Executive Summary

Introduction

Chapter 1: British India and blasphemy laws

History of blasphemy laws 295, 296, & 298

Chapter 2: Political background of Pre-partition India

Two nation theory in its inception Hindu-Muslim unity and disunity

Introduction to blasphemy law 295A

Causes for introduction of blasphemy law 295A

Chapter 3: Blasphemy laws before Zia-ul-Haq era

Chapter 4: Blasphemy laws after Zia-ul-Haq era:

Introduction of new blasphemy laws

Chapter 5: Historical background of communal riots in Pakistan

Political challenges of the new country

Communal riots in Punjab and East Pakistan

Communal hatred – a breeding ground for dictatorship in Pakistan

Chapter 6: Controversies of new blasphemy laws

Ambiguity of blasphemy laws

A study of blasphemy law 295C Punishment of blasphemy laws in Pakistan and other Muslim countries

Chapter 7: Use and Misuse of the blasphemy laws

Unprecedented rise of blasphemy cases:

– Religion of the persons that were extra-judicially murdered

– Extrajudicial murder of old men

– Extrajudicial murder of women

– Profession of the persons who were accused of blasphemy

Acquittals of Blasphemy accused by the Court (1990 – Jul 2012)

Role of Judiciary

Chapter 8: Blasphemy cases before and after creation of Pakistan

Muslim blasphemers

Minorities as the highest blasphemers

Desecration of Holy places by the Muslims

Sectarian violence among Muslim sects

Women blasphemers

Teenager blasphemers

Religious people as blasphemers

Conclusion

Attachment –A

Executive Summary

Blasphemy laws were first introduced in the Indian subcontinent by its British colonial rulers. Before that, orthodox Islamic jurisprudence was briefly enforced during Mughal rule on the subcontinent but history is silent if there were any blasphemy laws prevalent at that time.

Communal tensions between Hindus and Muslims before the partition of the subcontinent backed by political interests of different groups, including colonial rulers, were the main reason behind enactment of blasphemy laws.

As efforts by leaders like Quaid-e-Azam failed to forge Hindu-Muslim unity against the colonial rule, tensions between religious communities began to rise. These tensions led to several communal riots in undivided India. Unscrupulous elements from both sides exploited the situation and left no stone unturned to create hatred against one another which also resulted in writing and publication of hate material by both sides.

The growing chasm between Hindus and Muslims suited the designs of colonial powers to perpetuate their rule and also provided them with an opportunity to enact blasphemy laws.

The British government promulgated four laws in the undivided India to deal with the issues of blasphemy.

Pakistan inherited these laws after it was carved out of India in 1947.

With the death of Quaid-e-Azam within a year of independence, the newly-founded nation lost its way how to move forward, resulting in political chaos and intrigue, accentuated eventually by the military interventions.

The ensuing tussle and tension between the political forces of East Pakistan and West Pakistan gave an opportunity to conservative religious lobby to sow seeds of hatred among masses. There was tension between Hindus and Muslims in Eastern wing while in West Pakistan a forceful movement led by Majlis-e-Ahrar was launched against Ahmadi, a minority sect seen heretical by the mainstream Muslim communities.

The Ahmadis were ultimately declared non-Muslims officially by Pakistan in 1974 but the Islamization drive by former military dictator General Zia-ul-Haq was the main reason that exacerbated communal and religious tensions in Pakistan.

He introduced tough changes to blasphemy laws, some of them Ahmadi-specific, which were later exploited by the religious extremists. Ironically, blasphemy-related cases have seen a phenomenal increase after introduction of changes into blasphemy laws by the Zia regime.

From 1851 to 1947, when the British ruled this region and the hatred between the Muslims and Hindus was at its peak, there were only seven blasphemy-related incidents but during Zia’s rule along (1977-1988) alone, as many as 80 blasphemy cases were reported to the courts. As a whole, between 1987 and Aug. 2012 we have seen almost 247 blasphemy cases registered or raised, directly affecting lives of some 435 persons.

Also, figures suggest that since 1990, 52 people have been extra-judicially murdered, for being implicated in blasphemy charges. Among these 25 were Muslims, 15 Christians, five Ahmadis, one Budhist and one was a Hindu.

The known blasphemy cases in Pakistan show that from 1953 to July 2012, there were 434 offenders of blasphemy laws in Pakistan and among them 258 were Muslims (Sunni/Shia), 114 Christians, 57 Ahmadis, and 4 Hindus.

Absence of democratic rule or little regard for due process of law has been the major contributing factor to the rise of communal tensions in Pakistan.

Coincidently or conspicuously the emergence of most of the dictatorship was always preceded by the communal and political unrest in the country.

We also see that in comparison to Pakistan, blasphemy cases and laws in other three Muslim states Indonesia, Malaysia and Iran are much less and much more moderate.

Introduction

General Zia-ul-Haq (July 1977-August 1988) is remembered by his opponents and supporters alike. His opponents accuse him for destroying whatever little liberalism and tolerance this country had while his supporters eulogize him for re-inventing the very ‘Islamic foundation’ of the country they believe was lost after the death of Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah.

One of the greatest sins of Zia in the eyes of the liberals is the introduction of blasphemy laws 295B, 295C, 298A, 298B, and 298C to the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), inherited from undivided India. No law in the country has ever been the cause of so many controversies as this one. The basic objective of the law, say its supporters, was to discourage people from taking the law into their hands but the opponents say it only served the interests of radicals and it was massively abused to target religious minorities by whipping up religious sentiments of the people.

Late 2010, the issue of Pakistani blasphemy law hit international headlines when former Governor of Punjab, Salman Taseer visited a Christian woman Aasia Bibi who had already been sentenced to death by a court for allegedly committing blasphemy. His visit was meant to express solidarity with the convict. He later also termed the blasphemy law as the Black Law. Taseer’s remarks ultimately culminated in his death on January 4, 2011 at the hands of his own bodyguard Mumtaz Qaderi at an upscale market in Islamabad.

According to different reports, more than 1,000 people have been charged in Pakistan for committing offences against blasphemy laws. Among them are young, old, and children belonging to all faiths and creed. Some of them are even mentally challenged, physically impaired or illiterate.

This study offers:

a. historical overview of the evolution of legislation on blasphemy

b. the impact of the law as a preventive toll to blasphemous acts and

c. how do other Muslim countries deal with this offence?

The report draws on newspaper reports, court cases, and different opinions expressed in the national press to provide substantial information for the readers and to help them draw conclusions based on factual socio-political realities. The intent of this report is not to draw a conclusion in favor or opposition of but to bring all the facts before the readers and let them draw conclusions on their own. However, an equally important issue is the misuse of this law in a society to settle personal feuds, tribal and community rivalries.

The circumstance which led to the traumatic ordeal that Rimsha Masih and her family faced in Islamabad late August, has amply demonstrated the potential for abuse of the blasphemy law – a law that is meant to prevent desecration of the Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) but can easily be turned against individuals or groups by vested interests. The hazards associated with it, particularly for the innocent, are huge and require an extremely strict scrutiny of the existing procedures. Desecration or denigration of any sacred personality, including the Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) must be condemned and prevented but this must happen through due process of law and not mob-justice. The latest incident has made a critical scrutiny of the procedures involved imperative as never before.

Any mistake or error in this report, if found, is not deliberate one, since every effort was made to report only those events that were supported by an authentic source or published in the national media.

Chapter 1: British India and blasphemy laws

History of blasphemy laws IPC295, 296, & 298

History of blasphemy laws in South Asia dates back to the British colonial rule. Substantial parts of the British era Indian Penal Code of 1860 remain in practice even today in Pakistan, India and Bangladesh.

But the information available on how blasphemy cases were dealt with before the British rule is neither reliable nor convincing. Dr. Samia Raheel Qazi, President of women wing of Jamaat-e-Islami, had written an article on the blasphemy law that appeared in the Daily Jang on 28th November 2010[1] in which she said during Mughal rule all judicial cases were adjudicated according to the Holy Quran and Sunnah but she did not substantiate her claim with any citation.

The Mughal Emperor Akbar was famous for his liberalism and tolerance towards all other religions and created Din-e-Ilahi by merging what he found best elements of religions being practiced in the subcontinent at that time but many Islamic scholars considered it a kind of blasphemy.

It was during the reign of Emperor Aurangzeb, third generation ruler after Emperor Akbar, when an orthodox religious jurisprudence was enforced in India. However, this orthodox jurisprudence was practiced for a very short period of time because the downfall of Mughal Empire began shortly afterwards.

During the British rule, four blasphemy laws were introduced in India, three of them (Indian Penal Code 295, 296, and 298) in 1860 and the fourth one (IPC295A) in 1927. The IPC295 and 296 defined the offence as well as its punishment in the following terms:

295: Injuring or defiling place of worship, with intent to insult the religion of any class. Whoever destroys, damages or defiles any place of worship, or any object held sacred by any class of persons with the intention of thereby insulting the religion of any class of persons or with the knowledge that any class of persons is likely to consider such destruction, damage or defilement as an insult to their religion, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. 296: Whoever voluntarily causes disturbance to any assembly lawfully engaged in the performance of religious worship, or religious ceremonies, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both. 298: Uttering words, etc. with deliberate intent to wound religious feelings. Whoever, with any deliberate intention of wounding the religious feelings of any person, utters any word or makes any sound in the hearing of that or makes any gesture in the sight of that person or places any object in the sight of that person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.

The socio-political conditions in the sub-continent were the main reasons behind enforcement of these laws.

Religion was one of the most sensitive issues for the communities living in the region and there had been several religious riots in the subcontinent which necessitated enactment of these laws. For example,

n In October 1809, a Hindu mob of Varanasi (Banaras) city stormed Aurangzeb mosque and resorted to plundering and slaughtering.

Nearly fifty mosques were reportedly destroyed during this disturbance[2].

n In 1851, some minor riots were erupted in Bombay because of some undesirable publication against the Holy Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) by a Zoristrian (Parsi) in Gujrat.

– In 1857, the Muslims of Broach attacked the residential area of the Parsis and killed some of them.

The wordings of the IPC295 and IPC296 referring to defilement of holy places, disturbance to any lawful assembly for performance of religious worship, and utterance of words to hurt the religious feelings showed these were enacted against the backdrop of these riots.

Such laws helped British colonial rulers maintain order in the society and keep their grip on power.

Chapter 2: Political background of pre-partition India

Two nation theory in its inception

Combination of two important factors – politics and religious extremism – was the main reasons behind most of the communal riots and events of religious disrespect that took place before and after the creation of Pakistan.

