In October 2025, the Federal Ombudsman for Protection Against Harassment (FOSPAH) in Pakistan made an important decision about workplace harassment.
At the centre of the ruling was the Federal Urdu University of Arts, Science & Technology (FUUAST), where its Vice‑Chancellor, Dr. Zabta Khan Shinwari, was found guilty of repeatedly making sexist, gender‑stereotypical, and demeaning remarks about women faculty members.
At FUUAST, the complaint was brought by a female lecturer. In the ongoing drama Goonj, there’s Zarnab, who is facing workplace harassment, and her story mirrors the real-life challenges victims often encounter. The lecturer in the real life case alleged that the Vice‑Chancellor had addressed her and similarly, other female faculty – that:
“When females reach the age of around 35 or above, they experience hormonal issues, and their mental condition becomes unstable, causing them to create problems for others.”
The ombudsperson found these remarks to be “inherently sexist, derogatory, and demeaning,” ruling that they constituted gender-stereotyping and behaviour capable of creating a hostile work environment under the law.
In drama Goonj, the character Nabeel essayed by Mirza Gohar Rasheed commented Zarnab’s (played by Komal Meer) outfits and made snide remarks about her appearance. But any harassment or remark was hard to prove because it was just her word against his. Additionally, although laws against sexism look good on paper, but in practical working life, ordinary people often ask, how do they translate? For example, if a girl is perpetually harassed in the workplace by someone in a senior or influential position through flippant, sexist or inappropriate remarks, as Nabeel did with Zarnab, and she complains to the concerned HR officals, there’s not much anyone like Zarnab can do except find another place of employment or bite the bullet. Human Resources departments often do not have the executional power to go beyond the simple rebuke or a muted warning email (which is also hard to elicit unless an entire disciplanry committee sits in to hear the case).
Will HR have the power to go up against an employee whom the company relies for a large chunk of its client relations or customer goodwill, and ultimately, drive business and revenue? Or someone who is in a senior position to the victim and has been with the organization much longer? Can HR put together a disciplinary committee that is unbiased, free from influence, and also be vested with the power to hand out a just verdict? Or can the victim approach the courts, and again, what proof does she have that harassment actually took place?
This law is perhaps only effective if the perpetrators publicly mention, slander, malign, or morally police a person either online or in a public statement, because then there is hard evidence and one could argue that certain words or gestures fall under the definition of harassment. In other words, the recent ruling on sexist remarks by the federal ombudsman Fauzia Viqar against Vice-Chancellor FUUAST, Dr. Shinwari is great for finally putting a stop to, or at least hindering, public hate speech or misogynistic remarks by public persons against other public persons, or online remarks by private people against another. But there is still a long upward climb for women in private or public workplaces who require protection and safeguards today, unless the ruling serves a public precedent and social messaging to dissuade future harassers. The expectation is that if those holding public office or targeting someone online are held publicly accountable, then private individuals should also beware. But that’s a long and arduous road to a wrong that should have been righted yesterday, not tomorrow.
While the recent ruling by the Federal Ombudsman Fauzia Viqar found the Vice-Chancellor of FUUAST, Dr. Zabta Khan Shinwari, guilty of workplace harassment for repeatedly making gender-stereotypical and demeaning remarks about female faculty members, including the statement about women over 35 experiencing hormonal and mental instability, it is a landmark decision in Pakistan. The Ombudsman further stated that these remarks were “inherently sexist, derogatory, and demeaning, amounting to gender stereotyping and constituting behaviour that can create a hostile work environment.” We hope that this judgement and the public nature of it serve as a means of awareness and messaging for potential and present cases and institutions where such remarks are a norm, and also as a token of support for the victims of the same.
The issue lies in also creating awareness in workplaces and society at large, as well as removing the sense of entitlement influential individuals feel when they make insensitive, uninformed, inappropriate, and socially irresponsible comments in public or private about another person, colleague, subordinate, or senior. Women in the workplace have been exposed to such remarks for so long and so often that many fail to even note the insensitive or sexist nature of the mindset behind them; such is the level of normalization of these perspectives. Unfortunately, where families, parenting, and society fail, the courts have to step in to realign our values and thought processes for a more just and equitable society.
The challenges are many, and the road is long, yet the Ombudsman’s ruling can be applauded as a step forward in a society that needs many more such precedents to offset the balance.
Read more about the ruling here.
Sources: DAWN News, and FOSPAH.
