It took only three weeks for Sindh to start backtracking on landmark legislation that sought to protect minorities from forced conversions by making it a criminal offence. The Criminal Law (Protection of Minorities) Act 2015 took three years to reach a vote in the Sindh Assembly but when it was passed, rights activists and many Hindus and Christians heaved a sigh of relief that some progress had been made.
The new law was supported across the floor, by the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz, PML-Functional, Muttahida Qaumi Movement and ruling Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP). It said that anyone who forcefully converts a person can be punished a minimum of five years and a maximum of life imprisonment. They have to pay the victim a fine. Offences under this law are cognizable, which means the police do not need a warrant to make an arrest. They are non-bailable and non-compoundable. But more importantly, it said that no person will be considered as having converted until they attain the age of majority, or 18 years of age.
The lawmaking was prompted by the trend of kidnapping and forcefully converting young Hindu girls in rural parts of Sindh and this legislation coupled with that on child marriages had the potential to tackle the trend. All that was needed, this newspaper reported on December 9 (“A never-never land for naris”) was the governor’s signature. In the meantime, religious parties went to work and started to issue statements against the law. By December 16, ruling Pakistan Peoples Party’s Asif Zardari was assuring the right-wing Jamaat-e-Islami’s Sirajul Haq that they would take the legislation back.
The law was heralded as a milestone and had reflected well on what was perceived as a progressive Sindh Assembly.
A week after the law was passed, Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam-S’s Maulana Samiul Haq even went so far as to say that the entire Sindh Assembly should be dismissed. And on Dec 16, Senior Minister for Parliamentary Affairs Nisar Ahmad Khuhro announced that they would be reviewing the bill because there was no restriction on the age of conversion in Islam.
Interestingly, the religious parties in question have no vote bank in the Sindh Assembly and no voting power in government.
“Our country has a religious constitution,” argued Nisar Khuhro. “So, we will never go against the Holy Quran and Shariah laws which have been written into the Pakistan Constitution. Indeed, the Constitution and Quran both do not allow any kind of forced conversion.” He added that they were concerned about the Hindu girls. “We will protect our girls but no law speaks of an age limitation on conversion.” They were going to review the age limitation as clarity was needed on this point in light of the Islamic constitution, he said.
Khuhro dismissed the point of view that they were accepting pressure from religious parties, “We have to listen to everyone’s concerns and is our responsibility to hold a public hearing to solve issues, whether for Muslims or non-Muslims.” But his words were met with comments of a double standard. “One wonders: The PPP is keen to hear the concerns of religious parties but on other hand it doesn’t see that Thari citizens have been protesting against a reservoir for two months?” said Jai Parkash Moorani, a member of the National Lobbying Delegation for Minorities’ Rights. (He was referring to a record 70-day protest outside the Islamkot press club by the women of Thar who are opposing a reservoir for coal mining effluent.)
Something much more sinister was unfolding behind the scenes. Death threats were issued to members of the Sindh Assembly for supporting the bill. The secretariat had to request security for PML-F MPA Nand Kumar Goklani who had introduced the legislation and Nisar Khuhro. “It is the PPP that worked on the bill and today civil society has awakened from its deep sleep,” Khuhro said. “While our parliamentarians are being threatened by extremist groups.”
After death threats were issued, few people were willing to openly comment on the change of heart. Even MPA Nand Lal Golkani, who presented the bill, did not respond to requests for comment. “If the person who presented the bill has no reservation on reviewing it why do others have issues?” argued Khuhro.
But setting a minimum age of 18 was the essence of the bill, argue activists. If this is changed, then it will hold no value. “If the Sindh Assembly is going to change the age limitation for conversion, it means that 80% of the spirit of the bill will die and the remaining 20% will hardly be implemented in our system,” said Jai Parkash Moorani.
“The bill was welcomed by everyone,” said Karamat Ali of the Pakistan Institute of Labour and Education (PILER). “If the Sindh government is going to surrender to pressure from religious parties then they will open the door for them to take to the streets in order to remove or change any bill which they do not agree with.” He urged Sindh’s lawmakers not to bow to the pressure. “We will record our protest,” he added.
The Awami National Party’s Bushra Gohar told TFT over the phone that she suggested the ruling PPP should not amend the bill under pressure from religious parties and extremist groups. All it had needed was the governor’s signature and it was otherwise clearly the will of the people. If they give in now, pressure from extremists groups sitting outside parliament will make it difficult for the Sindh Assembly to function. “It has happened in the past and has caused grave harm to religious minority right in the country,” she said. “Religious parties must not be allowed to hold an elected assembly hostage and dictate to it.”
“I am unable to understand why religious parties have not showed their power to oppose the forced conversion bill except for the smallest of political rallies of 20 people,” said Raj Kumar chairman of Sindh Secular forum. “Hafiz Saeed threatens the Sindh government even though he is a declared terrorist?”
