Home Monthly Newsreports Summary 2000

 CONTENTS 

Foreword Murdered only for their Faith Sentenced under Religious Laws Prisoners of Conscience Prosecution on the basis of Religion goes on Joint Electorate - corruption of the term Life and Property under Attack Denial of Freedom of Faith Hostile Administration Discrimination and Harassment in Education Section Miscellaneous Mad Mullahs Unworthy Role of the Vernacular Press Conclusion  Annexes  Particulars of Cases Registered on Religious Grounds against Ahmadis The Gazette of Pakistan - Chief Executive's Order No. 15 of 2002 Pictures of an Ahmadiyya Mosque in ruins Which Country? A letter by an Ahmadi to the editor of the Friday Times Persecution of Ahmadis in Pakistan. Some Statistics and Information for 2002

Persecution of Ahmadis was adopted as a matter of state policy in 1984 when the general-president Zia promulgated Ordinance XX. Since then, life has never been as before for the beleaguered Community. When Zia perished in an air crash in 1988, Ahmadis expected an end to the persecution, but that was not to be. The succeeding democratic governments, pursuing their own political interests, provided no relief and the anti-Ahmadiyya laws remained in place - so did the tyranny of the state. Persecution Reports kept on appearing year after year. After 11 years of democratic governments, came the military coup by General Musharraf. After take over, the General uttered some bold words in public about human rights and good governance. One thought that perhaps from then on, the administration and the society will change course to follow a fair path, the persecution of marginalized sections of the society will diminish, and perhaps there would be no need for any more Annual Reports of persecution of the Ahmadiyya Community. Alas, these hopes did not materialize. Ever bigger reports saw the print during the years of the military regime. In the year 2000, more Ahmadis were murdered for their faith than in any previous year since 1974. Ahmadis were still arrested and prosecuted under the notorious discriminatory laws. Then happened the 9/11, followed by the Afghanistan War of 2001. These were major events. They had a temporary bearing and effect on the plight of Ahmadis in Pakistan.

In the Afghanistan War, the mullah suffered major setbacks in that country. He was exposed and nearly destroyed. His colleagues in Pakistan, across the border, also came under pressure and had to run for cover. The General picked up the courage and made a bold speech on January 12, 2002, in which he spoke against terrorism, obscurantism and the evil of religious extremism. The mullah found the whole world, including the government at Islamabad, critical of most that he stood for. He went on the defensive. He decided to lie low even in his pursuit of Ahmadis. This provided some relief to them after many years, but it lasted only a few months during the first half of 2002. Then came the election season and the time to switch over to an apparently democratic dispensation. From then on, political imperatives took the front row, while higher values like human rights of Ahmadis were put on the back burner with no qualms. It became obvious that the General would not allow the Ahmadiyya issue adversely affect his scanty vote bank.

President Musharraf visited the U.S. in February 2002. At the end of his lecture at Woodrow Wilson International Centre someone asked him if Ahmadis would be allowed to become part of the mainstream through Joint Electorate. He replied that he had not thought of this so far, and that he had so many bullets to bite (The daily DAWN, Feb 14, 2002). The President's reluctance to even show that he was aware of the problem was indicative of his resolve to do nothing to eradicate the institutional discrimination against Ahmadis. In the same month, Chaudhry Shujaat, now President of PML(Q), met the President at Islamabad, and thereafter he told the press that the President had undertaken that while amending the constitution, no amendment will be made to any clause of Islamic laws (The daily JANG, Lahore; February 8, 2002). Thus, politicians and the military started pulling together for their immediate interests. As if that was not enough, Mr Aziz A. Khan of the Foreign Office was told to state in his press briefing that “the laws concerning the status of Qadianis as non-Muslims and the Blasphemy will remain in force” (The daily Jang, Rawalpindi; Feb 19, 2002). And they did.

To cut a long story short, the president and his team catered for the sensitivities of the mullah even at the cost of appearing waggish. On the Ahmadiyya issue, every time the mullah voiced a concern, the government responded favorably beyond his expectations. Local government elections were held under Separate Electorate system. This denied Ahmadis any role in the management of their own town, Rabwah. In June 2002, in order to reassure the mullah, the President issued an Order restating that the status of Ahmadis etc had remained unchanged. The President declared in those days that the forthcoming national elections would be held as Joint Electorate. However, an indignant mullah stood up during a Conference at Islamabad and confronted the President with the question of its bearing on Ahmadis. The President placated the cleric by reassuring him that the needful would be done. And, surely enough, a few days later a presidential order came out that notwithstanding the Joint Electorate, Ahmadis would be put on a Separate List of non-Muslims. It was ridiculous. Political terminology was being corrupted and given a new meaning.

These developments encouraged the mullah greatly. He entered the election foray with confidence. Ahmadis had been neutralized. The military was acting deferential towards him. The mullah had a field day on October 12. He made great gains in the national elections. In the government or in opposition, he would now wield political power. Maulana Fazlur Rahman (of MMA and JUI) declared that now recommendations of the Islamic Ideology Council would be enforced. The mullah now felt on top of the wave. A gang of extremists loaded their weapons, entered an Ahmadi doctor's clinic in Rahim Yar Khan and murdered him. Another mullah, Imtiaz Shah, only a few days later stabbed an Ahmadi in broad daylight in the bazaar of Faisalabad and told the police that he had only done his religious duty. Ahmadis are back at square one.

Here is another Annual Report in this apparently never-ending series. Ahmadis are apprehensive that next year it may not become more voluminous and painful, as the hell of mullah's appetite is boundless, the establishment is too willing to collaborate with him and the leverage of law remains conveniently available.

Murder is a convenient tool with extremists to cause suffering to the Ahmadiyya Community. Traditionally, murderers of Ahmadis are rarely apprehended by the police, and if caught they are generally declared Not Guilty or let off lightly by the courts. Murders are often arranged by the religious establishment through paid killers, while sometimes these are undertaken by religious extremists themselves who declare that they have done a religious duty. The mullah openly instigates his followers on loud speakers to commit murder of Ahmadis, but the authorities never take action against him. Potential murderers, who give open threats to Ahmadis and are found stalking them, are reported to the authorities but they take no action against them - as happened at Faisalabad.

Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Mohsin of Pir Mahal, District T.T. Singh

Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Mohsin, Ahmadi, was murdered at his home sometimes at night on January 10, 2002 by an unidentified killer. Mr. Mohsin had no personal enmity with anyone, however he was an active member of Ahmadiyya community. Most likely, he was targeted by religious extremists. He had received threats to his life in the past. Investigation showed that he was killed prior to bed-time. The assassin shot him from close quarters, as the bullet shot through his left eye, went out of the other side of his skull, and his cerebral matter was found spattered outside. The deceased left behind old parents, a widow, two daughters and a son.

Mr. Maqsud Ahmad of Faisalabad

Mr. Maqsud Ahmad, aged 36, was murdered at his home by unknown assailants at about 0730 on Sunday, September 1, 2002.

As per details available, Mr. Maqsud's family was preparing for breakfast when two armed men entered his house. Maqsud's sister asked them the purpose of their visit, but the intruders told her curtly to keep quiet, and on seeing Mr. Maqsud, opened a burst of fire at him. He was hit in the chest and in the stomach on the right side. One of their accomplices was on guard outside the front door. Having accomplished their grisly act, they fled from the scene of their crime.

The bleeding victim was rushed to the Allied Hospital, but he succumbed to his injuries.

Mr. Maqsud earned his living through tailoring. He was a decent fellow who had no personal vendetta with anybody. He left behind a widow and four orphans - two sons and two daughters, aged 3 to 12 years.

Faisalabad had been simmering with anti-Ahmadiyya religious activity for long. Despite repeated appeals and protests by Ahmadis, the district administration always acted softly towards bearded miscreants - occasionally even supported them.

The retreat of the government on the issue of letting Ahmadis participate in the Joint Electorate seems to have encouraged the anti-Ahmadiyya religious lobby to raise the level of their violence.

Dr. Rashid Ahmad of Rahim Yar Khan

Dr. Rashid Ahmad, an Ahmadiyya Community official was at his clinic at about 13.30 hr on November 9, 2002 when two men entered. One of them shot him with a pistol. The doctor was hit in his neck. The assailants attempted to flee after the attack, however the doctor's assistant managed to catch one of them. At the latter's indication, the police arrested two more. It seems that in all, four individuals were directly involved in the murder attempt. Those arrested were approximately 20 years old. They are religious extremists who have links with the banned Jaish Muhammad. Five accused were later reported to be in police custody for investigation.

Dr. Rashid was taken to the hospital. His wound was deep, and he remained unconscious. Despite all efforts by the doctors to save his life, he succumbed to his fatal injury on 15th November.

Dr. Rashid was a competent orthopedic surgeon. As a good doctor with sympathetic disposition, he was popular and liked even by non-Ahmadis in general. He was survived by a widow and four children. His youngest child was only 11 months old.

