The conferral of civil awards in Pakistan has always been a subject of debate, but the investiture ceremony held on March 23, 2025, under President Asif Ali Zardari has sparked particularly intense discussions. This year, the inclusion of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto (ZAB), as a posthumous recipient of the Nishan-e-Pakistan, has led to accusations of political favoritism, while the recognition of certain journalists has further ignited controversy.

Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto’s Award: A Political Tribute or Historical Correction?

The decision to posthumously confer the Nishan-e-Pakistan upon ZAB has been met with both praise and criticism. As the founder of the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) and one of the most influential political figures in the country’s history, his legacy remains divisive. While PPP supporters see this as a rightful recognition of his contributions, opponents argue that the move is politically motivated, given that the current president, Asif Ali Zardari, is a key PPP leader.

A significant development adding weight to the decision is the Supreme Court’s recent acknowledgment that Bhutto’s trial and subsequent execution in 1979 were unjust. This legal recognition may lend some legitimacy to the award, framing it as a historical correction. However, critics maintain that such decisions should be based on merit and national consensus rather than the ruling party’s affiliations.

Furthermore, Bhutto himself had reportedly opposed civil awards for political leaders. During the drafting of the 1973 Constitution, he remarked, “There is no need for awards for public service, as it is our responsibility as patriotic Pakistanis to serve the country to the best of our ability.” This stance makes the posthumous honour an ironic contradiction to his own principles.

While recognizing Bhutto is significant, some argue that his legacy is so monumental that an award does not do him justice. His contributions to Pakistan’s political and social fabric are larger than such gestures. Moreover, the inclusion of his name alongside other recipients, such as journalists Muneeb Farooq, Hassan Ayub, and the individual linked to controversies like the Tosha Khana case, has, in the eyes of some, tainted the honour associated with the award.

PTI’s Strong Opposition and the Social Media Outrage

The Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) has been vocal in its criticism of this year’s civil awards, particularly the honouring of Bhutto. PTI leaders have dismissed the move as blatant political maneuvering by the PPP-led administration. One PTI-affiliated account on social media remarked, “This is not about honouring Bhutto; this is about whitewashing history to serve political narratives.” Another PTI supporter wrote, “Why was this award not given during past tenures? The timing exposes the true intent behind this decision.”

The anger extends beyond Bhutto’s recognition. Many PTI supporters have pointed to the perceived hypocrisy in awarding individuals linked to previous governments, particularly figures with controversial pasts. The inclusion of certain bureaucrats and journalists has fueled allegations of political patronage, with PTI’s digital media team highlighting what they see as bias in the selection process.

Transparency Concerns: Are the Civil Awards Politicised

The process of selecting recipients for civil awards has long been questioned for its lack of transparency. Historically, accusations of political favoritism have plagued the system, with critics arguing that awards are often given to individuals aligned with the establishment or the ruling party. This year’s list has only reinforced such concerns.

The inclusion of individuals with alleged ties to past controversies has only deepened skepticism regarding the credibility of these honours. Regardless of how important Bhutto’s recognition is, the presence of certain recipients with questionable reputations has cast a shadow over the award itself, raising concerns that the honour is being diluted by association.

The Social Media Debate: Divisive Reactions to Journalists’ Recognition

The awards given to journalists Hassan Ayub and Muneeb Farooq have ignited heated debates on social media. While some hail their contributions to journalism, others argue that their selection reflects establishment influence rather than independent merit. The question of whether journalists should receive state-sponsored accolades remains pertinent, particularly in a media landscape where press freedom is often at risk.

PTI supporters have been particularly vocal in condemning these selections, arguing that the awards have been used to reward pro-establishment journalists while sidelining those who have faced state oppression. One viral social media post read, “Real journalists are in jail or exile, while government-friendly voices are being decorated with honours.”

The mixed reactions highlight a broader concern: the perception that civil awards, rather than being symbols of excellence, have become instruments of validation for those who align with power structures. For a profession that prides itself on holding power to account, the association of journalists with state recognition can be seen as compromising journalistic integrity.

A System in Need of Reform?

The recurring controversies surrounding Pakistan’s civil awards underscore the need for a transparent and merit-based selection process. A more rigorous and impartial system, possibly overseen by an independent committee rather than the executive, could restore credibility to these honours. Until then, the debate over whether these awards are genuine acknowledgments or political gestures is likely to persist.

For now, the awards remain as much about politics as they are about recognition, with each recipient’s selection scrutinised through the lens of power and influence. The challenge for Pakistan’s leadership is to ensure that these honours truly reflect national contributions rather than political considerations.

Military Honours: The Only True Recognition?

So far, the only state honours in Pakistan that remain free from controversy are military awards. Unlike the civil awards, these are bestowed through a rigorous and transparent selection process, ensuring that recipients are chosen solely based on merit, sacrifice, and dedication to national security. The military’s sacrifices for the country’s defence make these awards truly honourable, setting them apart from the politicised civil awards. Many believe that if civilian honours followed the same strict criteria and impartiality, they too could regain their lost credibility.