Troubled history
Much ground has yet to be covered when it comes to protecting the vulnerable in society. “The PPP should learn from history, when Shaheed Zulfikar Bhutto surrendered to religious organizations, what were the consequences?” asks Anjum Paul, an activist in the Punjab. “The PPP must stand with this forced conversion bill otherwise it will be defeated like the late Zulfikar Ali Bhutto.” He added that in Punjab they were planning to present their own bill on forced conversions and if the PPP steps back from its decision, this will hurt other groups that are hoping to push such laws through in other provinces.
Paul’s sense of history is difficult to refute. The Nation commented on reports that Asif Zardari had “sought the support of Jamaat-e-Islaami in exchange for striking down the forced conversion bill in Sindh Assembly”.
Indeed, this is not the first time the Sindh Assembly has capitulated either. It had to backtrack on the bill on madrassas as well. This bill on madrassa registration has been reportedly postponed.
The honour killing bill, for example, point out rights activists, has not yet been implemented in spirit because the section on forgiveness is misused to the benefit of guilty parties. Honour killing and rape cases continue to be frequently reported despite the government’s assurances that it has a zero tolerance policy for such crimes.
Even the Child Marriage Bill passed by the PPP in the Sindh Assembly in 2013 is not working hard enough. Just as the Sindh Assembly passed the bill against forced conversions, the high court was hearing the case of Anjalee Kumari, who had converted and married a man called Riaz Siyal, even though it was argued that she was not yet 18 years old. “Anjalee Kumari was presented in court and reports showed that she was 14 years old in 2015 so how come she turned 18 in 2016? asked Raj Kumar, an activist and chairman of the Secular Sindh Forum. Her father Kundan told TFT that he was wondering how the state could allow this. According to Dr Khatumal Jeewan, who is the Special Assistant to the Chief Minister on Minority Affairs, Anjalee’s father was not allowed to meet her at the shelter. In her case, the court ruled that she be sent to a shelter until it is ascertained how old she is. She said she wanted to live with her husband and did not want to go back to her parents.
If this law is tampered with, Hindus fear they will have no support in court if the state is not backing them. They are keen to see the age limit maintained. Many fearful families have left Sindh over the years because of what they see as a shrinking space for them as a minority.
Civil society and activists have yet to put their back behind the Hindus who have been fighting this development. There is considerable bitterness. “Civil society has been dead for a long time,” remarked Raj Kumar. “They get a no-objection certificate from the power makers so how will they stand up for non-Muslims?”
Lawyer Kalpana Devi, who worked on a draft of the bill, was disappointed with the shape it was presented in on the floor of the house, but still viewed the passage of the law as progress. Now she says that the Sindh government should hold a debate with Muslims and non-Muslims. “We urge the Sindh government to [do this] so both groups solve their issues because in the end, we live here and share the same culture and land.”
The new law was supported across the floor, by the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz, PML-Functional, Muttahida Qaumi Movement and ruling Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP). It said that anyone who forcefully converts a person can be punished a minimum of five years and a maximum of life imprisonment. They have to pay the victim a fine. Offences under this law are cognizable, which means the police do not need a warrant to make an arrest. They are non-bailable and non-compoundable. But more importantly, it said that no person will be considered as having converted until they attain the age of majority, or 18 years of age.
After death threats were issued, few people were willing to openly comment on the change of heart. Even MPA Nand Lal Golkani, who presented the bill, did not respond to requests for comment. "If the person who presented the bill has no reservation on reviewing it why do others have issues?" argued Khuhro
The lawmaking was prompted by the trend of kidnapping and forcefully converting young Hindu girls in rural parts of Sindh and this legislation coupled with that on child marriages had the potential to tackle the trend. All that was needed, this newspaper reported on December 9 (“A never-never land for naris”) was the governor’s signature. In the meantime, religious parties went to work and started to issue statements against the law. By December 16, ruling Pakistan Peoples Party’s Asif Zardari was assuring the right-wing Jamaat-e-Islami’s Sirajul Haq that they would take the legislation back.
The law was heralded as a milestone and had reflected well on what was perceived as a progressive Sindh Assembly.
A week after the law was passed, Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam-S’s Maulana Samiul Haq even went so far as to say that the entire Sindh Assembly should be dismissed. And on Dec 16, Senior Minister for Parliamentary Affairs Nisar Ahmad Khuhro announced that they would be reviewing the bill because there was no restriction on the age of conversion in Islam.
Interestingly, the religious parties in question have no vote bank in the Sindh Assembly and no voting power in government.
“Our country has a religious constitution,” argued Nisar Khuhro. “So, we will never go against the Holy Quran and Shariah laws which have been written into the Pakistan Constitution. Indeed, the Constitution and Quran both do not allow any kind of forced conversion.” He added that they were concerned about the Hindu girls. “We will protect our girls but no law speaks of an age limitation on conversion.” They were going to review the age limitation as clarity was needed on this point in light of the Islamic constitution, he said.
Khuhro dismissed the point of view that they were accepting pressure from religious parties, “We have to listen to everyone’s concerns and is our responsibility to hold a public hearing to solve issues, whether for Muslims or non-Muslims.” But his words were met with comments of a double standard. “One wonders: The PPP is keen to hear the concerns of religious parties but on other hand it doesn’t see that Thari citizens have been protesting against a reservoir for two months?” said Jai Parkash Moorani, a member of the National Lobbying Delegation for Minorities’ Rights. (He was referring to a record 70-day protest outside the Islamkot press club by the women of Thar who are opposing a reservoir for coal mining effluent.)
