A heated public debate has erupted in Pakistan after remarks made by playwright Khalil ur Rehman Qamar during a televised discussion on acid attacks sparked strong criticism from Punjab Assembly member Hina Pervaiz Butt, drawing sharp reactions across social media and reigniting conversations around women’s safety and accountability.
The controversy began during a private news channel programme where Hina Pervaiz Butt was speaking about women’s rights and the growing need for stronger protections against gender-based violence. During the discussion, Qamar interrupted with a remark suggesting that men do not carry acid with them, a comment that was immediately challenged on set and later widely circulated online.
Following the broadcast, Butt took to social media platform X, where she strongly condemned the mindset behind such statements. Without mincing words, she argued that dismissing acid attack survivors or downplaying the severity of such crimes reflects a dangerous societal attitude that shifts blame onto victims rather than perpetrators. In her post, she stressed that survivors often endure lifelong physical and emotional trauma, describing their condition as one of irreversible suffering.
In a follow-up video message, Butt referred to recent real-life cases, including that of Dr Mahnoor and another disturbing incident in which a woman was attacked with acid by individuals on a motorcycle. She clarified that while she was not labeling Qamar as a perpetrator of violence, she believes such dismissive attitudes contribute to a culture where violence against women is normalized or trivialized. She urged public figures to speak responsibly, especially when addressing sensitive social issues.
The remarks divided opinion online. A large number of social media users supported Butt’s stance, agreeing that comments minimizing acid attacks reflect a broader mindset that enables violence through denial or justification. Some users went further, calling for stricter accountability for individuals who publicly defend or downplay such crimes, arguing that harmful rhetoric can be as damaging as the acts themselves.
