By Syeda Sonia Manawwar
The recent cases involving violence against women in Pakistan, including the reported incident concerning 17-year-old Eshal Fatima from Jhang and the acid attack on Dr. Maham Noor Nasir, have once again brought into sharp focus a crisis that is no longer episodic but structural. These are not isolated tragedies that can be dismissed as exceptions; they are symptoms of a deeper social disorder in which vulnerability, impunity and institutional delay intersect in dangerous ways.
According to reports, Eshal Fatima, a minor, was allegedly abducted, subjected to sexual violence, and later abandoned in a critical condition near a hospital. The brutality of the allegation alone is enough to unsettle public conscience, not only because of its graphic nature but because it reflects a recurring pattern: young women and girls remain exposed to risks that should have been eliminated by law, governance and social accountability. In a parallel case, Dr. Maham Noor Nasir was reportedly the victim of an acid attack, a form of violence that has long been recognised in South Asia as one of the most extreme expressions of gendered brutality, leaving survivors with lifelong physical and psychological trauma.
These incidents, taken together, point to a society still struggling to translate legal protections into lived reality. On paper, Pakistan has developed a substantial framework of laws aimed at protecting women from violence, harassment and abuse. In practice, however, enforcement remains uneven, delayed or, at times, compromised by investigative weaknesses and social pressures. The gap between legislation and implementation is where most victims fall through.
What makes these cases particularly significant is not only the violence itself but the systemic aftermath. Survivors and their families often enter a prolonged struggle for justice that can be as painful as the original crime. Investigations may move slowly, evidentiary standards may be inconsistently applied, and victims may face social stigma that compounds their suffering. In many instances, the pursuit of justice becomes an endurance test rather than a guaranteed legal process.
At the heart of the issue lies a broader social question: how responsibility is distributed in preventing violence against women. While law enforcement agencies are often the first point of public scrutiny, the problem is far more dispersed. Families, educational institutions, community structures, religious leaders, media platforms and state institutions all play a role in shaping the environment in which such violence either becomes more likely or is actively deterred. When any part of this chain weakens, the overall protective structure becomes less effective.
The persistence of acid attacks, in particular, underscores the continuing availability of corrosive substances and the inadequacy of regulatory enforcement. Despite repeated legislative attention, access to such materials remains insufficiently controlled in many contexts. Similarly, cases involving abduction and sexual violence often expose gaps in surveillance, policing responsiveness, and inter-agency coordination.
Yet beyond institutional shortcomings lies a more complex cultural dimension. Societal attitudes towards gender, honour, authority and silence can all influence how quickly a crime is reported, how seriously it is treated, and how victims are supported. In environments where stigma attaches to survivors rather than perpetrators, the pathway to justice becomes obstructed at multiple levels.
The response to such incidents frequently follows a familiar cycle: initial outrage, heightened media attention, public statements of condemnation, and eventual decline in visibility as attention shifts elsewhere. What tends to be missing is sustained systemic reform that addresses investigative capacity, prosecution efficiency and victim support mechanisms in a coordinated manner. Without that continuity, outrage risks becoming performative rather than transformative.
A critical aspect of reform lies in ensuring that the justice system is not only punitive but also responsive. This includes timely investigations, protection for victims and witnesses, access to medical and psychological care, and legal processes that do not impose additional trauma on those seeking redress. A justice system that delays accountability effectively weakens deterrence, allowing cycles of violence to persist.
Ultimately, the question raised by these cases is not simply how to punish offenders, but how to prevent conditions that enable such offences in the first place. A society’s measure is not only reflected in how it responds to crime after it occurs, but in how effectively it reduces the space in which such crimes can happen at all. Until that shift occurs—from reactive condemnation to sustained prevention—the pattern is likely to repeat itself. The tragedies may differ in detail, but their underlying causes will remain distressingly familiar.
(The writer is an IT professional & Social media expert, also write opinions on various issues, can be reached at editorial@metro-morning.com)
