Pooja Kumari, a resident of Pakistan’s Sindh Province, was killed in March by a man who threatened to forcefully marry her. Being Hindu, her family felt defenceless in front of the police authorities, that took no interest in the actions of the powerful tribes who openly threatened minority groups. Pooja Kumari lost her life in a battle to safeguard her religious identity. Sadly, this is just another example of the increasing frequency of atrocities committed against minorities in Pakistan. According to the United Kingdom’s All-Party Parliamentary Group for Minorities, about 1000 girls belonging to minority communities are abducted and forcibly converted to Islam in Pakistan every year. Pakistani state authorities remain apathetic, and this risk is further exemplified by the strong nexus between the state and influential religious groups that perpetuate such violations.
Minority Rights in Pakistan
When Pakistan came into existence, minorities were assured protection. Mohammad Ali Jinnah’s speech of 1947 stood testimony to that, and so did his inclusive cabinet: Jogendranath Mandal, a Hindu, was the first Law Minister; Sir Zafarullah Khan, an Ahmadiyya, was the first Foreign Minister; several Shias were similarly appointed. Jinnah’s untimely death marked the beginning of decay and enabled what was later labelled as the Islamization of Pakistan. This phenomenon, mostly associated with General Zia ul-Haq’s rule, has not just manifested itself as a social practice but also became sanctioned by the state. Today, numerous laws disadvantage minority communities, some even going to the extent of penalising certain groups for practicing their religion. Ahmadiyyas, for instance, are prohibited from identifying as Muslims or engaging in the religious practice of Islam. In a similar vein, the Constitution of Pakistan contains a chapter on Islamic Provisions that mandates all laws to stand in strict conformity with Islam. Various sections of the Pakistani Constitution contain broad, vague and unreasonable restrictions on fundamental liberties of religious expression.
The issue stems from the fact that there is no rulebook that gives the correct interpretation of the religion. The requirement that all legal instruments need to stand in strict conformity with Islam is a recipe for disaster. This is exploited by religious extremists to assert dominance over the minorities and further distract the public from issues plaguing the Pakistani state. As early as 1953, there was an acknowledgement of this constitutional flaw. In the aftermath of the riots against Ahmadiyyas in 1953, Munir Commission was set up, headed by Justices M Munir and M R Kayani, to inquire into the disturbances that centred around the demand to declare Ahmadiyyas as non-Muslims. The judges came to the conclusion that the ambiguous nature of religious matters allowed for varied and often inconsistent interpretations. These varied interpretations differed in their understanding of who is a true Muslim or the role that religion was supposed to play in the state. The ambiguities built into the legal system have created perfect conditions to easily victimize minorities in the state.
Forced Conversions
There is clear evidence of the forced conversion of minorities to Islam. Being socially, politically and economically disadvantaged, with the Pakistani state that not merely watches but also encourages violations, minorities remain vulnerable to such atrocities. Women are particularly exposed. It is not only the police authorities that are reluctant to register cases of forced conversions. The courts also fail in their duty of being impartial arbiters: in the vast majority of cases, they rule in favour of men. The callous attitude of the judges is surprising despite there being a massive age gap between the forcibly converted girl and the man, who often has children of his own. Take the instance of Rinkle Kumari, who was forcibly converted to Islam and married to Naveed Shah. Despite the contradictory statements, the court ruled that the conversion was free-willed.
In a similar case, two sisters, Reena and Raveena, were abducted, forcibly converted to Islam and married off to Muslim men who were already married and had children. According to the parents, the girls were minors, but the Islamabad High Court bluntly ruled otherwise. The court based its decision on the findings of a commission that had no representation from minority groups, essentially defeating the very idea of inclusive justice.
Application of Religious Laws
But that is only one facet of discrimination. Courts are often engaged in applying religious laws to cases at hand, in total disregard of the existing civil laws. For instance, the Child Marriage Restraint Act of Sindh province, in force since 2013, prohibits any marriage below the age of 18 (at the national level, this age is 16). But the Sindh High Court, in the case of Homa Younus, a 14-year-old Catholic girl who was kidnapped and forcibly converted, went ahead and applied religious law instead. The court ruled that a girl is allowed to marry after she gets her first menstrual cycle, as it is per the Sharia. The case is a perfect example of the ambiguous clash between three different laws—federal law, provincial legislation, and religious interpretation. As always, it is the minorities which are rendered the most vulnerable in the context of such a clash.
Even the Pakistani Parliament remains bogged down with debates on whether any law in question is in conformity with the religious laws. This comes in utter disregard for the varied interpretations of Islamic law and the concerns of minorities. For instance, after a series of forced conversion cases surfaced, the Anti-Forced Conversion Bill was presented in the Pakistani Parliament. This was rejected by the parliamentary committee on the grounds that the bill was anti-Islamic. Subsequently, a report was published by Islamabad’s Institute of Policy Studies that argued that there are no cases of forced conversions to begin with, in an attempt to gloss over the issue of forced conversions, even in the presence of concrete proof.