From 1920 onwards, these two factors became very active. This is the period when the most popular Muslim political leader, Quaid-e-Azam Mohammed Ali Jinnah, went through multiple phases of hope and despair in pursuing his dream of Hindu-Muslim unity[3] and by the end of this decade he lost his faith in it.

Major political events with religious connotations of this period are:

1905: Lord Curzon divided the province of Bengal on the communal basis of Hindu and Muslim majority areas. Although the Hindu-Muslim divide already existed on religious and cultural basis, the partition of Bengal provided an official recognition to this division and added a political dimension to it.

1906: A delegation of Muslims headed by Aga Khan met with the British Viceroy, Lord Minto, at Simla palace and cautioned him against placing “our national interests at the mercy of an unsympathetic majority.”[4]

The statement was an admission of two national interests that separated the people of the country into minority and majority. Although attempts were later made to develop a Hindu-Muslim unity but they never succeeded.

Hindu-Muslim unity and disunity

1914-1918 was the period when the British government was engaged in the World War I. With all its might and machinery focused on war fronts, it needed a peaceful and congenial political environment in its colonies so that it can concentrate on the war.

Exploiting Britain’s involvement in the War, the otherwise belligerent political parties of India, Muslim League and Congress, put aside their enmity and sat down together in December 1915 to reach an agreement to build up pressure on the British government to grant self-rule to the Indians.

This culminated in the conclusion of Lucknow pact. This accord decided the representation and distribution of power between majority and minority communities of India. Jinnah was the driving force behind this move.

While Lucknow pact was an instrument of harmony among religious communities of India, it was also seen as a threat by key players of the Indian politics to their interests.

The Hindu-Muslim unity as a political force was a great threat to the British rule, sharing of power with Muslims was unacceptable to extremist Hindus[5], whereas many Muslim fundamentalists were also apprehensive of losing the Islamic identity once the Hindu Raj is established by virtue of electoral results[6].

First blow to Lucknow Pact came from the British government when it announced its policy on Indian demand of self-rule on August 20, 1917 that said:

…The new, inspiring “policy of His Majesty’s Government, with which the Government of India are in complete accord, is that of the increasing association of Indians in every branch of the administration and the gradual development of responsible government in India as an integral part of the British empire.[7]

Political maneuvering, diplomatic verbosity, and delaying tactics were the methods British government applied to get the air out of enthusiastic nationalist patriotism that this agreement had created.

In early 1918, came the next jolt from Gandhi when he attended a War Conference in Delhi on the request of the Viceroy and agreed to offer unconditional support to the war efforts of the British government.

He began a public campaign to urge all Indians to enlist in the British Army despite facing a criticism of doing something that was against his basic ideology of non-violence.

Soon, Lucknow Pact started losing its importance and new political moves overshadowing it occupied the center stage of Indian politics.

In the meantime, some untoward incidents causing rift among religious communities took place in subcontinent that dealt a blow to religious harmony.

First was the launch of Khilafat movement by Northern Kerala Muslims (also known as Malabar rebellion[8],[9]) during 1921, that took over government offices, hoisted flags of Khilafat on them, and carried out a campaign of forcing non-Muslims to either convert to Islam or face killing.

On 9th and 10th September 1924, terrible riots broke out in Kohat, resulting in the killing and injuring 155 people, mostly Hindus and Sikhs.

Gandhi had voiced support for the Khilafat Movement but the announcement of Kemal Ataturk in October 1924, abolishing Caliphate which also heralded death of the movement in subcontinent dealing a big setback for Hindu-Muslim unity.

Next attempt to create political unity of Hindu and Muslim communities was initiated soon after the meeting of the newly elected British India National Assembly on 31st January 1924. Jinnah offered to merge his powerful swing-bloc of “independent” votes with forty two Swarjist party members, a political wing of the Congress led by Motilal Nehru and C.R. Das. A new Nationalist party emerged in the assembly that began playing parliamentary role in addressing issues of common interests to both the communities. However, some thorny issues continued haunting this assembly alliance. This was the time when Gandhi was still engaged in Non-Cooperation Movements though he had suspended it in 1922. This assembly alliance of Jinnah and Motilal Nehru was in the words of Gandhi “inconsistent with Non-cooperation”[10]. Faced with opposition and criticism, Jinnah, gradually, lost interest in pursuing his idea of joint constitutional efforts against the British policies.

This was the political milieu of India during the early part of the twentieth century when all efforts and maneuvering of the leading political leaders to bridge the gulf between the Hindu and Muslim communities not only remained unsuccessful but continued growing further as the struggle for freedom got accelerated with the passage of time. The communal riots that took place between Hindus and Muslims during this period carried religious as well as political hallmarks on them. Interestingly, most of these riots took place in the areas that were under direct rule of the British government. The princely states were safe from them as they were not the center stage of the political activism of that era.[11]

Introduction to blasphemy law 295A

During the next 67 years, no need was felt to make any further amendment or addition to the existing three blasphemy laws though the Hindu-Muslim riots were on a constant rise from 1860 onward. In 1927, an amendment to this law was made by the British India government by introducing IPC295A that said:

295-A: Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious believers. Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of [12][the citizens of Pakistan], by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representations, insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to [13][ten years] or with a fine, or with both.

What led the British government of India to make this addition to the existing blasphemy law? 1920s was one of the most volatile and tumultuous period of the British Indian history when Hind-Muslim riots registered unprecedented rise. As against 9 major Hindu-Muslim riots during one and half century (1713 – 1860), there were more than 70 Hindu-Muslim riots in India during the next half a century (1860 to 1927)[14] that left a large number of people dead and injured besides desecration of holy places belonging to both community. While most of these communal riots were triggered by the issues like performance of religious festivals of Hindus (Holi and Ramlila) and Muslims (Moharram and Eid-ul-Adha), some additional reasons, with the passage of time, also entered into the polity of Indian society that had far greater impact in dividing the Indian society on communal lines. Some of the major communal riots during 1920s were:

1917, September-October: Massive attacks on Muslims by Hindu crowds of up to 50,000, in some 150 villages in the Shahabad, Gaya and Patna districts of Bihar. The immediate issue was cow protection[15].

1921: Malabar rebellion[16] (Khilafat movement of Northern Kerala Muslims) that tried to convert Hindus and Christians to Islam. Reports vary from 180 to 2,500 people that were forcibly converted to Islam and nearly 246 persons, who resisted them, were put to death. Among them were women and children besides the males. By the time this movement was suppressed nearly 2,337 rebels were killed, 1652 injured and 45,404 were imprisoned.

1923: Shuddi Movement: Swami Shraddhanad founded the “Bhartiya Hindu Shuddi Mahasabha” (Indian Hindu Purification Council) in 1923 with an agenda to pursue a peaceful reconversion of those Hindus who were forced to become Muslim or Christian in the past.[17] In his book on Jinnah, Jaswant Singh has referred to this movement as a reaction to an initiative of the Muslims to organize the community as virile warriors through the platform of two religious organizations, Tanzeem and Tabligh that they had established for this purpose[18].

1924: Religious riots broke out on the 9th and 10th of September 1924 in Kohat resulting in death of 155 people, mostly Hindus and Sikhs. The cause of the trouble was the publication of a pamphlet by Sanatan Dharm Sabha, containing a virulently anti-Islamic poem[19]. This was again, in the words of Jaswant Singh, a reply from Hindu community to an offensive anti-Hindu poem published in a Muslim newssheet.[20]

1926: Shuddi movement succeeded in converting some Muslims in Mathura-Agra belt of UP that created tension between Muslims and Hindus. On 23rd December 1926, a Muslim by the name of Abdul Rashid assassinated Swami Shraddhanand in his home at Naya Bazar, Delhi.[21]

1927: On 4th September 1927 riots erupted in Nagpur when the Hindu religious procession of Laksmi Puja was passing in front of a mosque. Twenty-two people were killed and 100 were injured.[22]

1927: A Hindu publisher, Mahashay Rajpal, of Lahore published the last edition of a book “Rangeela Rasool” that was written by a Hindu writer containing some derogatory remarks about the Holy Prophet Muhammed (PBUH).[23]

1929: On 6th September 1929, a Muslim young man, Ilam Deen (now popularly known as Ghazi Ilm-ud-din Shaheed) killed a Hindu book publisher, Mahashay Rajpal, for publishing a book disrespecting the Prophet Muhammed (PBUH).[24]

1935: On the 19th March 1935 a serious incident occurred in Karachi after the execution of Abdul Qayyum, the Muslim who had murdered Nathuramal [Sharma], a Hindu writer of a scurrilous pamphlet about the Prophet.[25]

The extra judicial killings of Mahashay Rajpal (in 1929) and Nathuramal Sharma (in 1935) were the two incidents of violent offence that were committed after the promulgation of IPC295A. From the time of the introduction of Indian Penal Code 295A in 1927 till the time of emergence of Pakistan in 1947, no other occurrence of such offenses is reported in the undivided India.

Pakistan adopted the legal system introduced by the British rulers including the four blasphemy laws 295, 295A, 296 and 298 as well. A few changes were made at a later stage in terms of punishment and citizenship.

These blasphemy laws, as is evident from the historical records, were results of the communal riots that occurred mostly between the Muslims and the Hindus during the 1920s. Sikhs and other non-Muslims also had some communal clashes with the Muslims. However, no conflicts among the non-Muslim communities are found in any document that this research could manage to review.

What were the causes for a phenomenal rise in communal riots in 1920s? Were they result of the religious differences that existed between Hindus and Muslims or there were some other reasons behind them?

A brief journey to the political history of India encompassing this turbulent period may offer some answers to these intriguing questions.

Causes for introduction of blasphemy law 295A

The blasphemy cases were a new phenomenon that entered into Indian society in the middle of nineteenth century soon after the printing machine made its appearance in the country. The new and hitherto unexplored subjects were taken up by the writers and got them published without knowing the repercussions such endeavors entailed. The first recorded incident of sacrilegious writing took place in 1851 when a Gujrati newspaper published something that was derogatory to the Holy Prophet of Islam (PBUH).

The three blasphemy laws promulgated in 1860 only dealt with physical offenses like defiling of worship places (IPC295), disturbance to a religious assembly (IPC296), and utterance of words [by mouth] (IPC298). There was no law that specifically addressed blasphemous offense in the form of written words as this wasn’t a common occurrence till that time. There was only one law dealing with the written words and it was IPC153A. It read:

Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representations, or otherwise, promotes or attempts to promote feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes of Her Mejesty’s subjects shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

In 1927, the IPC295A was promulgated[26] with the sole purpose of addressing the blasphemy offenses that were committed in written words. It said,

… whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of His Majesty’s subjects, by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representations, insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs..

