A recent statement by former Organized Crime Unit head Captain (Retd.) Liaqat Ali has sparked widespread debate across Pakistan. During an interview, he reportedly suggested that “if a thousand people were killed, the country would improve.”
The comment immediately drew criticism from legal experts, human rights advocates, and members of the public, who questioned whether violence and extrajudicial actions can ever be a solution to Pakistan’s deep-rooted challenges.
The Legacy of Encounter-Based Policing
Captain (Retd.) Liaqat Ali previously headed the Organized Crime Unit, which operated under the Crime Investigation Agency (CIA) and later became part of the Crime Control Department (CCD).
During recent anti-crime operations, law enforcement agencies have claimed numerous successes through police encounters. Reports suggest that hundreds of suspected criminals have been killed during these operations over a relatively short period.
Supporters of encounter-based policing argue that it sends a strong message to criminals and helps maintain public order. However, critics point to a troubling reality: despite these operations, crimes such as robbery, murder, and sexual violence continue to occur.
The question therefore remains: if large numbers of alleged criminals have already been eliminated, why has crime not disappeared?
Crime Cannot Be Defeated by Encounters Alone
The fundamental problem with encounter-based strategies is that they often focus on immediate results rather than addressing the underlying causes of crime.
Killing suspects may create headlines, but it does not necessarily dismantle criminal networks, strengthen institutions, improve investigations, or ensure convictions through the judicial process.
A functioning criminal justice system requires:
- Effective investigations
- Reliable forensic evidence
- Professional prosecution
- Fair trials
- Consistent accountability
Without these elements, crime continues to regenerate regardless of how many suspects are eliminated.
The Real “Thousand People” Argument
Many observers argue that if there are truly individuals responsible for damaging the country’s future, they are not necessarily the street-level offenders who become targets of police encounters.
The greater threat comes from those who undermine justice, abuse authority, engage in large-scale corruption, facilitate organized crime, or exploit weaknesses in public institutions.
When powerful individuals evade accountability, public confidence in the justice system erodes, and criminality flourishes.
The argument, therefore, is not about eliminating people—it is about eliminating impunity.
Justice, Not Vigilantism
History has repeatedly shown that sustainable law and order cannot be achieved through force alone.
Crime declines when institutions function effectively, when criminals are investigated and prosecuted according to law, and when citizens trust that justice will be delivered through courts rather than through extrajudicial measures.
Pakistan’s challenge is not simply one of crime control; it is a challenge of governance, accountability, and institutional reform.
Conclusion
The debate triggered by Captain (Retd.) Liaqat Ali’s remarks highlights an important national conversation about how Pakistan should address crime and insecurity.
While strong law enforcement is essential, lasting change cannot be achieved through encounters alone. The rule of law, independent investigations, and a fair justice system remain the most effective tools for combating crime.
The real path to a safer Pakistan lies not in the number of people killed, but in the strength of the institutions responsible for delivering justice.