RELIGIOUS IN TODAY’S PAKISTAN

Robert Weston Ash

I. JINNAH’S PAKISTAN

Pakistan came into existence on 14 August 1947 under the leadership of Mohammad Ali Jinnah. Jinnah had been the leader of the Muslim League who had demanded the division of India into two States. Jinnah had worried about how would be treated in a Hindu-majority Indian state. Ironically, given his role in demanding a Muslim-majority state, Jinnah had envisionedPakistan as a country tolerant of religious minorities. Jinnah envisioned a Pakistan where all individuals would be treated equally regardless of their , creed, or color. Jinnah envisioned that Pakistan would be an inclusive democratic state and that religion would be the “personal faith of an individual”. Jinnah envisioned that every citizen would be afforded the same opportunities in every field including the highest offices in the land without any religion-based . And finally Jinnah believed that separation between religious practice and state practice was fully compatible with .He laid out his vision before the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan: The first observation that I would like to make is this: You will no doubt agree with me that the first duty of a government is to maintain law and order, so that the life, property and religious beliefs of its subjects are fully protected by the State...Now, if we want to make this great State of Pakistan happy and prosperous, we should wholly and solely concentrate on the well-being of the people. If you will work in co-operation, forgetting the past, burying the hatchet, you are bound to succeed. If you change your past and work together in a spirit that everyone of you, no matter to what community he belongs, is first, second and last a citizen of this State with equal rights, privileges, and obligations, there will be no end to the progress you will make…You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place of worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed, that has nothing to do with the business of the State…We are starting in the days where there is no discrimination, no distinction between one community and another, no discrimination between one caste or creed and another. We are starting with this fundamental principle that we are all citizens of one State…Now I think that we should keep that in front of us as our ideal and you will find that in course of time would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State. Those are wonderful words, wonderful principles. Unfortunately, modern Pakistan is a very different State than the one envisioned by Mr. Jinnah. Corruption, lack of education, and discriminatory laws targeting religious minorities have come to characterize Pakistan during the last three to four decades.According to the current Constitution of Pakistan,and despite Jinnah’s desires, the president must be a Muslim.In addition, the Pakistani Penal Code requires that the presiding judge in a Section 295-C blasphemy case must be a Muslim.These two examples alone clearly demonstrate that today’s Pakistan is not Jinnah’s Pakistan.

II. RULE OF LAW AND MINORITIES

Today in Pakistan, the rule of law exists in name only.The law is often subverted or ignored.In 2011, Pakistan was ranked by the World Justice Project as having the worst access to civil justice and asthe least orderly and secure of thesixty-six countries considered. At points in the nation’s past, civil unrest and mob violence had become so prevalent that the rule of law hadcollapsed entirely.Often times, individuals seek their own justice when the government either refuses to act or is unable to act for political reasons. Killings and abductions are commonplace. Political instability is rife. For almost two-thirds of its existence, Pakistan has been under military rule. The lack of the rule of law, coupled with the Islamisation of Pakistan, starting in the 1970s and 1980s under the military rule of General Zia-ul-Haq, has affected the religious minorities the most. The Islamisation measures under Zia included such things as Islamic and adultery laws, compulsory collection and distribution of religious taxes, establishment of shariah courts, revision of school textbooks to reflect an Islamic slant, and the promulgation of blasphemy laws. Pakistan’s 1973 Constitution expressly established the Federal Shariat Court in order to institute Islamic law and to decide “whether . . . any law or provision of law is repugnant to the injunctions of Islam”. Thus, the Court has sweeping power to bring “all existing laws” into “conformity with the injunctions of Islam”. Madrassas, Islamic religious schools, are another factor that has played a key role in spreading intolerance among Pakistani Muslims. Today, there are over 45,000 madrassas in Pakistan. The growth of the madrassas can be attributed to both the failure of the state education system and to the fact that many of the madrassas are boarding schools that offer free education to the poor.