This addition to the existing blasphemy law was result of those offenses that occurred in India during the last sixty seven years. According to the available data, five prominent cases of blasphemy took place in India during the period of 1860-1927 that fall under the IPC295A.

1874: Bombay, A book in Gujrati published by a RH Jalbhoy “Great Prophets of the World”[27]

1923: Lahore, Publication of a book “Rangeela Rasool” that contained some derogatory remarks about the Holy Prophet (PBUB).

1924: Kohat, Religious riots against a pamphlet by Sanatan Dharm Sabha containing a virulently anti-Islamic poem

May 1927: Amritsar, Publication of a journal Risala Vartmancontaining derogatory remarks about the Holy Prophet (PBUH)[28]

1927: Publication of the last edition of the book “Rangeela Rasool”

1935: Karachi, 19th March 1935: Abdul Quayum murdered Nathuramal [Sharma], a Hindu writer of a scurrilous pamphlet about the Holy Prophet (PBUH)

From one blasphemy case during the period of 1713-1860 the figure went up to five cases within next 65 years (1851 to 1927).

In the background of growing spasm between Hindu and Muslims, political forces were also getting engaged in religious disputes like blasphemy cases of Rangeela Rasool and Risala-e-Vartman. Although the initial edition of the book, Rangeela Rasul, was appeared in 1923, it couldn’t raise any significant reaction beyond litigation until 1927 when its last edition appeared and its publisher, Mahashay Rajpal, was acquitted by the Lahore High Court. The periodical, Risala-e-Vartman, began its publication from April 1927 and its 14th or 15th May 1927 edition printed an article”Sair-i-Dozakh” or a “Trip to Hell,” the author of which was said to be one Devi Sharan Sharma. This article contained derogatory remarks about the Holy Prophet Muhammad (PBUH)[29]. These two incidents caused great resentment among the Muslims and provided an opportunity to many religious groups of the Muslims to rally their followers for an agitation against these sacrilegious works. Ahmadis also took the advantage of this situation to reconcile themselves with other orthodox groups the Muslims and appear as a champion of Islam[30].

The case A. I. R. 1927 Lahore 594, Devi Sharan Sharma and another – Accused vs. Emperor, reports that a poster was appeared in Amritsar in the end of May 1927 that drew the attention of the Muslims on the contents of this blasphemous article and incited them for an agitation. This poster was suspected to have been distributed by the Mirza of Qadian[31]. Mohamed Shafi appeared on behalf of the Crown and pleaded the court for awarding a deterring punishment to the accused. The court sentenced Devi Sharan Sharama to rigorous imprisonment for one year and payment of a fine of Rs. 500 or in default further rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.

These cases were related to blasphemous offenses but, the verdicts of the court were different, one was acquitted and the other wasn’t. While the punishment of Devi Sharan Sharma provided some satisfaction to the agitated Muslims, the release of Mahashay Rajpal caused uproar among the Muslims. The Qadianis and the Khilafatists were the only ones who continued showing their anger at these acquittals and reportedly attacked the High Court.[32] Hindu Community, on the other hand, left no opportunity to criticize and condemn the Muslims for their role in the assassination of Swami Shraddhanand by Abdul Rashid on 23rd December 1926. Driven by the ongoing communal riots between Hindus and Muslims, the propagandists from both the communities took it to upon themselves to let no ideological attack go unanswered. While Hindu propagandists published sacrilegious documents against sacred personalities of Islam, the Muslims made similar attempts by ridiculing the sacred personalities of Hindu religion[33]. Facing difficulty in prosecuting such cases using IPC153A, British government promulgated section IPC295A in 1927 assuming that it would provide a legal recourse to their grievances arising out of sacrilegious writings. Yet, the results were no good. Two extrajudicial killings took place after the enactment of IPC295A, one was of Mahashay Rajpal on 6th September 1927 and the other was of Nathuramal Sharma by Abdul Quayum on 19 March 1935. Both were accused of blasphemy offense committed in printed documents. In his article, “The Ilam Din fiasco and lies about Jinnah”, Mr Yasser Latif Hamdani, a writer and a lawyer, made the following comment about Jinnah’s position on the blasphemy law IPC295A:

… In the debate on 295-A of the Indian Penal Code, a much more sane and reasonable law than our 295-B and 295-C, Jinnah had sounded a warning against the misuse of such laws in curbing academic freedoms and bona fide criticisms.[34]

The irony of these blasphemous acts and extra judicial killings is such that the perpetrators and victims of these offenses are either highly revered or ignored across the divide line of the two countries, India and Pakistan. Ilm Din is revered in Pakistan as Ghazi Ilm Din Shaheed for sacrificing his life for the honor of the Holy Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) while Mahashay Rajpal is admired in India as Shaheed Rajpal who fought for freedom of expression. The other two persons, Abdul Quayum and Nathuramal Sharma, could not get that popularity for unknown reasons.

The extrajudicial killing of Nathuramal Sharma by Abdul Quayum was the last blasphemy related incident that took place in India until it was divided into two countries, Pakistan and India, on 14 and 15 August 1947. Since most of the blasphemy related incidents took place between Hindu and Muslim communities, the creation of Pakistan was expected to bring an end to the occurrences of such incidents because it was created in the name of Islam having Muslim population in majority.

Chapter 3: Blasphemy laws before Zia-ul-Haq era

Pakistan’s history in relation to the practice of blasphemy laws can be divided into periods before and after General Zia-ul-Haq’s era. The pre-Zia era continued with blasphemy laws inherited from British rule while five more laws relating to blasphemy were introduced to the statue book during Zia’s rule.

Before Zia-ul-Haq’s coup, only eight blasphemy incidents took place in the country.

A brief detail of these eight blasphemy cases is produced below.

1953: The Working Muslim Mission and literary Trust, Lahore and of The Civil & Military Gazette Limited, Lahore PLD 1954 Lah 724. (Lahore) The book “Jesus in Heaven on Earth”, written by Khawaja Nazir Ahmad (an Ahmadi) was forfeited by the Government of Punjab in April 1953 on the grounds that the book contained insulting remarks to Christian belief. The court couldn’t determine the malicious intent of the accused. (PPC295A)

1954: Noor Muhammad PLD 1960 Lah 657 (Lahore)

On 27 April 1959, the Government of Punjab ordered the forfeiture of the book titled “Mizan-ul-Haq”, Offensive comments on religion. Court ordered to delete the offensive pages. (PPC295A)

1962: Okil Ali vs. Behari Lal Paul PLD 1962 Dacca 487 (Dacca, East Pakistan)

The Applicants had been accused of destroying a place of worship of the Hindus of Akilpur. PLD 1960 Lah 658. Court sentenced the accused for a three-month imprisonment. (PPC295)

1962: Court Case No. PLD 1962 (WP) Lah 850 (Lahore)

Muhammad Khalil versus The State PLD 1962 (WP) Lah 850: On 4 October 1960, the West Pakistan Government ordered the forfeiture of the book titled “Development of Muslim Theology, Jurisprudence and Constitutional Theory” on the grounds that it “[tended] to promote feelings of enmity between different sects of Muslims in Pakistan”. Court ordered to make changes in the text. (PPC295A)

1963: Abdul Karim vs. the State PLD 1963 Kar 669 (Karachi)

It was alleged by Abdul Karim that on the night of 29-30 July 1961, the accused had surrounded the mosque in which he was present to attend a sermon and, having entered it, proceeded to abuse those present as “Wahabis” and threatened the life of the moulvi who was to give the sermon. Court verdict – Can a Magistrate deal with 295A case without government’s order? (PPC295A)

1976: Shafiqur-Rehaman vs. the State 1976 PCrLJ 1456 (Ferozewala, Punjab)

The accused was charged with removing the kataba jat with inscriptions bearing “Ya Sheikh Abdul Qadir Jilani Rehmat Ullah Elaheh” from the arches and outer gate of a mosque. Court dismissed the case. [35](PPC295)

1978: Fazal-e-Raziq, Chairman, WAPDA vs. Riaz Ahmad PLD 1978 Lah 1082 (Lahore)

On 18 June 1978, the accused, the Chairman of WAPDA, gave an address to Grade 17 and 18 officers of the Water and Power Development Authority (“WAPDA”) at the WAPDA auditorium in Lahore and Impressed upon the officers the necessity and importance of the “Haqooq-al-abad”, honesty and the need to rebuild the Tarbela Dam as soon as possible. Court dismissed the case. (PPC295A)

1979: Qaisar Raza v. The State 1979 PCrLJ 758 (Khairpur, Sindh)

The accused, Qaisar Raza, who was aged 15 at the time of the occurrence of the alleged offence, was said to have written the names of the first three Caliphs on the “palms” [sic] of his feet before “moving about in the Superior Science College, Khairpur”. Court dismissed the case. (PPC295A)

Majority of these cases were dismissed by the court for the reason that a case under section 295-A PPC required an authorization of the Central or Provincial Governments. Interesting point to note is that the blasphemy cases filed after the creation of Pakistan were mostly by the Muslims against Muslims or non-Muslims against Muslims. Not a single case was filed by any Muslim against a non-Muslim for committing an act of profanity against the Holy Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) or doing anything that could be defined as an act of defiling the Holy Quran.



