In theory, Pakistan is a federal parliamentary democracy, which elects its representatives through universal adult franchise. Joint electorates which were restored in 2002 mean that all citizens of Pakistan should be placed on the same electoral rolls regardless of their faith. This is true for almost all citizens, Muslims, Hindus, Christians, Sikhs etc., except one community which is placed on a separate list for no plausibly rational reason: the Ahmadi community.

Ahmadis are placed on a supplementary “non-Muslim” list and thus subject to state sponsored discrimination. In 2002, when the joint electorate was restored through an executive order, the then military regime, which otherwise portrayed itself as the bastion of enlightened moderation, placed Ahmadis on this separate list, telling Ahmadis that this was a minor concession to the Mullahs. It was not just a minor concession though because it hit at the root of the idea of citizenship in Pakistan, because from then on Ahmadis are the only other in citizenship category, given that none of the other communities, Muslim or non-Muslim, are placed on a separate list.

Declared non-Muslim for the purposes of law and constitution through a constitutional amendment in 1974, Ahmadis have faced systematic denial of their fundamental rights guaranteed to them under the constitution as citizens, including their right to cast their votes in a general election.

Ahmadis believe that they are Muslims and Article 20 of the Constitution does allow them the right to believe they are, even if the state considers them non-Muslim for the purposes of law and constitution.  Since they believe they are Muslims and have the same names as official Muslims, they somehow are deemed to pose a threat to the faith of the majority by merely being on the same list. Hence, they alone must be placed on this supplementary non-Muslim list. In other words, they can vote only if they accept that they are non-Muslim. To reiterate, Christians, Hindus, Sikhs etc. are placed on the main rolls with Muslims.

Consequently, the Ahmadis have once again decided to boycott the elections this year citing this unconscionable discrimination which, they say in a press release issued by the Anjuman-e-Ahmadiyya, militates against not just the constitutional scheme which speaks of equality but the solemn promises of equality of citizenship that Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah made to all citizens of Pakistan, Muslim or non-Muslim.

Joint electorates which were restored in 2002 mean that all citizens of Pakistan should be placed on the same electoral rolls regardless of their faith. But Ahmadis are placed on a supplementary “non-Muslim” list and thus subject to state-sponsored discrimination.

Supporters of the separate list for Ahmadis and the ensuing discriminatory practices contend that since Ahmadis do not acknowledge their classification as non-Muslims according to the constitution, they should be deemed ineligible for the fundamental rights enshrined in that very constitution. This is a very dangerous argument to make and is patently wrong. Disagreeing with constitutional provisions is neither illegal nor unconstitutional. This is why there is a process to introduce a constitutional amendment. Every time you amend the Constitution, you are actually disagreeing with some part of it. It is therefore perfectly constitutional to disagree with the 2nd Amendment. It is perfectly constitutional to espouse the idea that one day Pakistanis will have the collective wisdom to undo it. The Constitution of Pakistan does not require an Ahmadi to accept that he or she is a non-Muslim. It states that for the purposes of the Law and Constitution, Ahmadis are non-Muslim, which means that an Ahmadi cannot hold the office of the President or Prime Minister.

The right of an Ahmadi to reject the second amendment, however, is protected by Article 20 as well as the Objectives Resolution. The notion that Ahmadis will be granted their rights as citizens only if they concede their non-Muslim status, is an untenable proposition. Conversely, even if Ahmadis were to acquiesce to this demand, some might subsequently insist on labeling them as Murtad or apostates. Ultimately, this amounts to calling forth a flood.  Ahmadis’ resistance to their pigeonholing into the non-Muslim category is actually a very needed push back to the idea that the state can decide who is a Muslim and who is not.

This question aside, the denial of franchise on the basis of a theological question is out of step with the idea of a nation state in 21^st century. While there are states that confine citizenship to one group or the other or make citizenship rights contingent on religious or ethnic considerations, those states are no models to emulate. As the Supreme Court of Pakistan held in the Tahir Naqqash case in 2022, the Pakistani constitution does not disavow Ahmadis as citizens and therefore the state is bound to accord to them equal rights regardless of their status as Muslims or Non-Muslims. The Constitution of 1973 states in 106(2):

“A person shall be entitled to vote if-

(a)       he is a citizen of Pakistan;

(b)       he is not less than eighteen years of age;

(c)       his name appears on the electoral roll; and

(d)       he is not declared by a competent court to be of unsound mind.”

Furthermore, Pakistan is bound by its international covenants to accord this right.  Article 21 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights states:

“Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.”

Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) that Pakistan ratified in 2010 states:

“Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity, without any of the distinctions mentioned in article 2 and without unreasonable restrictions:

(a) To take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen

representatives;

(b) To vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by

universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the

free expression of the will of the electors”

The question of faith therefore cannot arise when determining electoral rolls. Every citizen ought to be on the same roll without exception.  As things stand, Ahmadis are excluded from this basic exercise of citizenship and this violates Pakistan’s international obligations. Technically this would be enough to strip Pakistan of its GSP+ status and other preferential trade deals that have been linked to the country’s fulfillment of these obligations. The problem is easily fixable (put everyone on the same list) but the state seems utterly powerless against extremists that drive this popular discrimination.

