The measure of a state is not how it treats the powerful, but how it treats those in its custody. For me, this is not a rhetoric but a principled approach.
When I read the reports about the denial of medical treatment to Imran Khan, I was taken back to my own incarceration in Agra.
The same walls, the same isolation, the same uncertainty. A prison is never humane, but some lines separate lawful custody from cruelty.
I experienced firsthand the isolation and vulnerability that define imprisonment. Yet even within that hostile environment, certain minimum standards were eventually observed. Visitation was initially denied, but family meetings were later permitted every week or every fortnight. When I fell ill, an ultrasound machine was brought into the prison to examine my prostate.
These concessions came only after sustained advocacy. These were not acts of charity. They were obligations rooted in international human rights norms and basic humanitarian principles.
It is from that lived experience that I view the current treatment of former Prime Minister Imran Khan — not as a partisan, but as someone who understands what captivity does to the body and mind.
Why is the former Prime Minister of Pakistan facing conditions that raise serious concerns about medical neglect and degrading treatment? This is not a partisan question. It is a question of human dignity.
A Question of Consistency
As Kashmiris, we have long argued in courts, in international forums, and in moral discourse that prisoners must be treated with dignity, and that denial of medical care and family access amounts to cruel and inhuman treatment. If we believe this for Kashmiri detainees, we must believe it for every prisoner, including Imran Khan.
Our moral argument depends on that consistency. The struggle for rights cannot be selective. Human dignity cannot be conditional. Justice cannot be tribal.
There is a truth Kashmir knows better than most: you can imprison a man, but you cannot imprison an idea. Generations have been jailed, yet the idea has not been extinguished. That is precisely why this moment is not only about Imran Khan.
It is about whether Pakistan, a country that claims to speak for oppressed peoples, will uphold within its own prisons the same standards of dignity it demands for Kashmiris beyond its borders.
International Legal Standards
The treatment of prisoners is governed by well-established international law. The UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Mandela Rules) require that prisoners receive the same standard of healthcare available to the general community (Rule 24-27), prohibit prolonged solitary confinement and all forms of cruel or degrading treatment, (Rule 43) and guarantee regular contact with family through visits and correspondence (Rule 58).
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Pakistan is a State Party, reinforces these obligations: Article 7 prohibits torture and cruel or inhuman treatment, while Article 10(1) requires that all persons deprived of their liberty be treated with humanity and with respect for their inherent dignity.
Denial of adequate medical care and unnecessary restrictions on family access can constitute violations of each of these provisions.
Beyond Politics
One may support or oppose Imran Khan politically; that is the essence of democratic life. But the standards governing detention are not contingent on political affiliation. They apply equally to political opponents, ordinary prisoners, and former heads of government.
A state demonstrates strength not by degrading detainees but by upholding the rule of law in precisely those cases where political pressure is greatest. History consistently shows that perceived mistreatment in custody transforms detainees into symbols of resistance. Institutional legitimacy is built not through coercion but through adherence to due process and humane treatment.
The European Court of Human Rights, the UN Human Rights Committee, and multiple UN Special Rapporteurs have held that failure to provide adequate medical treatment in detention violates the prohibition on inhuman treatment. Unnecessary restrictions on family access constitute psychological punishment and a violation of the right to humane conditions. Such practices do not strengthen the state. They erode its legitimacy.
A Strategic Imperative
Pakistan positions itself as an advocate for oppressed peoples globally, including in Kashmir and Palestine. That diplomatic standing requires unimpeachable adherence to human rights standards at home. States that invoke international law abroad cannot afford to contradict it domestically.
Ensuring adequate medical care, regular family visitation, and dignified conditions of detention would not weaken Pakistan's institutions. It would reinforce their legitimacy and strengthen the country's credibility on the international stage.
A Test for Pakistan
The detention of Imran Khan has become more than a legal case. It is a test of whether Pakistan can separate accountability from humiliation, custody from coercion, and law from political vengeance. Courts determine guilt or innocence. States determine the conditions of custody. The latter must always comply with international human rights law.
Prisons are the ultimate test of a nation's commitment to justice because they are spaces where power is absolute, and oversight is limited. The question before Pakistan is not whether Imran Khan is guilty or innocent. It is whether he, like every prisoner, will be treated with dignity.
For Pakistanis, for Kashmiris, and for all those, who hold to the principle of universal human rights, one thing must remain clear: dignity is not a privilege. It is a right. How Pakistan treats its prisoners will shape not only its domestic legitimacy but its moral standing in the world also.
Have you liked the news article?