Mr. Abdul Waheed of Faisalabad

Imtiaz Shah, an anti-Ahmadi fanatic, notorious for his extremism, stabbed Mr. Abdul Waheed with a dagger, in the bazaar at about 1100 on November 14, 2002, and fled from the scene of his crime. The victim was taken to the hospital where he expired due to the fatal wound. When Abdul Waheed fell, the murderer announced to the people nearby that he had dispatched a Qadiani, and told them not to help the victim. Mr. Waheed lay there unattended for about half an hour before he was shifted to the hospital by one of his relatives. The doctors were of the opinion that had someone brought him to the hospital soon after the attack, his life could have been saved.

Imtiaz Shah was known to the police for his anti-Ahmadi activism. He had indulged in violent acts against Ahmadis in the past also, and Ahmadis had reported this dangerous criminal to the police. The negligent authorities however took a lenient and indulgent view of his conduct, and paid little attention to Ahmadis' reports. This man has a police record and was an absconder in the past. However, he reappeared sometimes ago and remained free to pursue his nefarious activities. He is an ex-secretary of the Islamic Research Committee (Khatame Nabuwwat), Faisalabad.

Mr. Abdul Waheed, the victim was 31 years old. He was married and is survived by his widow and three daughters aged 6, 4 and 2.

According to the daily DAWN of November 16, 2002, Imtiaz Shah courted arrest at the Civil Lines Police Station on Friday morning. According to the police he confessed to the crime during preliminary investigation, saying that he had stabbed to death Qadiani Abdul Waheed as part of his religious duty, the newspaper reported. The sources further claimed that Imtiaz Shah had told the police that he also intended to kill three Qadiani owners of the Al-Karim Medical Store in Gole Chiniot Bazaar, but failed to implement his plan as they were not available at their shop, reported the staff correspondent of the newspaper.

It is reasonable to assume that this sudden increase in tempo and violence in anti-Ahmadiyya campaign during November was the result of the success of the MMA at national elections. Fundamentalists feel very encouraged with the new political scene in the country, and have started taking initiative in this field where they enjoy plenty of immunity.

So long as the anti-Ahmadiyya laws remain in the statute book, most judges, if pushed to give a decision on a case, will find it convenient to sentence Ahmadis to imprisonment.

Three years' Imprisonment under Anti-Ahmadiyya Law at Lodhran

Mr. Hameedullah Bajwah, an ex-President of the Ahmadiyya Community of District Lodhran was sentenced to three years' imprisonment on September 21, 2002, under the Anti-Ahmadiyya law, by Mr. Qamar Ejaz, the Senior Civil Judge at Lodhran. Some details of this case are given below.

Mr. Nisar Ahmad, Mr. Muhammad Sharif and Mr. Bajwah, were charged under the Anti-Ahmadiyya clause PPC 298C and PPC 295A on April 28, 1994 for preaching. Section PPC 295A may invite trial by an Anti-terrorism Court. It is obvious that they did not remotely commit any act of terrorism. However, the charge terrorized them to the core. Mr. Nisar Ahmad, who was in his youthful years died during the long trial, while Mr. Sharif fled abroad to avoid the rigors and stress of a fabricated criminal case that could have landed him in prison for ten years. The authorities declared him an absconder. Mr. Hameedullah Bajwah stayed behind to face the trial that went on for eight long years. Eventually on September 21, 2002 the court sentenced him to three years' imprisonment. The police arrested him and sent him to prison.

An appeal was made in the higher court of Sessions against the sentence. Malik Sharif Ahmad Soz, advocate defended the accused. The Sessions Judge examined the case and acquitted Mr. Bajwah of the charges.

Although Mr. Bajwah was finally acquitted, the price he had to pay in terms of stress and strain and the financial costs over a period of eight years is huge. One of his co-accused died, while the other had to flee from his home and hearth to escape the torturous trial under the repressive laws that are maliciously applied by extremists and upheld by the state.

Ever since the promulgation of anti-Ahmadiyya laws in the country, it has never been that no Ahmadi was behind bars under the provisions of these discriminatory laws. It is often that Ahmadis suffer incarceration without having been found guilty. Their pleas for bail are often refused at various levels of the judicial process and they have to wait behind bars while awaiting or under trial. Such imprisonments have lasted for years in certain cases, although eventually the victims were declared Not Guilty.

Mr Abdul Majid, an octogenarian and a community president is victimized for his faith and placed in prison on absurd charges

On behest of mullahs, the administration registered a criminal case on April 24, 2001 against Mr. Abdul Majid for having a minaret and a niche in the Ahmadiyya mosque of the village and also for keeping copies of the Quran in the mosque. The case was sent unjustifiably to an Anti-terrorism court. The Blasphemy clause, PPC 295B was also applied that carries life imprisonment. Mr. Majid was arrested. The court agreed with the defense plea that no terrorism whatsoever was involved, so the case was not suitable for hearing in the anti-terrorism court. It was, therefore, referred to a normal court.

It is relevant to mention that in Pakistan, there are hundreds of Ahmadiyya mosques that have minarets and niches. The law does not forbid Ahmadis to have a minaret and niche in their places of worship. Mr. Majid informed the court that the minaret and niche were built decades ago. The judge remarked that these should have been demolished, once the anti-Ahmadiyya ordinance was promulgated. Mr. Majid applied for release on bail for the duration of the trial. The judge rejected the plea. Thereafter, Mr. Majid went up to the High Curt for release on bail, but even at that level, his plea was rejected. The case is now pending with the Civil Judge, Leyya. Mr. Majid is suffering in prison for almost two years, although he has not yet been found guilty of the charges. The charges were pushed by intolerant mullahs, and the courts have not mustered the courage to throw out the charge, nor the decency to let the old man out on bail.

Mr. Saggon of Khangarh

Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad Saggon, an Ahmadi, was charged under the anti-Ahmadiyya law PPC 298C on August 31, 2002 and was arrested by the police. The magistrate, Mr. Shafiq Bokhari did not attend to his request for bail for a whole week and decided to reject it on September 11, 2002. Eventually the plea for bail reached the High Court.

The judge at the High Court appeared to be more interested in matters of belief and faith than those of the law. Rather than granting bail, he ordered the presiding magistrate to decide the case expeditiously within three months. Normally in Pakistan, such speed and expediency is demanded of Anti-terrorism Special Courts or in cases where public interest requires firm and rapid process to punish those who are accused of heinous crimes against society. The learned judge's keen desire to dispense an expeditious verdict in this case is suspect.

The Sessions Judge understood the message from above, and rejected the accused's plea for bail, on December 17, 2002.

Mr. Saggon is now in his fifth month of incarceration without being found guilty.

Prisoners of Takht Hazara

On November 11, 2000 a violent mob led by mullahs attacked the Ahmadiyya mosque at Takht Hazara, district Sargodha in the Punjab province. The attacking fanatics, killed five of the Ahmadis present there, damaged various fittings and equipment of the mosque, and then set the place of worship on fire.

The incident was precipitated by a mullah, Athar Shah who was posted there by “The Association for the Protection of Finality of Prophethood,” a fundamentalist organization, with the main object to foment sectarian hatred and trouble against Ahmadis of the village. He formed a gang, damaged Ahmadis' graves, put up anti-Ahmadiyya posters and boards in streets, delivered slanderous speeches and took out processions to cause great communal tension.

On the day of the incident he led his zealots to the Ahmadiyya mosque, and hurled insults at Ahmadi respected leaders. This violation developed into a major attack by a large mob against Ahmadis who were considerably less in numbers and were unable to defend not only their mosque but also their persons. The lynch mob murdered five of them including their local president and a youth 14 years old. They hit the faces of their victims repeatedly with their axes and even cut their throats. It was not easy to recognize them when their dead bodies were handed back subsequently by the police to their kin. The rioters damaged the mosque extensively and set it on fire. There was no loss of life among the assailants.

The police arrived well after all was over. The authorities proceeded to take action against the attackers, and surprisingly against the unsuccessful defenders too. The state prosecution team, under pressure from Islamist mullahs, presented the case to the court in a manner to accuse the victims simultaneously. The judge sentenced four members of the victimized community to 20 years' imprisonment (5 years x 4 times, each). He acquitted mullah Athar Shah, who was the agent provocateur of the incident.