Chapter 4: Blasphemy laws after Zia-ul-Haq era

Introduction of new blasphemy laws

Until the ascendency of General Zia-ul-Haq to power, most of the blasphemy cases were in line with what the founder of the country had assured the Muslims and the non-Muslims in his speech of 11 August 1947. However, after taking power Zia made amendments to blasphemy laws from 1980-1984 as part of his Islamization drive. These changes were:

[36]295-B: Defiling, etc. of copy of Holy Qur’an. Whoever willfully defiles damages or desecrates a copy of the Holy Qur’an or of an extract there from or uses it in any derogatory manner or for any unlawful purpose shall be punishable with imprisonment for life. [37]295-C: Use of derogatory remarks, etc. in respect of the Holy Prophet. Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representation, or by any imputation, innuendo, or insinuation, directly or indirectly, defiles the sacred name of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to a fine. [38]298-A: Use of derogatory remarks, etc., in respect of holy personages. Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representation, or by any imputation, innuendo or insinuation, directly or indirectly, defiles the sacred name of any wife (Ummul Mumineen), or members of the family (Ahle-bait), of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him), or any of the righteousCaliphs (Khulaf-e-Raashideen) or companions (Sahaaba) of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. [39]298-B: Misuse of epithets, descriptions and titles, etc. reserved for certain holy personages or places. (1) Any person of the Quadiani group or the Lahori Group (who call themselves ‘Ahmadis’ or by any other name) who by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representation, (a) refers to or addresses, any person, other than a Caliph or companion of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), as ‘Ameerul-Mumineen,’ ‘Khalifa-tul-Muslimeen’, ‘Sahaabi’ or ‘Razi Alah Anho’; (b) refers to, or addresses, any person, other than a wife of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), as ‘Ummul-Mumineen’; (c) refers to, or addresses, any person, other than a member of the family (Ahle-bait) of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) as Ahle-bait; or (d) refers to, or names, or calls, his place of worship as ‘Masjid’; … shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine. (2) Any person of the Qadiani group or Lahori group (who call themselves ‘Ahmadis’ or by any other name) who by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representation, refers to the mode or form of call to prayers followed by his faith as ‘Azan’, or recites Azan as used by the Muslims, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine. [40]298-C: Person of Quadiani group, etc., calling himself a Muslim or preaching or propagating his faith. Any person of the Quadiani group or Lahori group (who call themselves ‘Ahmadis’ or by another name), who, directly or indirectly, poses himself as a Muslim, or calls, or refers to, his faith as Islam, or preaches or propagates his faith, or invites others to accept his faith, by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representation, or in any manner whatsoever outrages the religious feelings of Muslims, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

Contrary to the previous blasphemy laws that addressed ‘all religious beliefs’, the new laws were specific to ‘particular religious beliefs’ of different fiqhas of the Muslims and prohibited the non-Muslims (Quadianis or Ahmadis in this case) from indulging into any activities that may be construed as an act of hurting the feelings of the Muslims (PPC298B and 298C). Surprisingly, no law was enunciated to provide a remedy to the non-Muslims (Christians, Hindus, Quadianis or Ahmadis in this case) from any act of other citizens that may hurt their religious feelings.

General Zia-ul-Haq and his supporters might have intended to provide a legal procedure to address the religious conflict between the Muslims and the non-Muslims. Unfortunately, the outcome of these legal efforts was totally opposite to what was expected. Soon after the promulgation of these laws and with the passage of time the number of such cases continued growing and the people, finding an encouragement and incitement, began committing acts that could hardly be regarded as lawful. From 1851 to 1947, when the British ruled this region and the hatred between the Muslims and Hindus, at one time, had touched an unprecedented level, there were only seven incidents that were blasphemous in their nature. During the reign of the General Zia-ul-Haq, within a short period of eight years (1980-88), Pakistan witnessed eight blasphemy cases reaching the court. What exactly happened during this period or before that led to the promulgation of these additional blasphemy laws? Neither during the British rule nor during the period before General Zia-ul-Haq (1947-1979) was any case of defiling the Holy Quran ever reported? None of the blasphemy cases filed from 1947-1979 were related to any defilement of the Holy Quran or defamation of the Holy Prophet Muhammad by any Muslim or non-Muslim? How did the Hindu-Muslim hatred turned into Muslim-Ahmadi hatred despite the fact that both the communities, during the pre-partition period, had struggled jointly for securing a separate homeland for the Muslims of the sub-continent? A look back into the past may offer some answers to these intriguing questions.

Chapter 5: Historical background of communal riots

in Pakistan

Political challenges of the new country

Partition of India was the most horrifying chapter of the freedom movement that displaced millions of people and left several thousand persons dead, mutilated, and molested. This terrifying drama of genocide began its first episode in 1947 that was staged in Northern part of India, mostly in Punjab, and the second episode started later in 1950 and its stage was set in the Eastern part of Pakistan.

Call it a tragedy or a joke of the history that the fear of majority rule that led to the creation of a separate homeland for the Muslims of India continued lurking its ugly face even after Pakistan came into being. Once the fear of Hindu majority disappeared, a new fear of majority rule took no time to replace it. What came attached to this fear was the traditional religious hatred that the Muslims of the subcontinent always carried in their minds against the majority population of the land – the Hindus. The country that was born as a result of majority votes sensed the danger of the electoral role of the Western style that was poised to deprive the chances of the key Muslim League leaders to stay in power once the government would be formed on the basis of election.

East Bengal (East Pakistan), as one of the five provinces of Pakistan, had more population than the whole population of the remaining four provinces in the western part of the country. Based on the basic principles of the Western democracy, the East Pakistan demanded more seats in the national assembly while the Punjab, having only 20% of the total population of Pakistan, insisted on using the weightage formula to compensate for the population disadvantage that existed between the eastern and western part of the country. The then Prime Minister of Pakistan, Liaquat Ali Khan, who had the reputation of next in command after Quaid-e-Azam, faced with a dilemma of his political career when he found himself with no political constituency in the newly carved out country that he and his great leader had labored to bring in existence.

The religious card that had played an effective and decisive role in winning over a separate homeland found one more role to play in the country that was created in the name of religion. As a first move, Liaquat Ali Khan, had the Constituent Assembly adopt a resolution prepared and submitted by him on March 12, 1949. It was called the Objective Resolution and it proclaimed that the future constitution of Pakistan would not be modeled on European pattern, but on the ideology and democratic faith of Islam. The vision that the Quaid had of Pakistan as a state where ‘in course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims’[41] was now redefined in the Objective Resolution[42] as a state ‘wherein the Muslims shall be enabled to order their lives in the individual and collective spheres in accordance with the teachings and requirements of Islam as set out in the Holy Quran and the Sunnah; Wherein adequate provision shall be made for the minorities [Hindus, Christians, and other non-Muslims] to *** profess and practice their religions and develop their cultures’.

Communal riots in Punjab and East Pakistan

This was the time when the Punjab was brewing with a feud between Ahmadi and the Ahrar organizations. The Ahrar were letting no chance go by without their condemnation of the government for having an Ahmadi, Sir Zafarullah Khan, working as a Foreign Minister of the country. In their criticism, they were not even sparing the Quaid-i-Azam and Liaquat Ali Khan. The Justice Munir’s Report of the Court of Inquiry Constituted Under Punjab Act II of 1954 on Punjab Disturbances of 1953 available on http://www.thepersecution.org/dl/report_1953.pdf is a good source on the nature of these disturbances. On its page 16 it reports:

The record of the speech of Sahibzada Faiz-ul-Hasan [of Majlis-e-Ahrar-e-Islami] referred to in Malik HabibUllah’s letter shows that in his speech delivered on 27th August 1948, on the occasion of the Urs of Sayyed Imam Ali in village Bhullar, he described Begum Liaquat Ali Khan and other women who did not observe pardah as prostitutes and alleged that the abduction of one hundred thousand Muslim women by Hindus and Sikhs in East Punjab was due to the Quaid-i-Azam’s desire to become the Governor-General of Pakistan.

With no political constituency in hand and an ongoing campaign against the top ranking Muslim League leadership by the Ahrar must have been a matter of serious concern for Liaquat Ali Khan. To win over sympathies of these politically active segments of the society might have appeared to him as a way out to his political dilemma. In January 1949, the Ahrar made a decision to convert themselves into a purely religious party and to assist the Muslim League in all political matters[43]. Was it a coincidence that the Objective Resolution was passed (on March 12, 1949) by the Constituent Assembly only two months after the Ahrar allied with the Muslim League[44]? Or, it was a politically calculated move to please the Ahrar and provide a legal cover for all those religious activism that the Ahrar unleashed during the next four years in the Punjab? Irrespective of what political interests motivated the Muslim League to adopt the Objective Resolution, the events occurred soon after this resolution revived the old memories of communal riots that the people of the subcontinent had experienced before and during the partition. The major events reported in the report of Punjab Disturbances of 1953 were[45]:

11th August 1948: Major Mahmud, an Ahmadi, was murdered in a singularly brutal manner (stonned to death) in Quetta[46].

Okara—October, 1950—Ahmadi preachers were waylaid and their faces blackened. An Ahmadi schoolmaster was killed as a result of the tense atmosphere created by Ahrar speakers.[47]

Rawalpindi—October, 1950—An Ahmadi [Badar-ud-Din] was killed as a result of hatred spread against the community although the immediate cause was different.[48]

Chak Jhumra—February, 1951—At the railway station as a result of Ahrar violence, a man (son of Maulvi Ismat Ullah, who is an Ahmadi) was stabbed by Ahrar workers.[49]

Gujranwala—March, 1951—An Ahmadi shopkeeper was attacked when he objected, to the raising of slogans against Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. The police saved him from violence.[50]

20th April 1951: At Lyallpur, Ghulam Nabi Janbaz [of Ahrar] threatened an Ahmadi shopkeeper Fazal Din with dire consequences. On 7th May 1951 this shopkeeper was attacked in broad daylight in his own shop.[51]

Samundri—May, 1951—An Ahmadi mosque was burnt by a mob led by Ahrar workers.[52]

Rawalpindi—April, 1952—After hearing the provocative and exciting speeches at an Ahrar meeting a youth got up and shouted ‘Zafrullah Mirzai ko hataya jawe’ — ‘Wazir Zafrullah, ko qatl kiya jawe, mar diya jawe’. [53]

According to a letter which has come to my notice paradise has been promised to the person who will cut the throat of Sir Zafrullah Khan.

In the beginning of March 1953, widespread disturbances broke out in the Punjab which in some places continued till the middle of April 1953. … [At] several places the military had to be called in, and in Lahore Martial Law had to be proclaimed. Before the declaration of Martial Law, the police had to resort to firing in several places and at least two persons were killed on the night of 4th March and ten on 5th March, Sixty-six persons more must have been injured.[54]

These sectarian conflicts and the target killings were not confined to Ahmadi and Ahrar, the Shia, Sunni, and Wahabi sectarian conflicts were also beginning to take place now. In a note that Mr. Anwar Ali, D.I.G., C.I.D., write on 1st October 1951, provided the following information on the sectarian position as it existed in the Province of Punjab at that time[55]:

Shia-Sunni differences have been reported from different parts of the Province. The incident at village Shahpur Kanjra, where a child of 3 [years] and a woman were killed, was, however, the first incident in which Shias became the victims of communal violence.

At Gujranwala, sectarian tension existed between the Sunnis and the Wahabis. The difference arose over the number of travih which should be read in the month of Ramazan.

The immediate problem is to deal with the Ahrar. A warning has already been issued and I suggest that if this warning is not heeded, firm action should be taken. Government must also do everything to promote amity between Shias and Sunnis.