Significant funding for the madrassas comes from rich individuals and Islamic charities in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States. As a result, countries like Saudi Arabia have had a disproportionate influence on school curricula and orientation.” This influence from the Gulf States has led many of the schools to lean heavily towards the more extremist schools of Islam. Contrary to Jinnah’s vision for Pakistan, Pakistan has become a breeding ground for religious hatred, intolerance, and violence. The Sunni majority, which comprises about 85– 90% of the Muslim population, not only suppresses and persecutes non-Muslim minorities, such as and Hindus, but also minority Shias,Ahmadis, and Sufis.

Persecution of Shias Shia Muslims make up 10–15% of the Muslim population.The Sunni Muslims consider Shiites to be heretics.Even though the Shia population is larger than the population of all other religious minorities combined, Shia Muslims nonetheless remain targets of . For instance, in February 2012, eighteen Shia men were shot and killed solely because of their religious affiliation. The attackers “flagged down buses, climbed on board [and] ask[ed] passengers whether they were Shia or Sunni, then dragged out the Shias and shot them”. Because of ongoing hostilities between them, both sides have formed armed militias, and it is these militias which carry out much of the violence between the groups.

Persecution of Ahmadis Ahmadis comprise 3–4 million of the Pakistani population.The founder of the Ahmadimovement, is claimed by Ahmadis to be the Mehdi (the promised prophet in Islam). He founded the Ahmadi movement in 1889, and the movement was initially confined to the Province in Pakistan.Ahmadis believe in Muhammad as the best and the last law- bearing prophet and that MirzaGhulam Ahmad is a sort of Muslim Christ who was prophesied to come in the latter days to unite the Muslim world. Ahmadisare not considered to be Muslims by the Pakistani government or the majority of Muslims.The Pakistani Government officially declared them to be non-Muslims. In 1984, itbecame a crime for Ahmadis to identify themselves as Muslims, to call their place of worship a mosque (masjid), or to proselytize.They are also prohibited from holding conferences or gatherings, preaching, or selling publications.Because of this officially- sanctioned discrimination against the Ahmadis, the Ahmadi community suffers the most severe legal restrictions and egregious acts of violence. Between 1984 and 2012 authorities sealed twenty-eightAhmadi mosques, barred construction of forty-six mosques, demolished twenty-four mosques, set thirteen mosques on fire, and forcibly occupied sixteen mosques.

Persecution of Hindus In addition to the Muslim minority groups, non-Muslim minorities are also subject to severe and ongoing discrimination and persecution. For example, of the approximately three million Hindus who live in Pakistan, many arefleeing Pakistan due to forced conversions, discrimination, and violence.Muslims consider Hindus to be pagans and idol worshipers. Accordingly, Hindus face routine discrimination in both rural and urban settings, with a number of temples having been destroyed by Islamic activists. In April 2012, there were several reported cases of abduction of teenage girls by Muslim men to force them to convert to Islam and marry them.

Persecution of Christians In addition to Hindus, Christians are also discriminated against and persecuted in Pakistan. There are about 2.5 million Christians in Pakistan, roughly evenly split between Catholics and Protestants. Because of their small number and despite being considered “” by Muslims, Christians are routinely persecuted. For example, in June 2013, three Christian women were attacked and beaten by armed men who worked for the women’s landlord.After beating the women, the men forced the women out into the street where the men then tore off the women’s clothes, stripping them naked. Allegedly the attack occurred because “on two occasions some goats belonging to the Christians had entered the fields of the [Muslim] landlord . . . who claimed that they had damaged his crops”. In March of this year, “a largely Christian neighborhood was torched by a violent mob”. The incident began with a disagreement between two friends, after which the Muslim friend accused the Christian friend of blasphemy.The disagreement quickly escalated into mob violence,and no police came to protect the Christian neighborhood.Christians were advised to leave their homes, over 200 of which were subsequently set on fire by the Muslim mob.Back in March 2011, the Federal Minister for Minorities Affairs, the only Christian cabinet member in the Pakistani Government, was assassinated. Prior to his death, Minister ShahbazBhattihad “received death threats for urging reform to blasphemy laws”.

