ORTURE by the state has a long history. It has been exercised largely as a means of extracting information, intimidating individuals or exacting revenge for perceived transgressions.

More often than not, the motive is a mix of all three. In Pakistan, custodial torture is a fact of life. It is meted out on any given day at any one of the police stations in the country and in shadowy internment centres run by the security establishment. Evidence of the latter is most clearly manifest in the fate of `missing` persons, who either turn up as mutilated bodies discarded somewhere or as barely alive, battered individuals occasionally disgorged by the state after repeated exhortations by the courts. A seminar held in Karachi last week to commemorate the International Day in Support of Victims of Torture gave voice to the demands of civil society for a law against torture. Such legislation would be in keeping with Pakistan`s international commitments: the country ratified the United Nations Convention against Torture in 2010.

In modern times, with the concepts of universal human rights and due process taking pre-eminence alongside the development of finely tuned criminal justice systems, recourse to torture is deemed neither acceptable nor productive. Indeed, it is often believed to be counterproductive, with information so gleaned seen as unreliable and the brutal methods fuelling further disenchantment with the state. That said, sometimes `civilised` countries such as the US have until recently cited exceptional circumstances to justify the use of methods euphemistically termed `enhanced interrogation techniques` that would be categorised as torture under international law. However, not only was the exposé of torture and abuse at the Guantanamo prison greeted by outrage across the world, not surprisingly, it also served as an unparalleled recruiting bonanza for Islamist organisations, one that continues to exact a terrible cost. With the Pakistan Army deployed against Islamist militants in a `war for the country`s survival`, and the jingoism that such a scenario invariably generates, it is all the more imperative that the issue be flagged at this time. Moreover, the sweeping powers of arrest and detention given to the security apparatus by the Protection of Pakistan Ordinance 2013 can easily be abused if stringent checks are not imposed. A far better alternative to visiting physical and mental cruelty upon those suspected of anti-state sentiments is to enhance intelligence-gathering measures and let the law decide the guilt or innocence of an individual.