While the political stage in the Punjab was heating up by anti-Ahmadi drive in the early 1950s, the East Pakistan had its own share of communal riots that suddenly erupted in different parts of the then East Pakistan and resulted in brutal killings of the people belonging to Hindu community. The information available on two websites, http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Resignation_letter_of_Jogendra_Nath_Mandal and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1950_East_Pakistan_genocide, are reviewed to verify the authenticity of the following incidents of communal riots that occurred in the East Pakistan in 1950 (Note: Although the basic source of these incidents is Wikipedia and a resignation letter of Jogendra Nath Mandal, an effort is made to access the archive of the Dawn newspaper and include the relevant reports from the Dawn to verify and substantiate these incidents. The reports appeared in the Dawn didn’t agree with most of these killings but, in a sense, they prove that a tension existed in the area and the communal hatred was still dominating the minds of political leaders on both sides of the border. Relevant excerpts from the Dawn reports are provided alongside the Wikipedia reports as an authentication of these events):

December 1949: A number of Hindus killed and their worship places desecrated in Khulna, forcing 30,000 Hindus to flee away[56], [57].

Jan 1950: Rajshahi – 25 Santal peasants killed in Santal and several more will killed in Nawabganj and Rajshahi jails. Villages burnt down.

Dhaka: 90% Hindu shops were looted and many of them burnt. Nearly 50,000 Hindus were displaced after their houses and worship places were burnt and destroyed[58].

12 Feb 1950: 60 India-bound Hindu passengers were attacked at Kurmitola airport.

13 – 16 Feb 1950: Barisal – Hindus were killed, women were abducted and raped. Areas affected were Gournadi, Jhalakati and Nalchiti under Sadar sub-division of Barisal district. Several hundred Hindus, hiding with the police station compound, were attacked and killed. A Hindu school teacher was roasted alive by his Muslim students who danced around the fire.

Madhabpasha, Barisal: Two to three hundred Hindus were made to squat in a row and their heads were chopped off one by one. In the Madhabpasha zamindar house 200 Hindus were killed and 40 injured.

In Chittagong, four persons from the Buddhist community, including a police inspector were stabbed and monasteries were demolished

10 – 13 Feb 1950: Noakhali – Hindus were attacked in the town and the villages of Banspara, Rampur, Madhupur, Srichandrapur, Basikpur, Chakbasta, Shibpur, Baligaon were burnt to ashes

In Sylhet, the arson, loot and massacre were perpetrated in an extensive manner. 203 villages were devastated and more than 800 Hindu religious places were desecrated

12 Feb 1950: Hindu train passengers were massacred between Comilla and Mymensingh.

Jogendra Nath Mandal, a scheduled Caste Hindu and the first Minister of Law and Labor of Pakistan, resigned from his post on 8th October 1950 after allegedly seeing no results to his repeated requests to the Prime Minister, Liaquat Ali Khan, for taking action to stop the ongoing massacre of Hindus in East Pakistan. In his letter, he gave a detailed report of those horrible incidents that were the cause of his resignation. In his letter he quoted a figure of 10,000 people that were put to death during these communal riots and migration of close to one million Hindus to West Bengal in order to save their lives. These riots came to an end after India and Pakistan signed Delhi Pact in April 1950. However, no inquiry commission like “the Punjab Disturbance of 1953” was initiated to investigate the causes of this horrible genocide of Pakistani minority population of Hindus in the East Pakistan. It leads one to make variety of assumptions on the causes of those incidents ranging from economic to political ones. The coincidence of the beginning of anti-Ahmadi propaganda by the Majlis-e-Ahrar in Punjab and the eruption of anti-Hindu riots in East Pakistan around the same period raises many questions about the possibility of political maneuvering of the different political forces that were getting active to pursue their own agenda in a situation that was very volatile and extremely fragile too.

Communal hatred – a breeding ground for dictatorship in Pakistan

Co-incidently or conspicuously the emergence of most of the dictatorship was always preceded by the communal and political unrest in the country. In June 1948, the Ahrar were reluctant to join the Muslim League[59] because of the un-Islamic beliefs of men like Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan, an Ahmadi, and Mian Iftikhar-ud-Din, a leftist politician and owner of Pakistan Times. This newspaper was started by the leftists in the Muslim League. In January 1949, the Ahrar changed their minds and decided to work with the Muslim League.[60] Two months later, the Objective Resolution was adopted and, as a follow up of the resolution, a Basic Principles Committee was created with a mandate to structure the country’s political system. The committee ran into a problem on the distribution of National Assembly seats with Bengalis demanding representation on the basis of the population while the Punjabis favored a solution on the basis of weightage.[61] On 1st May 1949, the Ahrar demanded, for the first time, that the Ahmadi’s be declared as non-Muslim Minority.[62] In the eastern wing of the country, the anti-Hindu riots broke out in December 1949 from an incident of a police search for some Communist suspects in Khulna[63] that soon turned into a series of violent attacks on Hindu population in different parts of the East Pakistan reaching at its climax during the first quarter of 1950 and then subsiding after the Delhi Pact in April 1950. In the Western wing of the country, the Ahrar continued with their Tablighee conferences at different cities of Punjab escalating their anti-Ahmadi propaganda to such a level that the government officials became extremely worried of an upcoming wave of violence in the Punjab[64]:

Malik Habib Ullah who submitted this report with his comments to the D.I.G., C.I.D., on 19th June 1950, said that unless the tone of the speeches of the Ahrar were controlled Government would have to face quite a few cases of murder or rioting before very long.

On March 9, 1951, came to surface the Rawalpindi Conspiracy Case wherein eleven military officers and four civilians were accused of having their involvement in attempting a coup d’etat against the government of Liaquat Ali Khan. Maj. Gen. Nazir Ahmed, an Ahmadi, and Faiz Ahmed Faiz, a left wing poet and the editor of Pakistan Times, were among the suspects. The Ahrar used this conspiracy case as another source for their anti-Ahmadi campaign. On October 16, 1951, Liaquat Ali Khan was assassinated in Rawalpindi and the Ahrar took no time in blaming Ahmadis for it.

The murder of Liaquat Ali Khan was a serious blow to the Muslim League. Within a span of few years, they had lost two important leaders of their organization – Quaid-e-Azam and Quaid-e-Millat. In no less than four years after winning a new country, Muslim League had been reduced from a leading political force to a puppet organization playing in the hands of a newly emerged force that had suddenly gained the strength and prominence they never had in the past. A note in the Punjab Disturbance Report on the Ahrar is worth mentioning here:

The Partition of 1947 and the establishment of Pakistan came as a great disappointment to the Ahrar because all power passed to the Congress or the Muslim League, and no scope for activity was left for the Ahrar in India or in Pakistan[65]

How did the Ahrar, after having lost the election and their political base, manage to reappear in the political arena in a country that they never supported to come into existence and that too with such an influence and strength that within a year after the independence they were able to rally a large number of people around them and instigate them to a point where they felt no fear in killing a military officer, Major Mahmud, on 11 August 1948 for no crime except that he was an Ahmadi?

Whatever was the cause of the mysterious rise of this organization, the role it played in turning the political scenario in its favor and preparing a ground that set the stage for the gradual and irreversible decline of the Muslim League is both incredible and incomprehensible too. From a pro-Congressite and anti- Pakistani political party it transformed itself into the most loyal political party of the country and began playing decisive role in shaping up the political scenario of the country in a model that was reflective of their ideology and fundamentally opposite to what the founder of the nation aspired for. Another milestone achievement of the Ahrar was the adoption of the Objective Resolution by the government that took place soon after its alliance with the Muslim League. This was a move that redefined the speech of the Quaid-e-Azam he delivered on 11 August 1947 saying:

If you change your past and work together in a spirit that everyone of you, no matter to what community he belongs, no matter what relations he had with you in the past, no matter what is his colour, caste or creed, 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. I cannot emphasize it too much. We should begin to work in that spirit and in course of time all these angularities of the majority and minority communities, the Hindu community and the Muslim community, because even as regards Muslims you have Pathans, Punjabis, Shias, Sunnis and so on, and among the Hindus you have Brahmins, Vashnavas, Khatris, also Bengalis, Madrasis and so on, will vanish. Indeed if you ask me, this has been the biggest hindrance in the way of India to attain the freedom and independence and but for this we would have been free people long long ago. No power can hold another nation and specially a nation of 400 million souls in subjection; nobody could have conquered you, and even if it had happened, nobody could have continued its hold on you for any length of time, but for this.

It goes to the credit of the Ahrar movement of 1950s that it succeeded to divide the nation into two factions – fundamentalists and liberals. Everything that followed was viewed, assessed, and accepted on the basis of these terminologies.

The activities of the Ahrar were diagonally opposite to the ideology that was expressed by the Quaid-e-Azam in his above speech and they were ideologically against the two minorities, Ahmadi and Shia. Coincidentally, the policy of leading political party was also moving into a similar direction[66]. Punjab being the major mainstay of the Muslim League in the western part of the country faced a dilemma that needed a political maneuvering opposite to the basic democratic principles – to bring the minority of Punjab at par with the majority of East Pakistan. A process was initiated to bring the four provinces of the western part of the country into one fold and thus reduce five provinces into two – East and West Pakistan. While the question of one minority was addressed to the satisfaction of the affected party, the other minority comprising Hindus, Christians, and Ahmadis, received no attention or quite often subjected to persecution. In 1950, the Bengali Hindu minority in East Pakistan was subjected to hate filled violence by the Bengali Muslim majority that resulted in trans-migration of nearly 2.1 million[67] Hindus and Muslims from East Pakistan and West Bengal. Around the same time a hate campaign was started by the Ahrar in Punjab against Ahmadis that culminated into communal riots of 1953. Later, the European style democracy was negated by dissolving the government of Nazimuddin in 1953 and finally by adopting one unit formula in 1954.

After completely wrapping up the democratic government in 1958 and installing the dictatorship in the country, the religious and political unrests were relatively subsided and didn’t come to action until the political environment got activated once again for a democratic change in 1971. Later in 1974, during the democratic government of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, another anti-Ahmadi campaign broke out in the Punjab and forced the government to accept one of the initial demands of the Ahrar of declaring Ahmadis as non-Muslims. In 1977, Z.A. Bhutto was deposed by the military dictator General Zia-ul-Haq and once he did away with Bhutto, he embarked upon a drive of introducing new blasphemy laws that further divided the society on the line of fundamentalism and liberalism.

Chapter 6: Controversies of new blasphemy laws

The ascendency of General Zia-ul-Haq to power brought new opportunities for the pro-Ahrar fundamentalists to pursue their goals with an ease and comfort they never had before. British government took seventy seven (77) years to introduce four blasphemy laws while General Zia-ul-Haq took only seven (7) years to introduce five blasphemy laws, PPC 295B, & C and PPC 298A, B, & C two of which were specific to Ahmadi and Shia minority communities. Next year he went ahead and included the Objective Resolution in the constitution as its preamble. Both these steps were in line with what the Ahrar had been demanding since 1949 and completely opposite to what Jinnah dreamt of Pakistan. What followed was a series of blasphemy cases that were the direct results of an ambiguity created by these laws.