III. DEVELOPMENT AND IMPACT OF BLASPHEMY LAWS

The discrimination and violence against religious minorities is particularly hard to combat because of the blasphemy laws that are specifically aimed at protecting Islam. The ideology evidenced in these laws of the superiority of Islam over other faiths has impacted education and the Pakistani population at large, resulting in the religious majority’s feeling justified in usurping the rule of law through outright violence, , and manipulation of the law. The 1973 Constitution of Pakistan allows “reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the interest of the glory of Islam”, as evidenced by sections 295-A, B, and C of the Pakistani penal code. Thus, there exist in Pakistan blasphemy laws resulting in the death penalty for those who “defil[e the] Prophet Muhammad”; life imprisonment for “defiling, damaging, or desecrating the Quran”; and ten years’ imprisonment for “outraging the religious feelings of another.”These laws were added to the Pakistan Penal Code in the 1980s. When Pakistan gained independence in 1947, the Pakistan Penal Code, originally drafted by the British as the Indian Penal Code, contained only a few laws related to religion.There were four sections in total and, of them, only one could be considered even remotely akin to a because it prohibited “uttering words with deliberate intention to wound religious feelings”.The other three sections prohibited defiling places of worship, disturbing religious assembly, and trespassing on a burial place.The purpose of these laws was to outlaw acts and practices that would enflame one religious community vis- à-vis another, thereby avoiding communal violence.As such, any claimsby Pakistani leaders that the British promulgated blasphemy laws or the current blasphemy laws are an outgrowth of the British laws on religion are simply untrue. The current blasphemy laws are the result of the Islamisation of Pakistan under General Zia’s military rule. Zia’s rule was significantly different from previous military rule in that previous military rulers focused on reestablishing political order,not on forcing Islamist rules on the nation. Zia, however, was a fervent Islamist who had two primary goals. The first was to “Islamicise” Pakistan, and the second was to “legally separate the Ahmadi Community from the Muslim population”. Under General Zia, Islamisation accelerated. Unlike the previous religious laws which were enacted to protect people of “all religious beliefs”, these new laws were enacted to protect certain people’sspecific religious beliefs and sensitivities. No law was passed to afford non-Muslims the same level of protection that had been granted to Muslims. In addition, there were no substantive or procedural safeguards against corrupt application of these laws. They did not require “mensrea” (or evil intent), a basic element of most crimes. Although, section 295-B prohibited the “willful” of the Quran, a Pakistani court later ruled that the element of intent was not required for this offense. Section 295-C that punishes speech criticisingthe Prophet Muhammad with death has no intent requirement. Its language is so broad that it covers any spoken words or visible representation that could be perceived by a listener or a viewer as blasphemous, regardless of whether the speaker intended it to be so. This allows a subjective accusation made by a single person to be considered sufficient “evidence” for conviction. Moreover, blasphemy offenses allow the police to file charges and make arrests without a warrant. In addition to that, these offenses were made an offense against the state,thereby precluding out-of-court settlements. Contrary to the intent of the laws on religion originally enacted by the British, Pakistani blasphemy laws created tension between religions and, in fact, provided a tool for the majority to oppress minorities. Because of the overbroad nature and lack of procedural safeguards, these laws have provided a tool to the Pakistani Muslim majority to settle personal scores by bringing false accusations against others.Since the implementation of these laws in the 1980s, there has been a steady increase in the number of blasphemy cases reported in Pakistan, and in the instances of . From 1918 to 1986 (68 years), there were only 9 reported cases in Pakistan brought under the original religious laws. From 1986 to 2007 (21 years), more than 900 blasphemy cases were reported. In essence, enacting the blasphemy laws, rather than curbing blasphemy,has resulted in more blasphemy.The more devastating result of these laws is that many members of the religious minorities, specifically Ahmadis and Christians,have been murdered after false accusations of blasphemy by Muslims.Especially harsh judicially imposed sentences as well as extrajudicial acts of violence against religious minorities have also increased in the past two decades. There has been “a five-fold increase in extremist violence since 2006”.