An appeal lies now with Lahore High Court against the sentence. The court has given no date of hearing. These prisoners of conscience are in prison for the last 14 months. Their names are given below:

Nazir Ahmad's Ordeal - in Prison

Nazir Ahmad, an Ahmadi youth who was barely 17 years old when arrested in 1998 was incarcerated in Hyderabad, and was in 4th year of his imprisonment on the new year eve of 2002. His story is heart-rending. Briefly:

In 1998 a small old mud-built mosque stood in the farmland of Mr. Mustafa Khan, an Ahmadi landlord at Nafisnagar, district Umarkot. It was in use by a few Ahmadi and non-Ahmadi peasants, and was in a dilapidated state. Mr. Khan was requested to rebuild the mosque, to which he agreed after consultation with non-Ahmadi users. Arrangements were made accordingly. The old room was demolished and the rebuilding started. An opponent came to know of this and he saw in it sufficient germs of potential mischief. He reported the activity to a mullah in the town who informed others, and all these started crying hoarse that a mosque had been desecrated and destroyed by Qadianis; the Holy Quran was burnt, etc. Ahmadis hurried to take the authorities in confidence, and informed them that nothing of the kind had happened. Officials were taken to the site and were shown the construction in progress. They seemed satisfied. The mullah, however, was not prepared to let the Ahmadis off the hook so easily. He had already informed his mentors at Karachi who are ever ready to cash a cheque of this kind. The incident at Naukot was a follow up of this. There, a violent mob attacked the Ahmadiyya mosque, set it on fire and damaged it extensively. The defending Ahmadis who could not protect their place of worship, were subsequently arrested by the police, and were made to face many years of criminal prosecution. Extensive publicity was given to what had happened at these two places with plenty of disinformation to incite the ignorant masses in other parts of Sind. The authorities were, from then on, firmly directed by high-ups at Islamabad, where Mr. Tarar resided in the Presidential palace. Further actions were based not on facts of the case but on political exigency. In all, twenty-two Ahmadis, including five from Nafisnagar were charged under religious laws, and their cases were referred to Anti-Terrorist courts. Ahmadis who suffered discrimination, lack of protection, attack on their mosque at Naukot and assault on their persons were now exposed to state-terrorism, in that they were taken to the anti-terrorist courts. None of the attackers and assailants was arrested.

As for the Nafees Nagar case, the police was able to arrest only Mr. Nazir Ahmad, a tenant's son. The Anti-terrorist Court Hyderabad awarded 118 years' imprisonment to Mr. Nazir Ahmad and Mr. Allah Rakha on December 26, 2001. Mr. Allah Rakha was absconding, while Mr. Nazir Ahmad remained in prison for blasphemy (defiling the Holy Quran) and religious crimes he did not remotely commit. Later, on appeal to the Sind High Court, the ATA Court reduced the punishment to half. The innocent young man was still faced with a life term in prison.

It is relevant to mention that Nazir was a decent young man at the time of his arrest. He helped his father on the land to carve a living for the poor family. Prior to this fateful incident, he had never been inside a court-room nor even to a police station.

Mr. Ardsher Cowasjee, writer of the flagship column in the daily DAWN, took note of his plight and mentioned him in his topical and commendable article, in the issue of Sunday the 12th May, 2002.

He was acquitted by the High Court on 23 May 2002. He had spent 3 years, eight months and 21 days in prison for a crime he did not commit. The entire episode was fabricated and deliberate religious persecution perpetrated with collusion of the religious and political establishment.

The mullah is well aware that anti-Ahmadiyya clauses, the blasphemy law and other religious laws remain in force, and he knows that if pursued, the authorities have to uphold them, so he avails of these unjust laws to push his unworthy and unjust agenda, and victimizes Ahmadis. Since the promulgation of these laws thousands of Ahmadis have been exposed to their mischief.

The Police registers a Criminal Case on religious grounds

The police registered a criminal case against Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad Saggon, an Ahmadi at Police station Khangarh, district Muzaffargarh on August 31, 2002 under section PPC 298C of the notorious anti-Ahmadiyya law, on accusation of preaching his views. Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad was arrested and put behind bars.

Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad applied for release on bail for duration of the trial. Mr. Shafiq Bokhari, the magistrate did not attend to the plea for a whole week, and decided to reject it on September 11, 2002. An application was then made to the higher court. In the meantime Mr. Saggon waits in prison - it is now the 5th month of his incarceration.

Still another Criminal Case

Mr. Waris Khan of Peshawar, an Ahmadi was arrested by the police on September 2, 2002 at the accusation of a mullah, Anwarul Haq, for preaching. A case was registered against him under PPC 295A and PPC 298C (a clause of the anti-Ahmadiyya law).

The accused Ahmadi applied for bail on September 3, however the judge refused him the bail on September 9. The same plea was then made in the higher Sessions Court. He is now on bail, awaiting trial and decision.

If convicted, the poor fellow could end up in prison for ten years. These fresh cases under religious laws appear to be the result of encouragement given to mullahs by the authorities at Islamabad by changing their policy regarding participation of Ahmadis in national elections in the so-called Joint Electorate system.

Mangat Unche, district Hafizabad; April 5, 2002: Ms. Misbah decided to join the Ahmadiyya Community. At this, one Rana Ataullah went to the police station and reported against Mr. Zulfiqar Ahmad, her Ahmadi husband, that he preached Ahmadiyyat to his (own) wife that resulted in her conversion. The Rana stated that her conversion and rejection of faith in the End of Prophethood had hurt the feelings of Muslims to the core, as such a criminal case should be registered against both the wife and the husband. The police consulted their law officer who conveniently concurred that an offence appears to have been committed. The police station Kassoki thereafter registered a case under FIR 64/2002 under section PPC 298C (the Anti Ahmadiyya law) against Mr. Zulfiqar Ahmad and his wife on April 5, 2002. Both could be awarded 3 years imprisonment for exercising their right to practice and preach the religion of their choice.

Kotli, Azad Kashmir: Ahmadi residents of Bandial Colony have no place to worship and have to travel 10 kilometers to Kotli to offer prayers in a mosque. So they collected contributions and decided to construct a mosque. The plot was offered by Mr. Sher Muhammad, an Ahmadi, from his personal property. Ahmadis took initial steps to start constructing the house of God.

Opponents came to know about it and they rushed to the police station and the forest magistrate, where they found great sympathy for their cause. The magistrate immediately issued a stay order in favour of protestors, while the police station Kotli registered a criminal case under FIR No 104/02 on 10 May 2002 under PPC sections 447, 188, 298 B(4) and 34, against four Ahmadis, and proceeded to arrest them. Mr. Sher Mohammad was arrested and put in police lock-up, while other Ahmadis had to flee to avoid arrest. Mr. Sher Mohammad was later released on bail. Other Ahmadis also applied for bail.

That is the kind of freedom Ahmadis have in Azad (Free) Kashmir to practice their religion.

The Haveli Lakha Case reopened

In November 1999 an unruly mob attacked and destroyed the under-construction house of Dr. Nawaz, an Ahmadi elder of Haveli Lakha, district Okara. The miscreants led by mullahs razed the construction to the ground and took away all the building material from the site. They also attacked, ransacked and looted his main house and put some furniture on fire. Dr. Nawaz and his family saved their lives by jumping from the roof of their housetop on to a neighbor's roof. The police and administration officials were present at the scene of the loot. Subsequently, rather than taking action against the attackers, the police arrested the doctor and his two sons and charged them along with one, Mr. Abdul Qadir, Ahmadi under the provisions of the anti-Ahmadiyya law PPC 298C.

At the time of indiction, the police spared one Ahmadi Mr. Abdul Qadir and let him off the hook of the law for being innocent. However, they did not undertake the formality of having his clearance endorsed by the magistrate. Three years later, in October 2002 the police struck again and arrested the poor fellow. When Mr. Qadir presented them the evidence of the action taken by their predecessors, the police prepared a suitable report and sent it to the civil judge for endorsement. The judge refused to accept the same and told the police to charge the man, and the court would release him only if it found him Not Guilty. Mr. Qadir thus ended up in jail.

Eventually he was released. Such is the level of injustice that Ahmadis have to suffer at the hands of the police, the administration, and the judiciary. Unbelievable!

Prosecution under the Anti-Ahmadiyya Law

Mirpur, Azad Kashmir; April 24, 2002: A few persons from a local non-Ahmadiyya mosque approached Mr. Muhammad Asif, Ahmadi on April 23, and asked him to accompany them to the nearby mosque. Asif, who expected no mischief obliged. On arrival at the mosque, he found that a small crowd had already assembled there to manhandle him. They beat him up and accused him of preaching his religious views.

The next day the police registered a case under the notorious anti-Ahmadiyya law PPC 298C against Asif and arrested him. They also include his father's name in the FIR. They added PPC 108 also to the accusation.

Prosecution of a Group of Ahmadis

Lahore; February 26, 2002: The police registered a case under PPC 295A and the anti-Ahmadiyya PPC 298C against five Ahmadis namely, Rafiq Butt, Abdul Hakim Nasir, Zahid Pervez, Muzaffar Ahmad, Taufiq Ahmad and Mirza Nasir Beg. The accused hurriedly took their plea to the High Court. The judge declared that the police did not have sufficient supportable evidence to levy the charges. They dropped the case consequently.

A Story for Future Historians

The story of Mr. Waheed Ahmad is described below in some detail. Most of the cases mentioned in this Report merit a detailed description but that is not undertaken due to this report being a Summary. The episode of Mr. Waheed Ahmad will provide greater insight to the future historian about the nature of the religio-political axis and the working of bureaucratic and official world in Pakistan in the state-supported policy of suppression and persecution of the Ahmadiyya Community at the turn of the 20th Century.