During the British rule, the enactment of four blasphemy laws had a history of Hindu-Muslim riots on religious grounds and several cases of blasphemous writings by the non-Muslim writers. In case of the subsequent enactment of blasphemy laws during the Zia rule, the history of Ahmadi-Ahrar conflicts, sectarian violence among different religious sects of the Muslims, and above all the division of the society on liberals and fundamentalists lines played significant role. Unlike the past, no prominent blasphemous writing is on record that could be regarded as a cause for promulgation of these new blasphemy laws other than the conflicts and sectarian violence cited above. With the exception of Ahmadi dispute, all other religious disputes among the different religious schools of thought were very old and every one of them, to date, considers their faiths as the correct one.

After creation of Pakistan these disputes became more prominent and began turning violent. However, one thing was common among all these acts of violence; most of them were politically motivated. The Ahrar’s anti-Ahmadi movement never demanded any enactment of blasphemy laws in the beginning. It was a later development that was presumably shaped up after the Ahmadis were declared non-Muslims in 1974. Irrespective of the causes of motivations, the enactment of these laws also created a rift between the fundamentalists and liberals and the worst case of this conflict occurred in the form of the brutal murder of the Governor of Punjab, Salman Taseer, on 4th January 2011, and the Minister for Religious Affairs, Shahbaz Bhatti, on 2nd March 2011. One section of the society rejoiced at these incidents and garlanded the perpetrator for committing this heroic deed; the other loathed and mourned the incident in as harsh words as they could[68], a kind of reminiscent of pre-partition India when the killers of Hindu blasphemers were treated by a section of the Muslims as their heroes.

It was basically the absence of an appropriate law to handle blasphemy offenses committed in the written format that led the British India Government to introduce the Blasphemy Law 295-A in 1927. The cause was a few sacrilegious offences committed by one religious community that offended the other community who, as a result, reacted in manner that caused murders or communal riots. What we learnt from such experiences is simple: as long as the possibilities of an offense and its reaction exist there is a need to have a law to provide legal course for the people to deal with such cases and thus maintain law and order in the society. To demand repeal of this law means no such offences and reactions are in practice now and the law has become redundant. Unfortunately, this is not the case in Pakistan. Within last two months (July – 21 August 2012), the following incidents of blasphemy occurred in Pakistan:

Muslims

1 person Burnt alive in Bahawalpur (Mentally challenged)

1 person Severely beaten by mob in Faisalabad

4 persons Arrested for burning alive a mentally challenged person accused of blasphemy

Christians

1 person Accused of burning the pages of the Holy Quran in Lahore

1 person A mentally challenged (11 years old girl) burnt the Holy scriptures in Islamabad

Ahmadis

1 person Arrested for posing as Muslims in Sargodha

1 grave White-washed the Quranic verses from the grave

A rough estimate of the persons that have been accused is more than 1,000[69] from the date the additional clauses in the Blasphemy Law were added during military dictator, General Zia.

No Muslim country in the world offers such a large number of offences against the blasphemy law and with such a quick frequency. According to the data available on Wikipedia website, only 43 blasphemy cases have been reported so far in seven Muslim countries that include Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iran, Afghanistan, UAE, Bangladesh, and Yemen. All these cases took place at different dates during the last two or three decades and not in two months as we observed in the case of Pakistan. Despite having nine different blasphemy laws in the country carrying punishments from death to life imprisonment we are unable to ensure that people should resort to legal means instead of taking the law into their own hands and commit crime of killing an alleged blasphemer extra-judicially. The whole intent and purpose of having a law to deal with an offence through legal means appears to have lost its credibility in Pakistan and it is the crux of the whole problem that surrounds the Blasphemy Law in the country.

A study of blasphemy law 295C

Those who support the Blasphemy Law keep digging for reasons and Quranic injunctions that can legitimize the death penalty to a blasphemer irrespective of his intent, mental health, and willingness to repent his contemptuous act solemnly. The Supreme Court verdict in favour of the death penalty as recommended by the Federal Shariat Court (FSC) is used as an authentic reference in support of the death penalty against blasphemy charges. However, what one finds very surprising is that no other articles other than the ones that support death penalty are quickly picked up by the supporters to plead their case for continuing with the death penalty. Does that petition talks of death only? Let’s take a look at the verdict in details:

Six out of seven religious leaders that were invited as jurist consults to assist the SC in this case that supported the death sentence in Blasphemy Law 295-C agreed with the sentence. However, three out of these six consenting religious leaders further added that in case repentance is shown by the offender the sentence should be waived while another leader stated that even lesser punishment could be given. It means out of seven jurist consults, four had supported to make repentance as a part of the penalty to be applied for PPC 295-C. Likewise there are several clauses in the same verdict that suggest different types of penalties for blasphemy cases. Let’s take a look at the clauses that carry punishment different from death (Refer attachment A for complete petition):

P L D 1991 Federal Shariat Court 10

Before Gul Muhammad Khan, CJ., Abdul Karim Khan Kundi, Ibadat Yar Khan,

Abdul Razzak A. Thahim and Fida Muhammad Khan, JJ

Muhammad Ismail Qureshi versus Federation of Pakistan

This Court issued public notices and also requested some jurist consults to assist. The case was heard at Lahore. Karachi and Islamabad on so many dates and had the assistance of the following Jurisconsults:–

(1) Maulana Subhan Mahmood Sahib.

(2) Maulana Mufti Ghulam Sarwar Qadri Sahib.

(3) Maulana Hafiz Salahuddin Yousaf Sahib.

(4) Maulana Muhammad Abdo-hu Al-Falah Sahib.

(5) Maulana Syed Abdul Shakoor Sahib.

(6) Maulana Fazle Hadi Sahib and

(7) Maulana Saeed-ud-Din Sherkoti Sahib.

Out of the above, the following supported the plea taken by the petitioner to say that sentence of death is only sentence for this offence:

(1) Maulana Subhan Mahmood Sahib.

(2) Maulana Mufti Ghulam Sarwar Qadri Sahib.

(3) Maulana Harz Salahuddin Yousaf Sahib.

(4) Maulana Muhammad Abdo-hu Al-Falah Sahib.,

(5) Maulana Syed Abdul Shakoor Sahib and

(6) Maulana Fazle Hadi Sahib.

The following further stated that in case repentance is shown by the offender the sentence would be waived:

(1) Maulana Subhan Mahmood Sahib.

(2) Maulana Mufti Ghulam Sarwar Qadri Sahib and

(3) Maulana Hafiz Salahuddin Yousaf Sahib.

Maulana Saeed-ud-Din Sherkoti, however, stated that even lesser punishment could be given.

Non-Muslim Vs Muslim: Clause 27 & 31: “….the punishment of contemnor of the Prophet is death, if he is Muslim…”

Repentance: Clause 6: “… repentance of the contemner can be accepted.”

Intention and motive: Clauses: 38, 44, 45, 46, 47, 49, 50, 53, 55, 57, 58, 60, & 62: “…difference between criminal intent and the motive of crime,”

Pardon to a contemnor: Clauses 5, 10, 26, 64:

Doubts: Clause 48: “waives the penalty of Hadd if any doubt occurs”

Different meanings of words: Clause 34: “the interpretation of the words which bear different meanings and senses changes with the change of circumstances and occasions.”

Avoid punishment to innocent: Clause 60: “The mistake of qazi (judge) in releasing a criminal is better than his mistake in punishing an innocent.”

Different punishment for male, female, and non-Muslim: In clause 4, Maulana Subhan Mahmood consented with the Jurists on death penalty against the offender but, maintained that the punishment of life imprisonment can be given to a woman offender or a non-Muslim of the Holy Prophet.

Respect for other Prophets: Clause 68: A clause may further be added to this section so as to make the same acts or things when said about other Prophets, also offence with the same punishment as suggested above.

Despite having 24 out of 65 clauses against the death penalty, no consideration was given to these alternate punishments and the verdict went in favor of nothing but ‘death’ only. The clauses dealing with intent, male/female difference, and innocence found no value and interestingly the clause 68 suggesting “to make the same acts or things when said about other Prophets, also offence with the same punishment as suggested above” still remains unimplemented. We all talk of democracy that calls for accommodation of different ideas and demands equal rights for the opponents. These principles seem to have been neglected in this case.

Without doubting the intent and purpose of the petitioners, the next question that the announcement of death penalty raises now is; “Could this death penalty prevent people from taking the law into their own hands, discourage them from committing offense of passing derogatory remarks against the Holy Prophet, and once such offenses are committed what methods people adopt in handling such offenses – legal ones or illegal ones?” In a preface to Namoos-i-Risalat, an account of the making of 295-C by Advocate Ismail Qureshi, Al Faisal Publishers, Lahore, 1994, former Supreme Court judge and former president Rafiq Tarar declared: “If this law is not there the doors to courts will be closed on the culprits and the petitioners provoked by them, and then everyone will take the law in his own hands and exact revenge from the criminals. As a result anarchy will prevail in the country.” In 1994, the Lahore High Court declared that if Section 295-C of the PPC were struck down, the old system of killing a culprit on the spot could be revived. [70] Can the claim that Section 295-C prevents non-state violence against blasphemers and suspects survive an empirical study? No one has ever been executed for blasphemy under court orders. On the other hand there is a long list of suspects/accused/convicts killed precisely in the manner 295-C was supposed to prevent.

It is evident from the remarks of the former president of Pakistan, Rafiq Tarar, that the real intent behind the enactment of PPC295C was to refrain people from taking the law in their own hands and thus eliminate or reduce the chances of violence and anarchy. However, an acting Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court, Justice Mian Nazir Akhtar, took a position on blasphemy law that was completely in defiance of the previous positions of the judiciary:

In 2000, Justice Nazir Akhtar, said that no one had authority to pardon blasphemy and that anyone accused of blasphemy should be killed on the spot, as a religious obligation[71].

Let’s put aside this comment for a while and talk about some other controversies attached to the blasphemy law PPC295C that need to be evaluated first.

Back in 1990, when the petition for death penalty against 295C was under review of FSC, the petitioner Mohammad Ismail Qureshi submitted that the “…the alternative punishment of life imprisonment This statement appears to be in conflict with the available facts. Life imprisonment doesn’t appear to be the basis of all legislations in Pakistan. This credit goes to Mr Mohammad Ismail Qureshi that all harsh punishments were initiated by his efforts. Yet, with the exception of PPC295B and 295C no other blasphemy law carries life imprisonment as an alternate punishment. Here are the punishments as prescribed by the different blasphemy laws.