Blasphemy Laws
Apart from the prevalence of violations of the rights of minorities, there is rampant misuse of blasphemy laws. These laws are entrenched in the Pakistan Penal Code, which gives a broad definition of what constitutes blasphemy. Given the country’s political, social, and cultural climate, these laws inevitably succumb to irrationality and hypersensitivity. Almost anything that doesn’t bode well with the majority can be termed blasphemous. Owing to the massive role that religion plays in Pakistan, it is no surprise that accusations of blasphemy suffice to inflict public humiliation and trauma. In the worst case, it may even lead to death. Salman Taseer, a lawyer and former Governor of Punjab Province, who defended Asia Bibi, a Christian woman accused of blasphemy, was killed by his bodyguard Malik Mumtaz Qadri. Qadri, unsurprisingly, was hailed as a hero. In the words of the lawyer who later defended Qadri in court, “anyone accused of blasphemy should be killed on the spot as a religious obligation.” The killing of Governor Salman Taseer is a classic example of the legal system becoming a convenient channel for vigilante justice.
The fact that Mumtaz Qadri was hailed as a hero, and that his lawyer argued for punishing the blasphemer without due process, shows how people in Pakistan, including the state authorities, have normalised vigilante justice. Whether or not blasphemy has been committed is not to be decided in the courtroom, but by the people on the streets. Mashal Khan, a university student, was similarly killed on accusations of blasphemy by people who disagreed with his outspoken criticism of the Pakistani political system and its lack of freedom of thought and expression. Khan supported women’s rights, was a frequent critic of conservative Islam, and condemned gruesome acts committed in the name of religion. One of his professors described him as “blunt but inquisitive.” Khan’s crime consisted in holding liberal and secular views that the majority was not tolerant of. His death highlights two significant points. The first is that university spaces, at least in Pakistan, do not encourage freedom of conscience. The second and arguably more important one is that blasphemy laws are being used as a tool to cow people into agreeing with the received view of the majority. It is not only individuals – entire communities have been targeted by proponents of mob justice.
In 2009, a Christian colony in Gojra was set ablaze after unfounded accusations of desecration of the Quran came about. The police silently watched as the horrific acts of violence played out. An anti-terrorism court in Faisalabad later absolved the accused, while some were previously declared innocent. In 2013, another Christian neighbourhood in Lahore was ransacked, looted, and set on fire after a verbal clash between a Christian and a Muslim wherein the latter accused the former of blasphemy. In 2017, an anti-terrorism court cleared the accused involved in the attack on the neighbourhood, despite the clear-cut evidence.
Every case of blasphemy law misuse is a testimony to the endemic intolerance that has festered in the Pakistani state. Asia Bibi suffered years of brutal treatment in prison owing to her neighbours being intolerant and accusing her of insulting Islam. Salman Taseer was killed because he defended a wrongly-accused blasphemer. Mashal Khan was beaten to death because he dared to speak against the current political system and religious dogmas. Mere accusations of desecration of the Quran warranted the burning down of Christian colonies by intolerant vigilantes.
Forced conversions, religious laws and blasphemy laws together create the perfect storm. Forced conversions target the weak and vulnerable minority communities who have no recourse to the law and justice authorities. Even when their cases do get to the courts, justice is a far cry. Judges either err in weighing the facts and evidence at hand, pandering to influential religious groups who openly run the business of forced conversions, or rely on religious laws, gravely violating basic civil rights of minorities. The misuse of blasphemy accusations to silence the minorities prevents these concerns from even being heard in public.
The Way Forward
There is an urgent need to set up a Parliamentary Committee that has a proper representation of minority groups, and that is capable of deliberating issues of forced conversions and the application of religious laws with transparency and compassion. Furthermore, minorities need to be protected from the misuse of blasphemy laws. An unambiguous, comprehensive, codified legislation, free from the influence of varied religious interpretations, is the need of the hour. Pakistani people deserve legislation that not only safeguards the rights of victims but also addresses violations and negligence of law enforcement authorities. Judicial officers need to be protected from influential religious groups to prevent them from committing grave miscarriages of justice. The percentage of minorities in Pakistan is abysmally low, and if the violations continue unabated, they will soon become history.
Juhi Jain is a Law Graduate from Symbiosis Law School in Pune, India.
Article image courtesy of Sobha Gadi.
This piece previously appeared in our 7th print issue, “Looking South.” You can read the full issue here: https://issuu.com/oxfordpoliticalreview/docs/opr_issue_7_final.