V. ECLJ INVOLVMENT IN RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION CASES

The European Centre for Law and Justice, through its affiliate in Pakistan, has been involved in assisting several Pakistani citizens in cases of religious persecution. We have seen examples that, when a case is well-prepared and presented, Pakistani judges have followed the law, which is a very positive development.This is especially so when there is no aroused Muslim mob intimidating the judges and prosecutors. Our Pakistani affiliate recently represented Pastor Patras who was accused of blasphemy after he gave a sermon on the topic of sacrifice. The accuser later admitted that he misunderstood the Pastor’s sermon. Our attorneysimmediately filed a petition of acquittalfor lack of evidence, and the court granted the petition, acquitting Pastor Patras. The quick result was a pleasant, though unexpected, surprise. In addition to the Pastor’s case, the ECLJ’s Pakistani affiliate has had several other notable successes in Pakistan.In State v. GhulamRasool, our affiliate represented AsiMasih, whose brother, RasheedMasih—aChristian businessman—had been tortured and killed by four Muslims. Two of the defendantshad been attempting to persuade Masih to accept Islam. They had called him to their property for an alleged business deal, and there the four defendants tortured and killed him. A murder case was registered, and during the trial, both Muslim and Christian witnesses testified. At the end of the trial, the court sentenced three of the four defendants to life imprisonment, a result seldom achieved when Christians are murdered by Muslims. That was a credit to honest Muslim prosecutors and an honest Muslim judge. In IrshadMasih v. State, our affiliate represented forty-three Christian Pakistanis who had been unlawfully detained in their homes by a Muslim mob. The detention occurred after a Muslim woman and a Christian man from the area eloped. The Muslims falsely accused the Christian man and his family of abducting the Muslim woman. They detained all Christians living in the area and threatened to burn them alive in their homes if they did not find and bring the Muslim woman back. Our attorneys in Pakistan filed a habeas corpus petition in the Sessions Court, and successfully freed the Christians from illegal detention. Samuel Masih v. Niaz Ahmed Jutt is an ongoing fraudulent land transfer case in which our attorneys represent a Christian family who had leased twelve acres of their land to a Muslim. After obtaining the lease, the Muslim lessee fraudulently prepared a general power of attorney in his name and transferred the land to his sons. Our attorneys filed a civil suit, the Respondent filed a response arguing no cause of action, and the trial court ruled in favor of the Muslim lessee. In response, affiliate attorneys filed an appeal against the ruling, and the appeals court heard preliminary arguments and granted the appeal,remanding the case to the trial court. There, the defendant was issued a notice of appearance, but the defendant failed to appear in court. The defendant was issued a second notice of appearance and again failed to appear. The court then ordered ex parte proceedings to start. After the order for ex parte proceedings, the defendant appeared and filed an application to set aside the order for ex parte proceedings. Although this case is still ongoing, we are encouraged that the appellate court ruled on the law and facts, not on the identity of the parties, which often happens. Accordingly, we consider this a very positive development.

VI. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE EU

Condition the giving of financial assistance on Pakistanis doing the following: A. Reforming Islamic school curricula so that religious schools are no longer breeding places of religious hatred, intolerance, and violence. Such reform needs to encompass the current funding of the schools by religious extremists.

B. Gaining effective control of Islamic Militant groups so that legal impunity no longer exists for those perpetrating violence upon religious minorities.

C. Reforming legal education so that attorneys and judges are aware of and understand the law and the importance of the rule of law. In many cases attorneys fail to simply assert their clients’ rights under the law. Our attorneys’ work in Pakistan has shown that there are judges willing to follow the law if the attorneys properly inform them of the law when asserting their clients’ rights.

D. Repealing the blasphemy laws. In the alternative, amend the blasphemy laws so that they, at a minimum, protect people of all religious communities and cannot be applied in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner. This involves the inclusion of substantive or procedural safeguards against corrupt and preferential application of such laws.

E. Enacting legislation that would severely punishall persons who make false accusations of criminal activity.

F. Requiring the police to vigourously and impartially protect the public against all unlawful activity, irrespective of their religious identity.