Story of Mr. Waheed Ahmad Mr. Waheed Ahmad was born in 1961 in the province of Sind in Pakistan to Ahmadi parents. Thus he is an Ahmadi by birth. His father was a pharmacist. Waheed was educated to High School level. In 1982 the family shifted to the town of Golarchi, in district Badin, Sind. There, he opened a medical store and practiced homeopathy. He is married and has three children, aged six to nine years. A wave of anti-Ahmadiyya agitation and persecution is surging in Pakistan for the last 28 years. Golarchi received more than its share of this persecution, and Waheed's family too. In 1974 an anti-Ahmadiyya rioting mob attacked his paternal uncle's home at Kunri. The rioters led by mullahs managed to murder a youth who was a resident worker with him. The police, rather than proceeding against the rioters and their leaders, arrested his uncle and registered a case against him. The incident disturbed their life greatly. In the same year, his aunt residing at Shorkot, in the Punjab had a very tormenting experience. Those were the days of 1974, when Mr. Bhutto (the father of Ms Benazir Bhutto) imposed non-Muslim status on Ahmadis. A mob of violent miscreants and religious zealots attacked his aunt's family and home. Her children received injuries and her entire belongings were looted by the mob. She and other members of her family could escape only with the clothes on their person. They had to flee and take refuge in another town. The year 1984 brought the notorious anti-Ahmadiyya Ordinance XX promulgated by the general-president, Zia. This law opened a floodgate of anti-Ahmadiyya persecution all over Pakistan. The evil effects of this law continue to adversely affect the lives of Ahmadis everywhere - and in Golarchi, it is no different. In 1986, a large crowd, fired with religious frenzy, attacked Ahmadiyya mosque in the town and destroyed it. The authorities took no action against the perpetrators of this crime. In fact, it was with their support that the outrage had been committed. The Ordinance XX deprived Ahmadis of their religious freedom and gave green light to one and all who wanted to make life miserable and unbearable for them. The law is used extensively by other Muslims to settle personal vendetta with Ahmadis. The mullah takes the lead in this drive. He has the legal sanction to play an active role in persecution and suppression of Ahmadis. At Golarchi, the mullah of the central mosque, Ali Siddiqui made it a habit to exhort his flock to commit violence against Ahmadis. He is allowed to do that on loudspeakers, so that even those who are not attending the mosque also hear his fiery lectures. He urged people to undertake social boycott of Ahmadis. He would mention Waheed by name and tell the worshippers that as he is an infidel, no body should visit him for treatment. He would even declare an edict, although bogus, that if they do not comply the defaulters would have their marriages annulled etc. This mullah is a habitual criminal, and had fled from law from the district of Lodhran. In fact he is a ‘proclaimed offender’ with the administration. He had Jihadi links as well, and since the official crackdown on these types, he has gone into hiding. In March 1998, mullahs had stepped up their anti-Ahmadiyya agitation in the country. In this they enjoyed active patronage of Mr. Rafiq Tarar, the then president of Pakistan. Mr. Nawaz Sharif, the prime minister also played to the tune of Islamists in an effort to gain their support. In Golarchi, mullah Siddiqui was active in fomenting agitation against Ahmadis. He had a gang of youngsters who carried Klashinkov automatic rifles to intimidate every one. They put up anti-Ahmadiyya posters and undertook wall-chalking all over the town. Authorities just watched, and let them spoil the peace of the town. On March 9, 1998 a group of men came over to Waheed's clinic and asked him to fill up their Census Data Forms for them, as otherwise they would have to pay Rs.20 each if they hired someone to do it for them. They were illiterate. Waheed asked them to come the next day. The next day they came, and he filled up their forms for them gratis. A few who had earlier joined the Ahmadiyya Community like Laeeq Dinno etc were declared as Ahmadis, and the one Ali, alias Allu, who was not an Ahmadi, Waheed wrote him a ‘Muslim’. Thereafter these individuals happened to meet one Dr Latif Zindpur who entertained professional rivalry against Waheed. He saw the forms and told them that Waheed had declared them non-Muslims therein, and this was a very grave matter. He told them that their marriage bonds had broken down, and that nobody would offer their funeral prayers. He scared them to the bone by such admonitions. He acquired a blade and erased the word Ahmadi, wherever it was written. He also told them to report to mullah Siddiqui and seek his Fatwa (religious edict). The mullah was delighted with this new development that had plenty of potential for mischief. He contacted Dr Zindpur, and they jointly decided to report the matter to the police and administration as a criminal case. The mullah took the microphone in the mosque and shouted hoarse that a great crime had been committed against Islam, and the honour of the entire Muslim Community was at stake. He announced that if Dr Waheed were not arrested, there would be trouble. He announced a general strike for the next day if his demands were not met. The local magistrate (SDM) sent for Waheed at about 10 pm. who told him frankly the whole story. The magistrate told the police to take him in custody, and they took him to the police station. This was late at night on March 10, 1998. On arrival at the police station the brutes beat him up, and locked him inside a cell. The next day, on March 11, the police drove him away at about 11 am. Another Ahmadi was also put next to him in the vehicle. This Ahmadi had been arrested after a mob had attacked his house and clinic earlier on March 10. Outside, in the town, Waheed saw an angry procession led by mullahs shouting anti-Ahmadiyya slogans. The police drove them to a location a few hundred yards away from the mob, stopped by the roadside and told Waheed to sign on a blank paper. When he declined and protested, they beat him up and threatened that if he did not sign, they would deliver him to the mob (implying that they would kill him). Waheed consented to comply, and signed the blank paper. Thereafter they drove them to the district town of Badin, where they were kept in the police station for three days. In the meantime, the police registered an FIR 14/98 (First Information Report) at Police Station S.F. Rahu at the complaint of Ali (Allu) the Muslim whose Census Form had been filled as Muslim. Laeeq Dinno was pressed in as witness. Ali complained that his feelings had been hurt, in that they had been entered as non-Muslims in their forms. The police proceeded to charge Waheed under PPC 295A, one of the notorious Blasphemy clauses, under which he could be tried expeditiously in a Special Court (under Anti-Terrorism law and procedures) and would be liable to 10 years' imprisonment. This all is almost unbelievable, but this is what happened and this is how the state decided to proceed against him. From Badin, Waheed was driven back to Golarchi. They intended to deliver him to the Central Prison, Hyderabad. Prior to departure, the police took away his watch, a ring and the money on his person. In fact, they stole it, because they have not returned these to him. They drove him to Hyderabad and made him pay for the vehicle hired for the purpose. At Hyderabad, the prison staff received him with great severity. They beat him up on bare body. They made him take off all his clothing to see his genitals as an Ahmadi, and expressed surprise that these were no different than those of a Muslim. He was put on very hard labor. It was beyond him. So they asked him to pay Rs. 50,000 (a large sum in Pakistan), if he wanted some relief. After a great deal of bargaining they agreed to take Rs 3500/- and spare him the undeserved labor. The court had not yet declared him guilty. The trial itself was a great farce. It had to be, as there was no case. It was an Anti-terrorist court; but it was the accused who was subjected to religious and state terrorism for having filled in a Census Form as an act of charity. Waheed was presented in the court on 14 March 1998. Mr. Salim Ahmad presided over the Special Court Anti-Terrorism. Waheed was remanded by the police till March 21. Back in the jail, he was subjected to torture and great harassment. On March 16, a friend met him in the prison, and he told him his suffering and plight. Thereafter his friends contacted the jail authorities who were keen to make a deal. After the gratification, they lifted the imposed sufferings. Waheed's lawyer applied for his release on bail, but the state attorney opposed it tooth and nail, so he stayed on in prison. The judge gave him a speedy trial. The prosecution team performed badly and Waheed felt hopeful that he would be acquitted. More than once, the judge expressed his anger with the obvious contradictions in prosecution witnesses' statements and their actions. Dr. Zindpur admitted that he had got the mention of religion on forms erased with a blade. The police inspector and his colleagues contradicted each other. The judge reprimanded them. The prosecution also failed to produce before the court the original Census Forms for which the accused was being prosecuted, although it was essential to do so for the conviction. They presented only photocopies; those should not have been acceptable. However, there were some obvious factors that made Waheed doubtful about the final outcome of the case. He learnt that the judge received in private one Mullah Hamadi who is a full-time anti-Ahmadiyya rabble-rouser and is paid for pursuing anti-Ahmadiyya cases in courts. He was also brought to the court's premises in police van, although officially he was not involved in any way whatsoever with the incident or the case. There were other rumors also that cast a shadow on the availability of justice to Waheed. Waheed was shocked when the judge announced his findings on 21 April 1998 to declare him guilty. He sentenced him to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment and to a fine of Rs. 10,000/- or in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year more. Waheed learnt later that even before the sentence was announced, the mullahs had distributed sweets in the morning to celebrate their victory. Obviously, they had been taken in confidence by the judge or his staff. After the verdict, mullahs got themselves photographed with the policemen who were in the prosecution team. Waheed's lawyer told him that the judge had privately conveyed that he was under orders from Islamabad to convict the accused and award a severe penalty. Such is the nature and extent of cooperation between the authorities and the mullahs in the field of anti-Ahmadiyya persecution. The announcement of sentence brought along a major change for the worse in the attitude of prison officials towards Waheed. They assigned him the duty of baking Pakistani bread (chapati). For this work, one has to repeatedly enter one's arm in the fire-oven and expose one's face directly to flames and intense heat. Normally this job is assigned in prisons to heroine addicts whose body heat can supposedly fight back the heat of the furnace. Waheed found the torture unbearable, as expected by the prison officials. They made him pay Rs. 10,000 to spare him from this exposure to this earthly hell. Life in prison was harsh, to put it mildly. Waheed had never before been exposed to the world of police, courts and prisons. It took him a long time to understand the world of crime in which the officialdom itself is a major partner in Pakistan. In violation of prison rules, life is made unbearable for the prisoners. The dry rations sanctioned by the government for prisoners are passed on partly to the jail functionaries. The rest, inadequate and unpalatable is given to the inmates. The prisoners call their meals ‘dog soup’ and ‘diesel’ for their appearance and taste. Thus, prisoners are forced to ask their visitors to bring food for them. Officials gladly allow this arrangement, as they take their undue share from the incoming food. Prisoners are also exposed, on petty excuses, to severe torture in the presence of other prisoners so as to scare them all. Thereafter, relief is provided after receiving illegal gratification. Waheed had to go through this routine. On account of exposure to great stress and strain, Waheed developed cardiac problem. Medical attention was difficult to obtain. With great difficulty, he got a medical check up in September 1999. Due to lack of proper treatment and neglect his situation worsened. Eventually he was shifted to Karachi jail from where he was taken occasionally to the doctor. By this time he had grown very weak. He lost his breath frequently, suffered increased heart beating, developed pain in his knees and could digest nothing. His weight dropped from 55 kgs to only 34 kgs. He might have died. At one stage he was allowed private treatment, provided a 10-men armed guard was placed to watch over him. The prison department stated that the guards would be provided if and when available. That delayed the treatment for months. Eventually he was operated upon in June 2001. While in hospital he remained in chains. Fortunately, he recovered after the operation. The doctors required that he have a check-up after 6 weeks; the prison authorities presented him after 5 months. In the meantime, his father died at Karachi. He was told that rabid mullahs distributed sweets to celebrate his death. They made life difficult for his family at Golarchi. They wanted his family to flee. In order to scare them, mullahs arranged to take their maid as a hostage. The situation became too tense to bear up with. Consequently, his family shifted to Karachi in the year 2000. After they departed, the opposition damaged their house and stole their belongings from there. While he was suffering in prison the legal battle continued in courts to undo the bad verdict and secure his release. Briefly, soon after the ATA court's decision in April 1998, his lawyer appealed, under the rules, against the decision and the jurisdiction of the court. More than a year later, on June 2, 1999 the Tribunal remanded the case for retrial and ordered that the original document of the Census Form be presented to the court. This provided him little relief, so he appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court issued Stay Orders but took almost two years when on March 28, 2001 it ordered that the case be remanded to the ATA Court to decide on the question of jurisdiction. A month later, on May 2, 2001 the ATA Court again dismissed his plea. So he put up a petition against this on August 17, 2001. On October 5, 2001 he applied to the ATA Court that it had no right to hear his case; the ATA Court rejected his plea. Thereafter he applied to the Sind High Court on December 14, 2001 for revision. At this, the High Court gave its verdict on January 8, 2002 to the effect that: 1. The case does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Anti-terrorism Court, and it should be attended to by a normal court at Badin. 2. The Blasphemy Clause does not apply; prima facie it is only violation of Census Rules. 3. The accused be released on bail. By this time Waheed had already suffered rigorous imprisonment for three years and 10 months. Such is the course of justice in Pakistan. Although released on bail, he still had to face criminal prosecution. He has to still present himself at a court in Badin almost every three weeks. He had taken refuge in some other town where he kept his address secret from the mullahs. He had to travel long distance to Badin where he had to stay overnight to present myself in the morning at the court. The travel took him hours, one way. It cost a fair amount. The legal costs had also to be borne somehow. He had to pass through Golarchi, where the bus halts for a while on its way to Badin, and he felt exposed to danger. His life has undergone a major change. The scars of the unjust rigorous imprisonment will take a long time to heal. His family has suffered along with him - in some ways more than he. He hopes that his children are not affected permanently. P.S. It is learnt now that in the last quarter of 2002, Mr. Waheed was eventually acquitted by the court. But who is going to be held accountable for his four years of painful incarceration and almost five years of tormenting prosecution in which the mullah, the police, the administration, the judiciary and the establishment all played their despicable role, while all along they knew that the man was obviously not guilty?