Yasser Latif Hamdani

The writer is an advocate of the high courts of Pakistan and author of ‘Jinnah: A Life.’

The post Pakistan Is Violating Its International Obligations By Excluding Ahmadis From Elections appeared first on Dissent Today.

There is not much mystery, however, about how Dr Afia Siddiqui got to where she did. Born into a religious Deobandi family in Karachi, her mother was an ally of Pakistan’s brutal Islamist dictator General Zia-ul-Haq, who appointed her to the Zakat Council in the country, after she supported him on Hudood Ordinance and Islamisation of Pakistan. Afia Siddiqui went to the University of Houston in 1990 transferring to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology later. Here she became part of the Muslim Students Association or the MSA. MSAs exist on most major US campuses where ultra conservative Islamist doctrine is preached by neo-traditionalist religious scholars like Imam Hamza Yusuf Hanson etc. It is like the conference circuit for Islamic fundamentalist scholars, who go from campus to campus giving talks on how young Muslim undergraduates can resist the “evils” of the godless western civilization. That alone would not have radicalized her though. Her conversion to the terror cause came sometime during her time at Brandeis where she got her doctorate in neuroscience. It was during this time that she got married (it was an arranged marriage) and her husband moved from Karachi to Boston to work as a doctor. It is unclear if Dr Afia Siddiqui was a US citizen by then though many news outlets describe her as one. Her legal team staunchly denies this. How then were she and her family able to maintain a US residency is something that is a bit of a mystery.

During her sojourn in Boston, she became even more radicalized, now taking to preaching Jihad openly. She wanted her husband to join the Taliban in Afghanistan but he refused. Her husband later told the FBI that he had procured $10,000 worth of military manuals and bomb making literature to please her. Afia and her family returned to Pakistan in 2002 and her marriage fell apart, with her husband divorcing her for being allegedly involved in extremist activities. In 2003, she married Osama bin Laden’s courier, Ammar Al Baluchi – a fact confirmed by Pakistani intelligence. Al Baluchi ultimately divorced her because he found her too liberal. Subsequently, she went into hiding for a period of five years till her eventual arrest in Ghazni Afghanistan by the Afghan National Police, something that she confirmed herself in court. It was here that she allegedly shot an M4 rifle and attempted to murder US operatives. This was what she was eventually charged with.

The truth is that Afia Siddiqui is a victim but she is not the victim of “evil Americans”. She is a victim of the Islamic fundamentalist preachers masquerading as Islamic scholars, including those who travel from campus to campus in the US.

In court, she admitted to the possibility of having written documents about mass bomb attacks but she denied ever having fired the M4. Regardless, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on September 23, 2010, convicted her after a jury trial of one count of attempted murder of United States nationals in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2332(b)(1); one count of attempted murder of United States officers and employees in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1114(3); one count of armed assault of United States officers and employees in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111(a)(1) and (b); one count of using a firearm during a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c); and three counts of assault of United States officers and employees in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111(a)(1). The district court sentenced her principally to 86 years’ imprisonment.

US Court of Appeals the Second Circuit held in December 2012:

“We also find that the district court did not clearly err in determining that Siddiqui’s offense was calculated to retaliate against the United States. While in Afghan custody prior to the shooting incident, Siddiqui referred to the United States as invaders, and when queried about the bomb-making documents found in her possession, Siddiqui indicated that the target of those bombs were “the foreigners.”

What’s more, shortly after firing on the American interview team, Siddiqui stated: “I am going to kill all you Americans. You are going to die by my blood”; “death to America”; and “I will kill all you motherfuckers.” Taken as a whole, this evidence provides a sufficient factual basis for the district court’s conclusion that Siddiqui’s offense was calculated to retaliate against the United States.”

The case turned on the testimony of US operatives admittedly. Are there good reasons to question their testimony and imagine that there is a grand American conspiracy against this innocent Pakistani neuroscientist? The main question remains. Why did the Americans feel compelled to frame Dr Siddiqui? What did they have against her that they went through such lengths to concoct stories about her? No one from the Afia Siddiqui camp has been able to answer this question convincingly.

The truth is that Afia Siddiqui is a victim but she is not the victim of “evil Americans”, who tried and convicted her fairly as per law. She is a victim of the Islamic fundamentalist preachers masquerading as Islamic scholars, including those who travel from campus to campus in the US preaching their gospel of hate. Pakistani international students in the US can be easy prey to these so-called scholars. It is not surprising that young freshmen and sophomores from Pakistan and indeed the rest of the Muslim world, begin idolizing religious conservatives and neo-traditionalists like Imam Hamza Yusuf Hanson, Zaid Shakir and Yasir Qadhi, because they perceived the liberal atmosphere of their college campuses as a direct affront to their religious beliefs and identity. There is a dotted line from there to extremism and even terrorism. At the end of the day it is an internal Muslim battle between two different visions of Islam. There is the modernist vision that – while self consciously Muslim – nevertheless is not based on denial of modernity. On the other hand you have a reactionary and fundamentalist mindset which rejects everything it deems anti-Islamic. Dr Afia Siddiqui, a talented scientist by all accounts, was seduced by the latter. Joining Al Qaeda was the logical next step, if not an inevitable one.

