IN recent times, the ferociousness of terrorist attacks has increased to a worrying degree. As a consequence of such an onslaught, there has been a marked increased in casualties as well. However, despite the passage of over 10 years since terror attacks in Pakistan have intensified, the issue of compensation to families of victims has seldom been observed as a priority by the government of the day.

The victims of terrorist attacks may be divided into three categories. One encompasses individuals who serve in the police, army, or any other official or state institution; the second comprises those citizens targeted specifically to spread panic; and the third category consists of those innocent bystanders killed in acts of terror perpetrated on police officers, army men and other officials of state institutions.

As far as officials or officers of the state are concerned, compensation is often announced for families of such individuals. However, although certain limited measures are available for officers or officials of state functions, the situation is somewhat different for civilian victims of terror attacks.

This is not to say that no compensation is ever given to families of civilians caught in the cross hairs of terror. The federal government, as well as various provincial governments, have, on numerous occasions, sanctioned compensation. However, such measures have not been free from controversy, owing partly to the apparent lack of any holistic policy for the determination of compensation, or its criteria for eligibility.

For example, when the Abbas Town attacks took place in Karachi, it was reported that the Sindh government had announced compensation of Rs1.5 million for each legal heir of the deceased, as well as rebuilding of the shops and flats destroyed as a result of the devastating terrorist attack. On the other hand, victims of other terror attacks have been purportedly given less compensation, ranging from Rs500,000 to Rs200,000 per family. Shockingly, in yet other such attacks, families of victims were not compensated at all.

Article 25 of the Constitution, along with certain statutory provisions, seeks to protect citizens from such abuse of discretion or arbitrariness. The fundamental right, amongst other provisions of the law, envisions that people in similar circumstances shall be treated similarly; however, differentiation in the treatment of classes of people may be made on the basis of ‘intelligible differentia’.

In layman’s terms, this would mean that although the law shall treat all persons in similar situations equally, certain groups of individuals may be treated differently if such treatment is not arbitrary and has a rational nexus with an objective to be achieved.

For example, it may be decided that the family of each victim of terrorism shall be given compensation of Rs500,000 on the death of the victim. However, the government may also decide that the family of a police officer killed in such an attack shall be given a greater degree of compensation as well as benefits.

This would be done in recognition of their sacrifices and efforts and in order to maintain morale in the cadres. Although the amount and type of compensation given to similarly affected families of police officers and civilians would resultantly differ, the same may well be allowed as reasonable classification on the basis of intelligible differentia.

But, in the absence of any discernible objective, as is currently the case in determining compensation between civilians, the announcement of varying amounts of compensation between civilian victims of terrorism appears to be unconstitutional.

The law tends to frown upon the arbitrary use of power for a variety of reasons, including its susceptibility to nepotism, favoritism and corruption. Such discrimination may also cause dissension and resentment amongst the civilian population, and in addition would pose tremendous difficulties in affording adequate or any relief to those in most need of governmental assistance.

Hence, a comprehensive compensation policy needs to be prepared and enforced by the federal and provincial governments. In times such as these when questions are arising as to the ability of the state to protect and take care of its citizens, there needs to be a concerted effort to streamline the process of awarding compensation so as to avoid further lack of confidence in the government machinery.

Undertaking the said measure will not only ensure the presence of government in the life of its citizenry that is living in times of terrorism, but may also be seen as a gesture of solidarity and resolve. In fact, government officials can only benefit from being seen as sincere and sympathetic towards the plight of its people. After all, in the words of David Levithan, “What separates us from the animals, what separates us from the chaos, is our ability to mourn people we’ve never met.”

The writer is an attorney-at-law.

basil.nabi@gmail.com