Introduction of Joint Electorates exposed the unabashed discrimination to which the Ahmadiyya Community is subjected in Pakistan. Despite this major shift in electoral policy, Ahmadis were expressly placed on a Separate List as Non-Muslims, and procedures were put in place to ensure that Ahmadis would neither get elected nor even be free to cast their votes. The mullah imposed his will on the President who found it convenient and opportune to comply even at the cost of appearing bizarre. It was a blatant and unsupportable violation of human rights of a section of the population. The details given below although unbelievable are facts.

With general elections scheduled for October 2002, the throne and the pulpit joined hands once again and moved decisively to uphold obscurantism and disregard human rights and higher values. In May 2002 the government decided to yield to the mullah's demand of reintroduction in voter's form the certificate concerning the End of Prophethood, thereby seriously compromising its declared policy of Joint Electorate - at least in so far as the Ahmadiyya Community is concerned. The government issued necessary instructions to the Election Commission.

A few weeks earlier the government declared and took steps to reintroduce Joint Electorate in the country. The Islamist clergy did not like the decision whereby members of religious minorities would be, in principle, at par with those of the majority as citizens of the state. The mullahs were particularly hostile to the Ahmadiyya Community whose basic human rights they have successfully violated for years in league with the establishment. They are averse to take even one step back in their persistent advance in the field of suppression of religious freedom. Having met a major defeat in Afghanistan, they needed a recovery in Pakistan. In the Joint Electorate and its relevance to Ahmadis, they found the opportunity they were looking for.

A meeting was reportedly held at Chiniot (The daily News, May 19, 2002) of various religious organizations with Maulvi Manzoor Chinioti, the Secretary General of the Khatame Nabuwwat Organization in the chair. Chinioti is the same individual who during the Afghan War led processions and held conferences against the US-led coalition. ‘The News’ reported that according to these mullahs “the US was playing war games with India while innocent Muslims are being massacred in Ahmedabad but Musharraf Govt is silent over it and promising joint electorate just to please the west and Qadianis”. They also protested against the ban on Jihadi organizations. These mullahs threatened countrywide agitation as in 1953 and 1974. They conspired to get the political parties on board, especially the Islamists, to achieve their end. It is most likely that they contacted their sympathizers in the government where they are well-represented in the Ministry of Religious Affairs. It appears they planned jointly, and succeeded entirely in their immediate objectives.

A Seerat (Life of the Holy Prophet) Conference was organized by the government at Islamabad on May 25. The Ministry of Religious Affairs invited a large number of Ulema, and asked the President to attend and address the assembled priests. The proceedings of the conference were telecast live by Pakistan Television. After the President had spoken, a mullah Saleemullah of Nifaze Shariat Group (same type as the horde whose leader Sufi Muhammad had led thousands into Afghanistan in support of the Taliban) stood up and demanded of General Musharraf to reinstate Separate Electorate and openly declare Qadianis as infidels. As on similar occasions during the past regimes, he assured the general that by doing so he would win the gratitude of the Ulema and the support of 140 million people. At this, President Musharraf readily offered his opinion that those who did not believe in the End of Prophethood were Non-Muslims. The mullahs cheered him profusely. The President also advised them to be large-hearted as they live in the world that is more like a global village; however he asked them to have faith in the government and reassured them that he would consider their demand. The general asked the minister, Dr. Ghazi to come to the microphone, who came and reassured his guests that the constitutional provision to treat Ahmadis as non-Muslims will be maintained (more cheers), reported the Nawa-i-Waqt, the Jang, the Insaf; of May 26, 2002. Some people are of the opinion that the entire incident was stage managed.

Thereafter, things moved fast in a well-planned way. Maulvi Fazl-ur-Rehman (JUI), who leads the vanguard of religious obscurantism, and played the most active role in support of the Taliban regime, hurriedly called an All Parties Conference at Lahore on May 28. The meeting was well-attended by leaders of politico-religious parties. The participants demanded the government to revise the voters' form and restore religion and the oath of finality of prophet-hood by 6 June, otherwise an anti-government movement will be launched (The News International; May 29, 2002).