Yasser Latif Hamdani

The writer is an advocate of the high courts of Pakistan and author of ‘Jinnah: A Life.’

The post “Daughter of the Nation” or a Terrorist: The Truth About Afia Siddiqui appeared first on Dissent Today.

Consider for example the attacks on government-owned buildings and military installations. No one cavils at the idea that the military establishment in Pakistan has been involved in political engineering, indeed, the whole PTI/Imran Khan project has been the result of this engineering. In many ways, the unraveling of this project has been a comeuppance for the military itself but does the unraveling itself justify the chaos? To violently attack and burn buildings and installations is calling forth a flood and no it is not about civilian supremacy. In the past, the PTI and its supporters were on the frontline of those persecuting dissenting voices critical of the military’s intervention in politics.

The fact is, whether or not PTI supporters accept it, Imran Khan’s government was toppled through constitutional means through a vote of no confidence. On the contrary, PTI’s decision to call for the early dissolution of the provincial assemblies of Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa was tainted with malice. This should have been a matter to be adjudicated in the Supreme Court but unfortunately, the events of the past two months, especially the somewhat hasty exercise of the original jurisdiction by the Chief Justice of Pakistan precluded that possibility. 

For PTI, it would seem the words “constitution” and “civilian supremacy” mean something only when it is PTI that is supreme. It is – to put it mildly- a mad dash to grab power at all costs. The clamor for elections on 14 May 2023 is another example.  

By resorting to violence, PTI has for all practical purposes forfeited its status as a democratic political party and has become a militant outfit in outright rebellion against the state. 

The Constitution does not only speak of elections within 90 days but also of free, fair, and impartial polls. This in turn is regulated by the Election Act, which envisages all legislative elections on one day, which is necessary if there have to be neutral caretakers, another established convention in the country. It would be another matter if the people of Pakistan had faith in incumbent governments holding free and fair elections. Sadly that is not the case.  

In the absence of such faith, free and fair elections can only happen nationally, if these are held on the same day i.e. for provincial and national legislatures. 

PTI’s populist rhetoric no doubt has captured the imagination of a significant percentage of the country’s population. The party has tasted blood and is in no mood to relent. The issue is not civilian supremacy. Nor is it constitutionalism.The actions of PTI leadersand its party cadres over the last few days are the antithesis of constitutionalism. 

The people have the right to protest but such protest and the right to assemble have to be peaceable and non-violent, and within the constitutional bounds. Needless to say, the looting and arson of the kind on display during the PTI supporters’  attack on the Corps Commander Lahore’s house  were not akin to peaceful protest. By resorting to violence, PTI has for all practical purposes forfeited its status as a democratic political party and has become a militant outfit in outright rebellion against the state. No state will brook such rebellion.

There is still time for the PTI to halt and bring sanity back. Imran Khan should be tried fairly and if he is convicted, he should step aside and make way for other leadership within the party. If on the other hand, the party insists on following the disastrous course of violent protest and uprising, the state will have no choice but to proscribe the party as an illegal outfit. This will not be good for anyone because it will deprive the PTI supporters of a legitimate political voice, which is their right as citizens of the country. 

For political dissent to be legitimate and credible, it has to be based on principles. Those principles are in short supply at the moment. It is unclear as to what the PTI is aiming at – a violent overthrow of the government will bring untold misery to a country already facing a grave economic crisis. Statesmanship demands that PTI leaders now look beyond their narrow self-interest and reaffirm their loyalty to constitutional means and methods.

The alternatives are bleak. Will Pakistan descend further into chaos with PTI cadres taking on the military and the law enforcers in the streets? Does a violent civil war further PTI’s goal of obtaining power at all costs? It is not likely. The patience of the deep state has been tested enough already. Consequences can potentially be bloody and I do not think any side wants this to go on. All sides need to step back and prepare for elections in October this year. In order for those polls to be fair and impartial, the PTI needs to sit down with powers that be and mend the fences. At this time, however, PTI is being perceived as anti-state and an agent of chaos. This perception must be undone. Calmer and saner heads must take up the reins of the party and control the mob that has been unleashed. The party needs to come out of the siege mentality and revert to being a normal political party, regardless of the political future of Imran Khan.

Yasser Latif Hamdani

The writer is an advocate of the high courts of Pakistan and author of ‘Jinnah: A Life.’

The post Violent Protests: PTI Has Emerged As A Militant Outfit  appeared first on Dissent Today.