The widening gulf between the claims of Multan police and the bitter realities faced by citizens is no longer a mere administrative lapse; it has become a moment of serious reflection for our collective conscience. Amid the dazzle of social media posts and the echo of press conferences, tales of alleged recoveries worth millions are narrated as if crime has been eradicated from the city. On the ground, however, reality bluntly contradicts this narrative.
The ordinary citizen continues to lose motorcycles, cash and valuables, standing at police station doors with little more than hope for justice. Fahim Hasan Bhatti, personal assistant to Malik Muhammad Akmal Wains Editor Roznama Badalta Zamana Multan and CEO of Mux News — was robbed of Rs100,000 in cash and a mobile phone outside his home. FIR No 2218/25 was registered at New Multan police station, yet recovery remains zero. Computer engineer Muhammad Ashan Rohani was deprived of his mobile phone and motorcycle within the jurisdiction of BZ police station, with the same outcome: no recovery. My class fellow, Dr Javeed Akhtar, had his motorcycle stolen from outside Nishtar Hospital hostel; FIR No 391/21 was registered at Chehlik police station, but years later the file remains frozen where hope goes to die.
Similarly, Muhammad Aftab, an employee of SM Food Factory, lost his Honda 125 motorcycle in Old Kotwali’s area. Despite approaching SP Saif ullah Gujjar Gulgasht and filing complaints on 1787 and the Pakistan Citizen Portal, and FIR No 884/24 being registered, the result remains unchanged. Zafar Iqbal’s case (FIR No 833/25, Shah Shams police station) tells the same story — the recovery column still blank.
IG Punjab, these are only a handful of cases all involving our close friends and employees. Beyond these lie countless untold stories scattered across every street of this city, unheard and unattended. The question is not why FIRs are registered. The real question is: to whom are recoveries actually handed over? Whose losses are compensated, and who is left holding nothing but receipts and hollow assurances? On this distinction, the police have never issued a clear or transparent explanation.
As long as performance is measured through press releases and publicity, and the redress of a citizen’s loss is reduced to the mere entry “FIR registered”, recoveries worth millions will remain paper victories. True success will come the day the common man gets back his stolen motorcycle, looted cash and, most importantly, his lost trust. Until then, questions will persist and silence itself will stand as a grave answer.
The contrast between truth and the image projected on social media has become the core reason for the erosion of public trust in the police. On one side, drums are beaten over the recovery of cars, tractors and motorcycles, with success stories piled high and performance portrayed as exemplary. On the other, the ground reality is that these recoveries benefit only a select few, while deprivation remains the lot of the ordinary citizen.
On a daily basis, a large number of cases are consigned to files under the pretext of “no clue”. On paper, the case is closed; in reality, the victim’s wounds remain fresh. The question is not whether the police are taking action, but for whom these actions are taken. Is the rule of law equal for all, or has justice itself become dependent on influence and connections?
Another alarming aspect is the conduct witnessed in Multan police’s khuli katcheries. Instead of acting as representatives of the public, some journalists appear as recommenders. The police oblige them, files begin to move, and what is impossible for an ordinary citizen becomes achievable within moments. This practice not only undermines the very concept of justice but further weakens the police’s public credibility.
This situation raises a fundamental question: have the institutions responsible for protecting citizens’ lives and property failed, or are they functioning only for a chosen few? Until this question is answered honestly and practically, social media glamour will not be able to rebuild public trust. Trust is not born of advertisements or press releases; it emerges from equal access to justice — and that is the yardstick by which police performance is being judged today.
A silent yet extremely damaging practice within senior police offices, particularly SP offices, has hollowed out public trust from within. Complaints lodged through the Pakistan Citizen Portal or police helpline 1787 filed with the hope that at least higher authorities will listen — are often “dropped” with misleading, vague and factually contradictory comments. This is not the discretion of a station house officer; it is a process carried out at the SP office level, where a single stroke of the pen shuts the door on a citizen’s plea for justice.
This is not mere administrative apathy; it is a mockery of state trust. When complainants are told that “action has been completed” or that “the complainant is satisfied”, while in reality no recovery has taken place and no meaningful contact has been made, one must ask: who are these reports meant to satisfy — the public or the higher-ups?
This disparity — between glowing performance claims on social media and the silent burial of complaints in offices — is inflicting irreparable damage on the police’s credibility, not just in Multan but across the province. When citizens see their complaints vanish into the system, they lose faith not only in the police but in state institutions as a whole.
Direct intervention by the IG Punjab Police has now become unavoidable. The entire mechanism needs to be reviewed afresh to end the practice of “disposing” complaints under the guise of resolution, and to ensure that the people of Multan get back their valuable property — motorcycles, vehicles, cash — and their trust.
Steps to restore trust include:
Independent audit system: Quarterly independent audits of decisions taken on complaints filed via the Citizen Portal and 1787 to determine on what basis cases were dropped.
Mandatory written justification: SP offices must provide detailed, written and evidence-based reasons before dropping any complaint — visible to the complainant as well.
Complainant verification: No case should be marked “satisfied” without written or digital confirmation from the complainant; internal notes should not suffice.
Recovery tracking dashboard: A public dashboard in every district showing FIR numbers, nature of crime and recovery progress to expose the gap between claims and reality.
Officer accountability: Where it is proven that misleading comments were deliberately used to drop complaints, exemplary departmental action must follow.
Reforming khuli katcheries: These forums should serve public accountability, not recommendations, with decisions formally recorded and compliance reports issued.
If the true purpose of policing is the protection of citizens’ lives and property, then the police must move beyond promotional narratives to deliver practical justice. Otherwise, every complaint quietly marked “dropped” will continue to widen the distance between the police and the public — a distance no press conference can ever bridge.