Punishments of blasphemy laws in Pakistan and other Muslim countries

Pakistan penal codes for blasphemy laws and their punishments

PPC295: Two years, or with fine, or with both (Enacted during British Raj)

PPC295A: Ten years[73], or with fine, or with both (Enacted during British Raj, modified by Zia)

PPC295-B: Imprisonment for life (Enacted during Zia rule)

PPC295-C: Death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to a fine (Enacted during Zia rule)

PPC296: One year, or with fine, or with both (Enacted during British Raj)

PPC298: One year, or with fine, or with both (Enacted during British Raj)

PPC298-A: Three years, or with fine, or with both (Enacted during Zia rule)

PPC298-B: Three years, and shall also be liable to fine. (Enacted during Zia rule)

PPC298-C: Three years and shall also be liable to fine. (Enacted during Zia rule)

Even if we look at the similar penal codes of Bangladesh and India, we find that the life imprisonment was not the basis of those legislations as well. Bangladesh, being an Islamic country and the birth place of the All India Muslim League, is still far behind Pakistan in adopting the four blasphemy laws that the military dictator General Ziaul Haq promulgated in Pakistan. In addition, the blasphemy laws and punishments in other Muslim countries are also included for the readers to know the difference between the blasphemy laws followed in Pakistani and other Muslim countries:

Bangladesh penal codes for blasphemy laws and their punishments[74]

295: Two years, or with fine, or with both

295A: Two years, or with fine, or with both

296: One year, or with fine, or with both

298. One year, or with fine, or with both

Indian penal codes for blasphemy laws and their punishments

295: 2 years, or fine, or both[75]

295A: 3 years, or fine, or both[76]

296: 1 year, or fine, or both[77]

298. 1 year, or fine, or both[78]

Malaysian penal codes for blasphemy laws and their punishments

Articles 295-298A of the Malaysian Penal Code provides penalties for those who commit offenses against religion. The penalties range fromup to three years in prison or a fine of up to US$1,000 (approximately).[79]

Indonesian penal codes for blasphemy laws and their punishments

Article 156(A) of the penal code, which stipulates up to five years in prison for anyone who publicly shows “enmity” or “abuses or stains” a religion adhered to in Indonesia, or prevents other people from adhering to such a religion.[80]

Article 157 of Indonesian Penal Code states whoever prints hate-inciting materials in words or pictures which can trigger horizontal conflicts will face a jail term up to two years and six months.[81]

Iran’s penal codes for blasphemy laws and their punishments

Article 513- Anyone who insults the Islamic sanctities or any of the imams or Her Excellency Sadigheh Tahereh should be executed if his insult equals to speaking disparagingly of Prophet Muhammad. Otherwise, should beimprisoned from one to five years.[82]

Chapter 7: Use and misuse of the blasphemy laws

In a speech that the former Lahore High Court (LHC) chief justice (CJ) Mian Nazir Akhtar delivered at the Jamaat Ahl-e-Sunnat Pakistan (JAP) Central Secretariat on 13 December 2010 he drew two important points to the attention of his audience:

He said that parliament had no right to amend blasphemy laws and if it happened, it would be un-Islamic and Muslims would take the law in their hands and kill people involved in such an act. The former LHC CJ said that after introducing Article 295-C, nobody had been hanged for implementing the law and Islamic history was studied, 100 people were awarded death sentences for committing blasphemy. It is not justice to abolish any law and if it is being misused, we should try to stop such a practice. [83].

Let’s take a look at the blasphemy related events that occurred after the enactment of the four blasphemy laws that were initiated by Zia-ul-Haq and later revised during the democratic government of Nawaz Sharif.

The Pakistan Penal Code PPC295C was inserted in 1982 with punishment of life imprisonment or fine. Later, an amendment to this law was made in 1986 to reflect punishment as “death or life imprisonment”. On 30th April 1991, the punishment of life imprisonment was replaced with “death only” by court order of 30th October 1990 though the Pakistan Penal Codes available on the website still reflect punishment for PPC295C as “death or life imprisonment” and not as “death only”[84].

Unprecedented rise of blasphemy cases

In forty years from 1947 to 1986, the number of blasphemy cases filed in the courts was only eight. After promulgation of blasphemy laws PPC 295B, 295C in 1984 and 1985, this number multiplied and touched the figure of 243.

The cases whose record is not available are stated to be over 1,000 or so. We are now having nine blasphemy cases every year after 1987 as against only eight cases in 30 years preceding 1987. The graph below shows how constantly the trend is going upward.

From the time of the British Raj to the time of transfer of power to the Muslims in Pakistan, seven blasphemy cases were recorded. After creation of Pakistan, the picture now looks more dismal than what it was during the British Raj.

1713 – 1851 1 blasphemy case in almost 140 years

1851 – 1947 6 blasphemy cases in 95 years

1947 – 1987 8 blasphemy cases in 40 years

1987 – Aug 2012 247 blasphemy cases in 35 years that affected nearly 434 persons.

This data is based on the information that is reliable and accessible. A large number of people affected of similar accusation are suspected to have remained beyond the reach of the news media. However, whatever information is available shows a picture that is very dismal and disappointing.

During the British Raj, only two persons, Mahashay Rajpal and Nathuramal Sharma accused of blasphemy, were extrajudicially murdered. After the creation of Pakistan and enactment of these additional blasphemy laws, the number of people extra-judicially murdered has now gone up to 59 persons including men, women, children, and old men. Murder of 59 persons within 22 years means at least 2 persons on the average were extra-judicially killed every year. Some of them were killed soon after their acquittal from the court, an act that was criminal as well as contemptuous to the court, but failed to motivate the court to take a suo moto action or force the government to form a committee to investigate all such cases and seek opinion from the judiciary, clergy, and the public as to how such illegal acts be precluded in the future.

Total Deaths – blasphemy related 1990 – July 2012 Male Female Children Old Total Accused (Mob resorted to violence against the blasphemy accused) 3 3 3 9 Death in prison 4 1 5 Extra Judicial 38 3 2 43 Lynching 1 1 Suicide 1 1 Total 47 7 3 2 59

Not a single Muslim was ever accused or convicted of committing blasphemy during 200 years of British Raj in India. The known blasphemy cases in Pakistan show that from 1953 to July 2012, there were 434 offenders of blasphemy laws in Pakistan and among them 258 were Muslims (Sunni/Shia), 114 Christians, 57 Ahmadis, and 4 Hindus. From zero Muslim offenders during British Raj, the figure went up to 258 Muslim offenders in a country that was created in the name of the very religion.

To be more precise, this unprecedented growth in the number of offenders began from 1987 and within less than 30 years (1987–July 2012), 426 persons were reported to have been apprehended under this law and 251 were the Muslims among them. According to many other press reports, the number of blasphemy accused is much higher than the number reported in this study. The reason I didn’t use the figures reported in different reports and columns on the subject is that there is no document to prove their authenticity. A report appeared in the Express Tribune of 13 December 2010 listed about 1,038 persons as accused of blasphemy law till that date[93]. Another article that appeared in the Express Tribune on 27 August 2012, reported 1,058 blasphemy cases[94]. According to the factual data that I have for the period beginning from 1 Jan 2011 to 12 July 2012, shows that nearly 219 persons were accused of blasphemy during this period alone.

Minorities as the highest blasphemers

Although the number of people belonging to minority communities accused of blasphemy appears to be lower than the number of Muslims, the percentage of the population turns this lower number into a figure that is many times higher than the number of Muslim offenders of this law.

Table 2: Source: Court cases and newspaper reports

From 1953 – Jul 2012 No of Cases No. of Persons Sunni Christian Hindus Ahmadis Shia Total No. of Minority Balochistan 3 9 3 6 6 Islamabad 5 11 3 8 8 KPK 9 10 7 1 1 1 3 Punjab 157 271 131 99 37 4 140 Sindh 37 42 28 3 3 7 1 14

Desecration of Holy places by the Muslims

Blasphemy law PPC295 prohibits desecration of any holy place and the offender is liable for punishment of two years. During British Raj not a single Muslim’s holy place was ever desecrated by any Muslim in India whereas in Pakistan nearly 84 holy places were desecrated by the extremist Muslim groups.

Table 3: Source: SATP and local newspaper reports

Holy Places Desecrated during 2001- Feb 2011 (Wikipedia & Exp. Tribune) No. Of Holy Places Killed Injured Attack Bomb Suicide Clash Mosque 41 582 1099 19 12 10 Imambargah (Shia mosques) 20 271 858 4 6 10 Ahmadi Mosque 3 104 112 2 1 Shia Procession 4 158 613 1 2 1 Sufi Shrine 9 183 456 1 2 5 1 Church 6 32 86 4 2 Medressah (Religious seminary) 1 11 1 Total 84 1341 3224 32 24 27 1

Sectarian violence among Muslim sects

No sectarian clash between different Muslim sects was ever reported during British Raj in India. In Pakistan, sectarian violence has now become a routine incident and a data from 2001 – October 2011 shows that no part of the country was safe from it. The number of deaths due to sectarian violence is 1,843 persons during the above period:

Table 4: Source: SATP and local newspaper reports

Deaths due to Sectarian Violence in Pakistan – 2001 – October 2011 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Oct 2011 Total Balochistan 58 42 36 6 5 106 104 357 FATA 5 1 4 179 14 203 AJK 15 15 Islamabad 5 20 25 KPK 2 17 112 97 187 117 11 543 Punjab 16 22 2 31 8 84 291 64 518 Sindh 1 10 44 8 4 30 78 7 182 Total 16 28 70 117 74 17 117 108 325 771 200 1843

In undivided India, the conflict was between Hindu and Muslim. In Pakistan, it took one step forward and became Muslims versus Muslims conflict as well.

If we look at other Muslim countries we find that in Indonesia where religious fundamentalism has started making inroads, the perpetrators of extrajudicial killings of Ahmadis or Christians are, to this date, not allowed to go unpunished.

Therefore, the rule of law needs speedy trials and application of the prescribed punishment to the culprits that indulge into lawlessness in the name of religion. Any leniency, deviation, or inordinate delay in dispensing the judgment, as is observed in many blasphemy cases in Pakistan, result in encouraging rather than curbing the illegal practices.