Something much more sinister was unfolding behind the scenes. Death threats were issued to members of the Sindh Assembly for supporting the bill. The secretariat had to request security for PML-F MPA Nand Kumar Goklani who had introduced the legislation and Nisar Khuhro. “It is the PPP that worked on the bill and today civil society has awakened from its deep sleep,” Khuhro said. “While our parliamentarians are being threatened by extremist groups.”
After death threats were issued, few people were willing to openly comment on the change of heart. Even MPA Nand Lal Golkani, who presented the bill, did not respond to requests for comment. “If the person who presented the bill has no reservation on reviewing it why do others have issues?” argued Khuhro.
But setting a minimum age of 18 was the essence of the bill, argue activists. If this is changed, then it will hold no value. “If the Sindh Assembly is going to change the age limitation for conversion, it means that 80% of the spirit of the bill will die and the remaining 20% will hardly be implemented in our system,” said Jai Parkash Moorani.
“The bill was welcomed by everyone,” said Karamat Ali of the Pakistan Institute of Labour and Education (PILER). “If the Sindh government is going to surrender to pressure from religious parties then they will open the door for them to take to the streets in order to remove or change any bill which they do not agree with.” He urged Sindh’s lawmakers not to bow to the pressure. “We will record our protest,” he added.
The Awami National Party’s Bushra Gohar told TFT over the phone that she suggested the ruling PPP should not amend the bill under pressure from religious parties and extremist groups. All it had needed was the governor’s signature and it was otherwise clearly the will of the people. If they give in now, pressure from extremists groups sitting outside parliament will make it difficult for the Sindh Assembly to function. “It has happened in the past and has caused grave harm to religious minority right in the country,” she said. “Religious parties must not be allowed to hold an elected assembly hostage and dictate to it.”
“I am unable to understand why religious parties have not showed their power to oppose the forced conversion bill except for the smallest of political rallies of 20 people,” said Raj Kumar chairman of Sindh Secular forum. “Hafiz Saeed threatens the Sindh government even though he is a declared terrorist?”
Troubled history
Much ground has yet to be covered when it comes to protecting the vulnerable in society. “The PPP should learn from history, when Shaheed Zulfikar Bhutto surrendered to religious organizations, what were the consequences?” asks Anjum Paul, an activist in the Punjab. “The PPP must stand with this forced conversion bill otherwise it will be defeated like the late Zulfikar Ali Bhutto.” He added that in Punjab they were planning to present their own bill on forced conversions and if the PPP steps back from its decision, this will hurt other groups that are hoping to push such laws through in other provinces.
Paul’s sense of history is difficult to refute. The Nation commented on reports that Asif Zardari had “sought the support of Jamaat-e-Islaami in exchange for striking down the forced conversion bill in Sindh Assembly”.
Indeed, this is not the first time the Sindh Assembly has capitulated either. It had to backtrack on the bill on madrassas as well. This bill on madrassa registration has been reportedly postponed.
The honour killing bill, for example, point out rights activists, has not yet been implemented in spirit because the section on forgiveness is misused to the benefit of guilty parties. Honour killing and rape cases continue to be frequently reported despite the government’s assurances that it has a zero tolerance policy for such crimes.
Even the Child Marriage Bill passed by the PPP in the Sindh Assembly in 2013 is not working hard enough. Just as the Sindh Assembly passed the bill against forced conversions, the high court was hearing the case of Anjalee Kumari, who had converted and married a man called Riaz Siyal, even though it was argued that she was not yet 18 years old. “Anjalee Kumari was presented in court and reports showed that she was 14 years old in 2015 so how come she turned 18 in 2016? asked Raj Kumar, an activist and chairman of the Secular Sindh Forum. Her father Kundan told TFT that he was wondering how the state could allow this. According to Dr Khatumal Jeewan, who is the Special Assistant to the Chief Minister on Minority Affairs, Anjalee’s father was not allowed to meet her at the shelter. In her case, the court ruled that she be sent to a shelter until it is ascertained how old she is. She said she wanted to live with her husband and did not want to go back to her parents.
If this law is tampered with, Hindus fear they will have no support in court if the state is not backing them. They are keen to see the age limit maintained. Many fearful families have left Sindh over the years because of what they see as a shrinking space for them as a minority.
Civil society and activists have yet to put their back behind the Hindus who have been fighting this development. There is considerable bitterness. “Civil society has been dead for a long time,” remarked Raj Kumar. “They get a no-objection certificate from the power makers so how will they stand up for non-Muslims?”
Lawyer Kalpana Devi, who worked on a draft of the bill, was disappointed with the shape it was presented in on the floor of the house, but still viewed the passage of the law as progress. Now she says that the Sindh government should hold a debate with Muslims and non-Muslims. “We urge the Sindh government to [do this] so both groups solve their issues because in the end, we live here and share the same culture and land.”