and could be added. Malick78 (talk) 06:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

This is not so horrific but some of it could perhaps also be included. __meco (talk) 17:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The Frontier Post article describing promises from Mumtaz Alam Gillani, the new Human Rights Minister. __meco (talk) 10:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Still another important article that should be included. __meco (talk) 10:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Another article by the same journalist as the previous link. __meco (talk) 17:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Adding Associated Press of Pakistan article. __meco (talk) 13:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Another Associated Press of Pakistan article. __meco (talk) 08:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

ANOTHER IMPORTANT FOUNDER OF ISLAM AND PAKISTAN AMIR AHMED

AMIR AHMED RAJA OF MAHMOODABAD.

MILLIONS OF MUSLIMS STILL LIVE IN INDIA WE SHOULD STILL SEE OURSELVES AS SOMEHOW ONE PEOPLE DELICATELY. THIS WAS DIVIDE AND RULE POLICY; THERE IS ANOTHER WAY TO KEEP THE DIFFERNCE AS A WHOLE DIFFERENCE. I HAVE NOT MADE UP MY MIND ON THIS KHABAR DAR AND LISTEN TO BHAGWAN LIKE A CONTINENT EVEN PROMPTLY WITH THE HELP WITH OTHER REVOLUTIONARIY PEOPLES. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.208.247 (talk) 17:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Typo in first paragraph

{{editsemiprotected}} The article currently reads "...indepedent judiciary". Please edit to "...independent judiciary"

Many thanks,

218.186.12.250 (talk) 03:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)17/11.09

Done. BejinhanTalk 06:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)