In compliant response, that appeared to amount to eagerness, the government decided the very next day “to revise the application form for enlistment as voters, so as to include the oath and declaration of being a Muslim”, (The Dawn May 30, 2002). The government reaction was so fast that some officials, who were not a part of the inner team were taken by surprise. For instance, on that very day, Mufti Ghulam Sarwar Qadri, the Punjab religious affairs minister, said that the deletion of the affidavit from the voter's registration form did not amount to a violation of any basic Islamic provision. Commenting on the Khatme-i-Nabuwwat Conference's resolution to launch a movement unless the affidavit was restored, the minister said that it was not a constitutional obligation. He said it had been introduced during Gen Ziaul Haq's rule. He said no harm had been done to Islam before its introduction, (The daily Dawn; May 30, 2002).

The mullah assumed, rightly, that the column of religion has been restored in election papers (The daily Awaz; June 1, 2002). Mullah Chinioti thereafter demanded that religion be entered on the national identity card as well. Another mullah, Faqir Muhammad, the information secretary of the Khatame Nabuwwat organization demanded that End of Prophethood should be reintroduced in school syllabi. The mullah carries an open list of demands. Any government that gives in to a few demands and thinks that the mullah will be satisfied, does not know the working of his mind.

It is noteworthy that subsequently the state television PTV, at prime time showed minions praising the government decision to reintroduce the Affidavit. This major step backward was sure to lead to effective disenfranchisement of the Ahmadiyya Community, although it did not seriously affect the non-Muslim communities who accept their non-Muslim identity. It was through the mechanism of this Affidavit that Ahmadis were disenfranchised in the past. They did not sign it in the past, nor would they sign it this time. They would also not register as non-Muslims. Thus they were being excluded from the electoral process. From the attitude of the president and his past performance it was reasonable to assume that as for Ahmadis are concerned, the Joint Electorate was dead as ever before. The mullah will demand this, and the government will comply. However there was still time till October.

According to a press report published in the daily News International, of June 13, 2002, the President promulgated a new law on Wednesday titled as the Conduct of General Elections Order (Second Amendment), 2002. Later it was issued as Order No. 15 of 2002 in a gazette notification. It is reproduced as Annex II to this Report.

The new law enforced, notwithstanding any other law, including the Forms prescribed for preparation of electoral rolls on joint electorate basis, the non-Muslim status upon Ahmadis for electoral purposes. It provided mechanism to demand the Affidavit concerning the “unqualified Finality of Prophethood” etc from all Ahmadi voters. According to the amendment, in case an Ahmadi refuses to sign the given declaration, he shall be deemed to be a non-Muslim and his name shall be deleted from the joint electoral rolls and added to a supplementary list of voters in the same electoral area as non-Muslim.

It is obvious that through this still another discriminatory law, Ahmadis were excluded from the Joint Electorate. In fact, they were placed on a special supplementary list - obviously for convenience of still more discrimination. This measure, in the first instance, effectively disenfranchised the entire Ahmadiyya Community, as Ahmadis will not vote as non-Muslims, as a principle.

This law was promulgated in response to a demand from the discredited religious lobby. It reduced Ahmadis outrageously to the status of political orphans. Its language is incongruous with any declaration of liberal and fair approach to treatment of marginalized sections of society in Pakistan. The military government's subservience to theocratic pressure and its brazen lack of commitment to higher political and social values was astonishing.

Mullahs were delighted to see the government beating the retreat in the face of their pressure. In the follow-up of the President's Order, the Election Commission promptly issued instructions to Revising Authorities on June 17 that if an objection was filed till June 27, that a person had got himself enrolled as a voter and he was not a Muslim, he should be summoned within 15 days and told to sign a declaration regarding his belief about the Finality of the Prophethood of Hazrat Muhammad (PBUH). The EC also directed the Revising Authorities that in case the voter refused to sign the declaration, he shall be deemed to be a non-Muslim and his name shall be deleted from the joint electoral rolls and added to a supplementary list of voters. In case the voter does not turn up in spite of service of notice, an ex-parte order will be passed against him (The DAWN, 19 June 2002).

Within two days, top-ranking mullahs got together and advertised in the Urdu Press an appeal to their followers to have the ‘Qadianis’ shifted over to the ‘Non-Muslim’ list. (The Daily JANG, June 21, 2002). The appeal was signed, in addition to others, by Maulvi Fazlur Rehman (an Al-Qaida admirer), Qazi Hussain Ahmad (a Taliban sympathizer) and Professor Sajid Mir (President of a chain of seminaries promoting religious extremism). To facilitate their task, the Election Commission directed all the assistant election commissioners that copies of the electoral rolls lying with them be made available for public inspection. The EC went all the way to help the mullahs, by advising them that in case of any difficulty in getting the copies of the electoral rolls the provincial election commissioners or the secretary of the election commission in Islamabad may be contacted (The DAWN June 21, 2002).

Some election-watchers did not get the full implication of the mullah's drive and the government's compliance. They argued that Ahmadis were being placed only on a supplementary list; they can still vote. Little did they realize that the mullah knows that Ahmadis, as a matter of principle, would never vote as non-Muslims; as such, by implication they would get effectively disenfranchised. Some liberal and secular elements voiced their concern over this turn of events. Mr. Ayaz Amir, a leading columnist wrote his column for the DAWN and titled it “Back to the future”. His opening remark was: EVEN in a land renowned for silly edicts, the most recent addition to the statute book, Chief Executive's Order No. 15, takes the prize for silliness.

Silly, yes; but a more objective analyst could call it: absurd, injurious and outrageous.

The Ahmadiyya Community took note of glaring discrimination in the President's Order No.15 of 2002 and forwarded a note of strong protest to him. It conveyed the following, inter alia:

As a result, extremist religious elements were delighted to see that they continue to enjoy favor and clout with the government in the affairs of the state. Liberal elements and human rights concerns in Pakistan did not fail to take note of this obvious trickery and retreat of the establishment. The prestigious daily, DAWN questioned the legal position of the government's decision in an editorial comment on September 12, 2002. Human Rights Commission of Pakistan criticized the continuation of the requirement of the Sworn Statement regarding Religion by the candidates, and expressed its concern regarding Ahmadis' electoral situation. Mr. I A Rehman, a leading intellectual wrote an article in the DAWN of September 17, 2002 and gave it the heading: Joint electorate? Not quite.

This drama ended up as a great victory for the mullah. He had succeeded in keeping Ahmadis out of the general elections despite the introduction of the Joint Electorate. The MMA, the mullah's political conglomerate made great gains in the national assembly as also in provincial assemblies. They now hope to wield a powerful clout, as a party in power or in the opposition - thanks to the exclusion of Ahmadis from the political life of the country.

Epilogue: Mr. Zafrullah Jamali took the oath as Prime Minister of Pakistan in the fourth week of November. The daily Jang, Lahore reported on November 24, 2002 that while taking the oath of office, Mr. Jamali, inter alia, had to state his “belief in Muhammad, the prophet of Allah, the Khatam-an-Nabiyyeen, after whom there shall be no prophet” (emphasis provided).

The introduction of anti-Ahmadiyya laws was not only an exercise in legal denial of some basic right to Ahmadis, it was an open declaration of the intention and will of the politico-religious establishment to convey that Ahmadis could be harassed and harmed in every possible way. Ahmadis' life, liberty and properties were exposed to attack. Unscrupulous elements of the society got this message, loud and clear, and they remained active throughout the year 2002 to keep Ahmadis under great pressure all over Pakistan. There are no safe havens. Ahmadis are under constant threat everywhere. They have to simply live with it.

Deadly Attack on Ahmadi blunted

Chak 475 EB, District Vehari; February 20, 2002: Religious extremists attacked Mr. Muhammad Yousuf in the middle of the night on 19/20 February at his home. The murder attempt went abortive - thanks to the bold defense put up by Mr. Yousaf's son.

A group of fundamentalists led by a mullah, Hafiz Talib Hussain had been harassing Mr. Yousaf, an ex-president of the local Ahmadiyya Community, for the preceding few weeks. Hafiz Talib Hussain is an activist of the defunct Sipah Sahaba group. During January they had mounted a similar attempt.

This time three of these armed gangsters entered Mr. Yousaf's house by climbing over the outer wall. One of them, the Hafiz stayed out while others entered the sleeping room. One of these challenged Yousaf and shouted an insult. He added that this time he would finish the task. Yousaf, in a reckless manner, caught the attacker's gun by the barrel, pushed it aside and shouted for help. Mr. Yousaf's son, Asif, who was not far, rushed to help his father. He snatched the gun from the assailant. The assailant tried to escape but Asif caught him and bolted the door from inside. The others tried to rescue their colleague by trying to break open the door, but by this time other people had woken up, so they fled.

The police were informed on telephone; they arrived at the site. The detained gangster was handed over to the police along with his weapon of attack. The felon told the police that he had been egged on by Hafiz Talib Hussain to undertake the assault. The police went for the other two attackers, but they absconded.

This was a narrow escape for the Ahmadi family.

