• user03-ExamPen
• Blog

Peace Committee: One Year On

When the government inaugurated the National Paigham-i-Aman Committee in September 2025, it was welcomed as a necessary intervention. After years of deadly terrorist attacks, sectarian violence, and systematic marginalization of religious minorities, the need for a unified national stance on peace was undeniable. The inclusion of ulema from various sects alongside non-Muslim clergy was presented as a milestone, signaling that interfaith harmony was to be made a state priority.

One year later, however, the record is sobering. Like many state-backed initiatives before it, the Peace Committee risks becoming a creature of press releases and televised ceremonies, rather than a transformative force. Its presence is visible; its impact is far less so.

Symbolism vs. Substance

The Peace Committee has undoubtedly projected an image of inclusivity. Conferences, roundtables, and interfaith dialogues have filled headlines, offering the optics of unity. Yet, symbolism cannot substitute for substance. Hate speech continues to flow unchecked across digital platforms, violent mobs still assemble on the slightest provocation, and minority communities continue to live in fear.

The pattern is familiar. Pakistan has witnessed similar campaigns — Paigham-i-Pakistan in 2018, the 20-point National Action Plan of 2015, or even the much-touted “mainstreaming” of certain banned outfits. Each began with political fanfare, but withered in the absence of political will, judicial accountability, and consistent enforcement.

The Unfinished Business of Justice

Justice remains the most glaring deficit. In Jaranwala, Christians still recall how their homes were burned in 2023, yet trials remain stalled. In Sargodha, incidents of mob violence against Ahmadis have seen little meaningful accountability. In Karachi and Quetta, Shia processions continue to be threatened by extremist groups. Arrests are occasionally made, but cases drag on, witnesses are silenced, and perpetrators often re-emerge emboldened.

Without credible prosecutions and convictions, the promise of protection remains hollow. No committee — however well-meaning — can establish peace while impunity thrives.

The Digital Battleground

Cyberspace was meant to be a major front in the committee’s work. Hate speech and extremist propaganda now spread faster online than they do on the ground. Yet regulation has been selective. Critical voices against the state or ruling elites are swiftly curtailed, while sectarian propagandists and religious vigilantes often operate freely. This imbalance reinforces the perception that curbs on speech are political tools, not genuine safeguards against violence.

Unless digital regulation is principled, transparent, and equally applied, the committee’s efforts will fail to inspire confidence.

Minority Voices and Public Trust

The most damning critique comes from those the committee claims to protect. Representatives of Christian, Hindu, Ahmadi, and Shia communities express deep skepticism. They ask: what good are committees when mobs can torch places of worship in broad daylight, with police standing by? What is the meaning of inclusion in state-sponsored dialogues if communities remain excluded from equal citizenship in practice?

Their mistrust stems from lived reality. Minorities have long been invited for “optics of harmony” but abandoned when violence strikes. Rebuilding trust requires more than tokenism — it requires justice, protection, and equality before the law.

The Way Forward

The Peace Committee is not beyond redemption. Its platform could yet serve as a bridge for dialogue and consensus. But this will require structural reform and political courage:

1. Independent Oversight – Establish an autonomous monitoring board, including civil society and minority representatives, to evaluate the committee’s progress.
2. Judicial Follow-Through – Ensure expedited trials of hate crimes with witness protection programmes to prevent intimidation.
3. Educational Reform – Revise curricula to emphasize pluralism, tolerance, and civic responsibility, while removing prejudicial content.
4. Digital Strategy – Partner with social media platforms to detect and remove hate content, while setting up transparent appeal mechanisms to prevent misuse.
5. Political Will – Above all, the government must show consistency. Committees and plans cannot succeed if each regime uses them for short-term optics, abandoning them once public attention shifts.

Conclusion

One year on, the Peace Committee stands at a crossroads. It can either remain another forgotten initiative in Pakistan’s long history of symbolic gestures, or it can evolve into a credible institution that fosters justice and harmony. The choice rests not in the committee’s press releases, but in the state’s willingness to act: to prosecute perpetrators, protect minorities, regulate fairly, and uphold equal citizenship.

For the vulnerable, this is not a question of policy design but of survival. For Pakistan, it is not a question of prestige but of stability. Peace cannot be declared into existence; it must be built — brick by brick, case by case, community by community. The time for symbolism is over.

Vocabulary Table