Chapter 8: Blasphemy cases before and after creation of Pakistan

Muslim blasphemers

No female was accused of blasphemy in the undivided India during British Raj. In Pakistan, after the introduction of more stringent blasphemy laws during General Zia-ul-Haq regime, we witnessed at least fifty 50 females being accused of blasphemy in the whole country. It happened within a short period of only 12 years from 1999 to July 2012. Among these female blasphemers, the highly affected were the members of minority community. Only 9 women were Muslims and the remaining 41 women were belonging to Christian (30 femals), Ahmadis (9), Budhist (1), and Hindu (1) faiths. Even some of these females were extra-judicially murdered too; one mentally disabled Muslim woman was burnt alive in Rahim Yar Khan in 1999, one Christian woman Naseem Bibi died mysteriously in Kot Lakhpat Jail in 2003, three (3) Christian women were killed during the riot in Gojra triggered by an accusation of blasphemy in 2009, and one Christian woman was killed by her former husband because of her conversion from Christianity to Islam.

Teenager blasphemers

Teenagers, both boys and girls, are also accused of committing blasphemy. It also began happening after the promulgation of blasphemy law during Zia era and majority of these cases took place in Punjab. Here are the details:

1993 – November 21: Mianwali, Riaz Ahmad, his son, and two nephews from the Ahmadi community were arrested in Mianwali District for their blasphemous remarks. (Dawn)

18 Oct 04: Wah Cantt: A Christian, Tasneem Dean’s family forced to flee their home in Wah Cantt in Punjab province after their 11-year-old daughter accidentally put a copy of the Koran in garbage. (Daily Times)

2006 – September 21: Punjab, Shahid Masih, 17 years old accused of ripping pages of the Holy Quran. Judge Muhammad Abdul Sattar acquitted him after one year of jail. (Dawn)

September 15, 2009: Sialkot, A 19-year-old Christian from a village near Sialkot was found dead in jail. “Robert” Fanish Masih had been in jail since September 11th, accused under Section 295-B. (Daily Times)

2009 – January 28: Layah, The Punjab police arrested a labourer and four students for blasphemy, all of whom were Ahmadis. (Four Ahmadi boys from Layyah, Punjab province, aged 14 to 16, were arrested in Layah. (Dawn)

11 Dec 10: Kulluwall, Punjab, Teenaged Muslim named Muhammad Shafique was sentenced to hang for cursing the Prophet Muhammad and tossing pages of the Koran onto “cow dung and urine.” two years ago in 2008. (Washington Post)

12 Jan 11: Muzaffargarh, Punjab, Mohammad Shafi, 45, and his son Mohammad Aslam, 20, were arrested in April last year for removing a poster outside their grocery shop advertising an Islamic event in a nearby village which allegedly contained Koranic verses. (AFP)

30 Jan 11: Karachi, Syed Samiullah, 17 year old made blasphemous remarks in answer sheets of physics and Islamic studies. (Dawn)

01/12/2011: Khushab, Punjab, Sajeel Ahmed, 18, Rana Hakim Jameel, Father and Headmaster accused the son for committing blasphemy and his father for registering his son as a Muslim in the school. (Express Tribune)

26 Jun 12: Quetta, Angry protesters, mostly Afghan refugees, torched several vehicles and pelted police with stones,” The clash left two children dead and 19 people wounded including eight policemen. (The Express Tribune)

Aug 18, 2012: Islamabad: An 11-eleven-year old Christian girl was accused of blasphemy and arrested for allegedly burning pages of a Noorani Qaida, a booklet used to learn the basics of the Holy Quran.[95]

Conclusion

What we are witnessing now has no precedence in the history of pre-Zia Pakistan and of the undivided India. The whole movement of separate homeland for the Muslims of India now appears to have lost its credence and direction. What Maulana Abul Kalam had said in his message is proving to be very relevant; “I fear it may happen that it may not be possible for you to save your own imaan.[98]” Do we want to continue proving him right or put a stop to it by taking another look at the facts provided in this report and decide what steps we need to take to put us back into the right direction? What’s the purpose of having laws when people are not made to follow them? What’s the purpose of repealing any law when people are allowed to make their own law and implement it the way they like it? Here are a few examples of cases where different human acts were interpreted as blasphemous:

Calling a human made law as “black law”[99], design of a worship place of Ahmadis[100], throwing a visiting card in the dust bin[101], quote from the Holy Quran by a Christian Pastor[102], acquittal of an accused blasphemer by the Court[103], taking a stand against the police[104], naming a child[105], spelling error[106], condemning a kidnapping of a son of an alleged blasphemer[107], cloth manufacturing[108], taking down religious banners/posters[109], and raising religious slogans[110].

These are a few incidents of self-made allegations of blasphemy against different people and most of them had support and blessing of a Pesh Imam or a Qari. Such incidents are constantly growing and unless a decision is taken to either such self-motivated actions should be condemned by Ulema and judiciary or they be made a part of blasphemy law if our law makers, Ulema, and judiciary agree to it. The ATC decision in the case of Salman Taseer’s murder can be a good source of guidance. It reads:

… Firstly, can a person who is leading a sinful life be termed an apostate? Secondly, if he is deemed an apostate, then who will execute him? Obviously individuals cannot be given the authority to judge someone an apostate, infidel or non-Muslim. Moreover, individuals can not be allowed to execute the punishment on such persons because it will pave the way for anarchy, turmoil, restlessness and lawlessness in society.[111]

A study on any social problem can perform only one duty in every society; to show the mirror to the people and let them decide if they find their image acceptable. If the society wants to carry on with the image that the mirror reflects, nobody can make them change their ways. If this report helps the relevant people like politicians, judiciary, and religious authorities in the country to revisit their position on this disputed issue and take some measures to bring an end to the blatant misuse of the blasphemy law, it will be a great satisfaction for all the hard work that went into the production of this report.

The Justice Munir’s report on the Punjab Disturbance of 1953 refers to a comment of the Lahore High Court that it included in its judgement for rejecting the appeal of a widow of an extrajudicially murdered Ahmadi schoolmaster that said:

“…any recurrence of this species of crime [extrajudicial murder because of religious hatred], which tends to bring religion into disrepute and to make it the laughing stock of the world, might induce us to take a different view and revert to the normal sentence for murder.[112]”

To this date, nearly 52 persons have been extra-judicially murdered that include judge, governor, maulanas, men, women, mentally challenged persons, and even teenagers of 11 to 17 years of age. Isn’t it enough number of cases for the judiciary to take a different view of this species of crime now?

mit jaye gi makhlook tu insaaf kero gaye munsif ho tu ab hasher utha kuon nahin dete? (Faiz)

Attachment – A

– P L D 1991 Federal Shariat Court 10

– Before Gul Muhammad Khan, CJ., Abdul Karim Khan Kundi, Ibadat Yar Khan,

– Abdul Razzak A. Thahim and Fida Muhammad Khan, JJ

– MUHAMMAD ISMAIL QURESHI versus Federation of PAKISTAN

– Shariat Petition No.6/L of 1987, decided on 30th October, 1990.

– JUDGMENT GUL MUHAMMAD KHAN, CJ. —–This order shall also dispose of Shariat Petition No. 1/L of 1984 and S.S. M. No. 106/87 on the same point. Petitioner Muhammad Ismail Qureshi, Advocate, challenges section 295-C of the Pakistan Penal Code which was enacted vide Ordinance I of 1988. Earlier, the same petitions had moved a similar application (Shariat Petition No. 1/L of 1984) but before, it could be decided the legislature, of its own, amended the law and inducted section 259-C, P.P.C., referred to above. The petitioner feeling unsatisfied even with that has approached this Court. Section 295-C reads as under:

“Section 295-C. Use of derogatory remarks etc. in respect of the Holy Pry–Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representation, or by any imputation, innuendo, or insinuation, directly or indirectly, defiles the sacred name of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (p.b.u.h.) shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.”

2. The precise objection taken against this provision is that the alternate punishment of life imprisonment therein is repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Holy Qur’an and Sunnah of the Holy Prophet (p.b.u.h.). The contention raised is that any disrespect or use of derogatory remarks etc. in respect of the Holy Prophet (p.b.u.h.) comes within the purview of hadd and the punishment of death provided in the Holy Quran and Sunnah cannot be altered. The learned counsel had relied on Verse 13 of Surah Anfal, Verse 65 of Surah Al-Nisa in this regard. The learned counsel also referred to some Traditions of the Holy Prophet (p.b.u.h.) in support of his plea to plead that the sentence of death only is the punishment and no Court shall be given the authority, to pronounce the lesser sentence of life imprisonment.

3. This Court issued public notices and also requested some Jurisconsults to assist.

4. Maulana Subhan Mahmood relied upon Verses 9:65 and 66, 33:57, 49:2, 2:217, 5:75. 39:1, 65, 47:28. He has related some Ahadith and juristic opinions wherein the contemner has been considered an apostate. He has further relied upon a Hadith related on the authority of Abu Qulabah wherein the punishment of contemner has been prescribed as death. He has also relied upon the Hadith related by Oazi Ayaz that Holy Prophet said “Kill the person who abuses the Prophet and whip the one who abuses his companions.” He also relied upon Ahadith that the Holy Prophet (p.b.u.h.) had punished his contemners with death. He also referred to the consensus of opinion of the Jurists that the punishment of contemner is death. He further maintained that the punishment of life imprisonment can be given to a woman contemner or a non-Muslim contemner of the Holy Prophet (p.b.u.h.).

5. Maulana Mufti Ghulam Sarwar Qadri, relied upon Verses 49:57, 9:65,66, 9:61-62. 58:8, 33:57, 4:65, 2:104 of the Holy Quran and some Ahadith to say that punishment of death only is prescribed for contemner. He also referred to the Ahadith wherein the Holy Prophet (p.b.u.h.) had pardoned his contemners. He also cited verses of Holy Ouran and also Ahadith of the Holy Prophet (p.b.u.h.) to argue that they are clear on the point that repentance is acceptable in any offence. Reference was also made to the sayings of the prominent Hanfi Jurists specially` Ibri Abidin and concluded that the repentance of the contemner is acceptable and this is the preferred view of Hanafi Jurists.

6. Maulana Harz Salahuddin Yousaf relied upon the views of Hanfi Jurists that the repentance of the contemner can be accepted and thereafter he will not be given the punishment of death. He also cited verses of Holy Quran and Ahadith of the Holy Prophet (p.b.u.h.), particularly, a Hadith related on the authority of Ibn Abbas that Holy Prophet (p.b.u.h.) said, “Kill the person who changes his religion (Islam):” In his view a Muslim contemner becomes an apostate and so must be condemned to death. He also quoted opinion of Ibn Taimiyyah that the 