Abduction and Torture of an Ahmadi

Sukker, Sind: May 23, 2002: Mr. Naveed Ahmad Qureshi, a young man left home at 0915. When he arrived at Shalimar, four unknown men approached him and forced him to accompany them. They took him first to the office of Khatame Nabuwwat organization and then to the office of Jaish Muhammad, an Islamist organization banned for terrorist activities. There they beat him up and told him to vacate the house and go away. They threatened even to kill him. According to Mr. Qureshi, the abductors were men of middle age and had the stickers of Jaish Muhammad on their motor-cycle. They told him to dissociate himself from the Ahmadiyya Community if he wanted to live in peace in Sukker.

Attack by a Proclaimed Offender

Chak 55/12-L, District Sahiwal; May 8, 2002: Mr. Waseem Ahmad Qamar, an Ahmadi religious teacher of the Chak reported that his quarters were targeted by one Khalil, at about midnight on May 8. Bullet marks could be seen on the outer wall.

Khalil, son of Nawab Din is an ex-Jihadi, turned criminal. He is very hostile to Ahmadis. As he has been declared a Proclaimed Offender, he has absconded and returns to the village only occasionally. He has threatened that he plans to murder an Ahmadi.

Mr. Qamar reported the incident to the police, who refused to register the case on the excuse that as no one has been hurt, the police cannot proceed further in the situation.

An Ahmadi beaten up

Ahmadpur Sharqia, District Bahawalpur; February 2, 2002: Mr. Saeed Ahmad, Ahmadi faced an attack from three gangsters during the month of Ramadan, but he saved himself by running up to a soldier who was passing by. Ahmad reported the incident to the police, who did not follow it up seriously.

Ten weeks later, on February 2, 2002, at about 1930 when he was cycling back home, he was approached and attacked by four unknown religious fanatics. They beat him up and threatened him with a dagger. They told him that they will not kill him but their real target was his elder brother who is president of the local Ahmadiyya community. “Tell him, his days are numbered; we will soon finish him off”, they said. After this, they left.

The incident was conveyed to the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Ahmadpur Sharqia, in writing on February 14, 2002.

Vandalism at an Ahmadiyya holy site

Rabwah: Bahashti Maqbrah, the special graveyard at Rabwah is a venerable site for Ahmadis from all over the world. A mulla, Allah Yar Arshad has occupied a mosque that was built without authorization in the land adjacent to the graveyard. He finds it a perfect location to hurl invective and insults from a loudspeaker at visiting Ahmadis, and he indulges in various other forms of provocation also. He has been reported to the police and is well-known in official circles. The authorities are however shy in showing him the penal code. Recently, this mullah and his followers thought of a new form of provocation - vandalism. They tasked a few of their teen-agers to hurl stones at the lights inside the graveyard and break the florescent lights. Initially they undertook the provocation discreetly - at a time when nobody was watching. The next time, emboldened by the Ahmadiyya forbearance, they threw stones when a burial was actually in progress at about 3 p.m. on December 21. A number of lights were damaged by this vandalism.

Further Provocation by the Mullah

Rabwah: It appears that mullahs are intent upon creating some ugly situation at Rabwah for their ulterior purposes which may be political. Mullah Allah Yar Arshad, the cleric at Masjid Bokhari at Rabwah is attempting higher provocation than rhetoric, to precipitate an incident. His persistence is noteworthy from the following attempts:

a.	On December 19, the mulla, accompanied by some miscreants intercepted and insulted an Ahmadi youth in a street close to the Bahashti Maqbrah graveyard.
b.	The next day, on December 20, at about 11.30 mullah Allah Yar Arshad manhandled an Ahmadi teenager, Manaf Ahmad son of Mr. Jamil Ahmad.
c.	The same day, on December 20, an Ahmadi youth, Manzur Ahmad Butt was intercepted by the mullah in Mohallah Darul Fazl. The mullah asked him if he was an Ahmadi. On receiving a reply in the positive, the mullah subjected him to physical violence, tied him up with a rope and told him to recant. Later, when the youth was released he reported the incident to the Community office. He was taken to a medical facility for treatment and a formal report.
d.	The same evening, the mullah was seen in the vicinity of an Ahmadi's home, in company of a few gangsters from the nearby town of Chiniot. These gangsters were known to be implicated in anti-Ahmadiyya criminal activities of various kind in the recent past.

The mullah is obviously itching for a fight. He represents various politico-religious groups and interests, and is the local trouble monger. The above mentioned incidents may appear small, but the mullah knows that only a small match stick is needed to start a blazing fire.

Threats to Community Office-bearer

Saddowala, district Narowal; January 5, 2002: Mr. Mumtaz Ahmad Bhatti, a school teacher, is the president of local Ahmadiyya community in Saddowala. Here two Ahmadis were murdered earlier on September 11, 2001 by religious terrorists. Mr. Bhatti received threats to his life by post. The terrorist was bold enough to write his name. Translation of his letter is given below:

This letter caused great consternation in the targeted family. Noor Mohammad, a terrorist closely linked with Abu Zar had been released by the court on bail, while efforts were going on for the release of the second detainee. The four brothers felt that their lives were gravely threatened.

Mischief at Kanj Road

Kanj Road, district Narowal: Dr. Riaz, an Ahmadi of Kanj Road reported in January that he faced violence from one Tufail Khan, a religious extremists. Tufail, accompanied by vandals created a nasty scene at Dr. Riaz's house and hurled threats that he will murder him. A few days later, he intercepted Dr. Zafar, a son of Dr. Riaz and beat him up. Dr. Zafar was rescued by some of those present nearby. Tufail Khan has continued with his threatening behavior. His targeted Ahmadis remained worried.

Bull's eye at the Ahmadiyya Mosque

Lahore: According to press reports, arrested terrorists admitted to the police that they had plans to bomb the central Ahmadiyya mosque at Lahore (The Daily Khabrain, August 19, 2002). They had transported and stocked heavy load of explosive material and firearms at Lahore to implement their plan. On discovery, the police took charge of the explosives. These terrorists had escaped after their attacks on Christian properties at Murree and Taxila. Earlier they had participated and played a leading role in the so-called Afghan ‘Jehad’, according to a police official.

A Close Escape

Chak 22, District Sheikhupura; July 2002: Mr. Kashif Ahmad Qamar, the resident Ahmadi religious teacher of the village reported that there was a great deal of religious tension in his area. During the first week of July, he was visited by four armed men at night while he was asleep in his quarters. Their intrusion alerted him and woke him up. At this, the intruders retreated and Mr. Qamar was luckily spared the intended assault.

Township, Lahore: Four bearded tough-looking gangsters arrived at the Ahmadiyya mosque at 1315 on May 10. Two of them, in uniform, stayed in their car while the other two arrived at the mosque gate and made some unusual rough remarks about Ahmadis. The attendant hurried to shut the door and then talked to them from inside. The uninvited visitors (posing as officials) insisted that they wanted to inspect the mosque. However, in the face of non-cooperating attendant they decided to leave, saying they will come again.

The mosque administration believes that the visitors were terrorists. Authorities were informed of the incident. Security was stepped up, and every Ahmadi in the area became cautious.

Commercial and Social Boycott

Chichawatni, district Sahiwal; June 2002: Mr. Naseer Ahmad, Ahmadi, shifted to Chichawatni four years ago and started a business “Al Hamd Seed Corporation”. He flourished there till last year when mullahs discovered that he was an Ahmadi. They sent a hooligan in June 2001, who chased him on a motor-cycle, called him bad names and threatened him with another visit. One week later, three mullahs came to his office and curtly demanded Rs. 50,000. They warned Naseer against reporting to the police. They called at him again, demanded the money and on getting a ‘No’ told him that they belonged to a religious organization that had already disposed of a number of non-cooperating individuals.

Harassment at Sadiqabad

Sadiqabad, District Rahim Yar Khan; January 2002: Mr. Sharif Ahmad Asghar, president of the local Ahmadiyya Community at Sadiqabad faced harassment from religious zealots and the authorities. On January 1, Islamic radicals took out a procession and shouted profuse insults against Ahmadis. The next day, they attacked his house and tried to break open his outer door. On January 4, the mullah delivered an anti-Ahmadiyya sermon in the mosque. Subsequently they conspired to have a criminal case registered against Ahmadis with the police on January 6. They tried to implicate therein two Ahmadi women as well, the president of the local Ahmadi Women's Association, and the wife of the president. It took a lot of effort and running around to avoid registration of this fabricated case. During those days, Ahmadi youth had to stand guard duty at their president's house to resist any attack by the menacing bunch.

Agitation at Sadiqabad

Sadiqabad; January 2002: Mullahs at Sadiqabad remained very active and extremely hostile against Ahmadis throughout the month. For instance:

a.	They raided the residence of a new convert, treated him harshly and set Ahmadiyya literature on fire.

b.	Basharat, a young man expressed sympathetic opinion on Ahmadiyyat to his father on January 1, who then beat him up severely. The father accompanied by a few hooligans went to see the president of local Ahmadiyya community, shouted insults and stoned his outer gate.

c.

The opponents made a plan to hold firebrand meetings in the neighbourhood. Ahmadis informed the police who warned the opposition against any violence. They held the meetings regardless. In these meetings they decided to : 1. Implement a social boycott of Ahmadis 2. Try and close down Ahmadiyya Centre in the area 3. Take steps to close down Ahmadis' satellite dish receiver for TV 4. Get a criminal case registered against Ahmadis under Ahmadi-specific laws 5. Try to get Ahmadi students expelled from schools and colleges 6. Organize an impassioned movement led by mullahs 7. Wage Jihad against Ahmadis

The opposition became very active and made headway. They contacted the local press and had anti-Ahmadi fabrications printed in the daily Kalam-e-Waqt (10 and 11 January 2002). They contacted the local influentials and enforced an unfair agreement. The situation remained tense for weeks.

Threat to the life of Ahmadi elder

Khanewal: Mr. Naeemullah Khan, President of the Ahmadiyya Community, district Khanewal received the following threat in a letter in June:

Qadiani President of Khanewal, - It was a long wait before we got the permission concerning you. - The hour is now at hand; we are going to meet you soon. - ………………… - Be mindful of your movements from today onward. We shall meet you anytime in the open. Finalize your affairs at the earliest. In case you undertake any reaction, you will see the slaughter of your children with your own eyes. - Wait and see when the bell will ring. We shall call you a day before the encounter. Wait for that. (Translation)

After due deliberations, Ahmadi elders of the city advised Mr. Khan to leave the city for a while along with his family. A few days later, a non-Ahmadi neighbor, Sheikh Nazir received a threatening letter. The letter accused him of having social relations with Mr. Khan. It mentioned that Khan had left for Rawalpindi where he was being tracked by two of their colleagues who will target his car any day. Sheikh Nazir was advised to keep away from Khan, otherwise to remain ready to face consequences. “The bullet cannot distinguish between a Muslim and an infidel”, they wrote.

Harassment of Ahmadis

Rahim Yar Khan: Three Ahmadi families reside in Muslim Colony (near Gulmarg Stop), Rahim Yar Khan. These people joined Ahmadiyya Community 15 years ago, however opposition to their conversion is still simmering. It flared up in January.

A few miscreants of the neighborhood created disturbance making a false accusation against them that Ahmadis had set the Holy Quran on fire. Thereafter they made a complaint to the police that Ahmadis defile the Quran and they preach their faith. The police sent for them and told them that the complainants have proposed that Ahmadis should undertake in writing that: We shall not preach any more; if we do that, we will have to sell our houses and migrate elsewhere.

These developments were disturbing to the affected Ahmadis families. An accusation of burning a copy of the Quran may mean a protracted trial in court, or worse - imprisonment for life.

Agitation at Kotli

Kotli, Azad Kashmir: District Kotli simmered with anti-Ahmadiyya agitation during October, specially in educational institutions. New-converts are also targeted.

For example, Mr. Abdul Jabbar Khalil who joined the Ahmadiyya Community in the recent past was being given a tough time by his colleagues at the government school where he is a teacher. He was subjected to manhandling also. Some of the members of the school staff have taken up writing anti-Ahmadiyya statements on classroom black boards. Mr. Khalil complained against this treatment to the Education Officer. This infuriated the miscreants further, and they declared their violent intentions. They formed a gang and wrote a joint application to authorities to dismiss Mr. Khalil from his job.

Mr. Nasim Ahmad, an Ahmadi youth faced severe opposition from non-Ahmadi Muslims. Eventually he had to request for police intervention. At a college in Tatta Pani, a lecturer gave an anti-Ahmadiyya lecture to his class during college hours. The local vernacular press joined the agitation by fanning the fire of anti-Ahmadiyya hatred. The daily ‘Islam’ and ‘Kashmir Express’ of Muzaffarabad gave anti-Ahmadiyya twist to their news coverage and indulged in disinformation.

It is strange that while Kashmiri Muslims seek liberty and freedom, they deny the same to Ahmadis in territory where they exercise political power.

Also at Mirpur Khas

Mirpur Khas (Sind): Dr. Abdul Halim, a local Ahmadi, received the following note at his clinic in June:

Incident at Sillanwali

Sillanwali, district Sargodha; August 22, 2002: A mullah, Shahid, belonging to defunct Sipah Sahaba, remains active against Ahmadis. Sipah Sahaba was banned by the government last year for its religious extremism, however its members remain free to indulge in acts of bigotry and violence.

On August 22, Mullah Shahid intercepted Mr. Abdul Aziz, an Ahmadi, in the bazaar, pushed him physically and was harsh with him for no stated reason. Aziz's father arrived at the scene and rescued his son. He then reported the matter to the police. The police took no action against the mullah. Aziz's father, thereafter contacted Mr. Bhatti, a local influential, who then sent for Shahid's father. The father stated that Shahid was a member of the ex-SSP, and undertook to restrain him.

It is relevant to mention that in the past Shahid had threatened Aziz with violence, and was once seen in possession of a knife, and an unlicensed pistol on another occasion.

Religion pushed into the Service of Mammon

Ahmadabad, District Badin: One, Ashiq Hussain sent in an application to the Deputy Superintendent Police to register a criminal case (FIR) against Mr. Mubashir Ahmad, an Ahmadi. Ashiq Hussain mentioned in his application that Mubashir who is a Qadiani was pressing him for money under threats of murder while the Qadiani owed him Rs. 100,000.

The fact is that Ashiq Hussain owes Rs. 38,000 to Mr. Mubashir Ahmad, and is reluctant to pay. He contrived to report to the police and solicit their sympathy on the basis of sectarian prejudice.

At the intervention of some notables, the police did not register the FIR. Mr. Mubashir Ahmad could have lost his freedom in addition to his money.

Threats in District Badin

Tando Bago, district Badin: A threat letter jointly addressed to the following was received by Mr. Salim, an Ahmadi of Tando Bhago:

Rafiq; Ch. Salim; Khizar; Mir Arbab, Haji Ranjaro; Darya Khan

The letter's excerpts are translated below:

Provocation at Faisalabad

Faisalabad; January 19, 2002: Faisalabad is one of those towns where religious extremists have been active for months. Last year they murdered Sheikh Nazir Ahmad, Ahmadi, on July 28, 2001. Ahmadis keep the Authorities informed, but to little avail. Fundamentalists keep the pot boiling.

On January 19, 2002 when Mr. Khalid Mahmud, Ahmadi was walking to his store in Chowk Bolidi, one Imtiaz shouted insults against the holy founder of Ahmadiyya Community and threatened Mahmud that being a Qadiani he was Wajibul Qatl (one who must be killed). Mahmud, in the face of gravity of the situation, retreated and went back home. Members of his family advised him forbearance and non-resistance in the face of provocation.

A few months later, on November 14, this Imtiaz Shah murdered an Ahmadi in broad daylight in the bazaar.

Ahmadis and their Mosque threatened

Rahim Yar Khan: This city is a violent place, as for Ahmadis are concerned. Here, religious extremists murdered a well-known Ahmadi doctor, Dr. Rashid Ahmad, in November 2002. Recently they vandalized the local Ahmadiyya mosque. Miscreants threw paint at the gate of the mosque in an effort to damage the signboard showing that it was Ahmadiyya place of worship. Subsequently, they sent a note of great threat to the worshippers. Its translation is given below:

Tension at Fatehpur

Fatehpur, district Gujrat: Ahmadiyya Community at Fatehpur is facing active opposition and harassment from non-Ahmadi clerics. The president of the Community, Mr. Tanveer Ahmad has been confronted and challenged many a time. He avoided the imposed brawl with great tact. The religious zealots reported to the police against inscription written on the local Ahmadiyya mosque. The police inspector inspected the site and found nothing that was even remotely offensive. He found the inscriptions even laudable. These activists thereafter took the law in their own hands and in the darkness of the night, defaced the inscriptions and vandalized the mosque. Ahmadis undertook the repairs and are now keeping an active watch at their mosque to guard against further attempts.

Although the Constitution of Pakistan provides freedom of faith to its citizens, Ahmadis have been made a glaring exception to the rule. In fact, religious freedom was the first casualty under the Ordinance XX, promulgated by General Zia 18 years ago. This injury is the most hurtful and agonizing as well, because the Ahmadiyya Community is basically a religious entity. No other religious community in Pakistan is exposed to this kind of discrimination and persecution. It is safe to assert that Ahmadiyya situation has no parallel in the entire world.

Severe Persecution of New Converts

Bagh, district Jhang; May 23, 2002: Messers Rana Shehzad Ahmad and Rana Muhammad Asif Faiq, after due inquiry, joined the Ahmadiyya Community in January 2002. Their relatives did not take kindly to their conversion.

Rana Asif Faiq was manhandled by three of his close relatives including his brother. They accused him of apostasy, shut him up in a room and beat him. Faiq got a broken nose bone, and had to arrange first aid for injuries. His friend, Shehzad Ahmad was attacked by his uncle. The brawl resulted in pellets injury in both legs to Shehzad. The uncle, who is a police official, had a report registered against Shehzad at the police station. Shehzad was nabbed and sent to a lock-up. He was falsely accused of theft, terrorism and illegal possession of fire-arms.

Charged for Conversion