Rinkle talking to media among Mitho’s men and women. With her can be seen Naveed Shah

“Supreme Court has once again killed the justice as it had done earlier under Molvi Mushtaq when it sentenced Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto to death” said a strongly worded statement from Raj Kumar, uncle of Rinkle Kumari, the Hindu girl allegedly forcibly converted to Islam and married to a Muslim boy Naveed Shah. The anger and disillusionment on Supreme Court’s Order of April 18th was not limited to Rinkle’s family only. It seems to have spread over the entire Sindh. Those familiar with the details of the case saw it as a mockery of ‘justice’, while the general consumer of mainstream media was satisfied on dispensation of ‘justice’ by letting an ‘adult’ girl exercise her right to ‘free’ choice.

The case was, no doubt, a complex one, where even the liberal sections of society were perplexed to form an opinion on the case. For a layperson Rinkle Kumari had claimed in a presser to have embraced Islam on her own free will before marrying Naveed Shah. Later, she was reported (widely so) to have stated in the Supreme Court that she wanted to go with her ‘husband’ instead of her parents. Anyone would support such a display of ‘free exercise’ of the right to choose by a young girl from minority community. Anyone still raising voice for Rinkle’s recovery would be seen as anti-women rights conservative. Needless to say that the right wing religious people would term the protesters the enemies of religion who are posing hurdles in the spread of Islam. The hyper nationalists would call them anti-state traitors who want to blemish Pakistan’s image by highlighting a persecution that in their view, never existed.

The discrepancies started appearing as soon as the case began with Rinkle’s alleged abduction. We might not know at this point whether Rinkle and Naveed Shah had relationship, but that Rinkle knew Naveed as neighbor is a fact. It is also a fact that she had been complaining about Naveed’s excesses towards her for couple of months before the so-called abduction. The accounts about the day she disappeared, February 24, are many. Even the initial First Information Report (FIR) lodged by her family tells a different story than their statements later. Same is the case with the accounts by Mian Mitho, the central character of the tragedy. Whenever Mitho opens his mouth about the case, he comes up with a different story about what happened on February 24.

For the sake of keeping it simple and preventing it from unnecessarily drifting, lets assume Rinkle and Naveed Shah had a relationship and eloped out of consent on February 24. Had that been the case, the girl would never had cried endlessly in the civil court Ghotki on February 25 and had said that she wanted to go with her parents. Media should probably have asked the civil court why was she sent to Sakhar police station on February 25 after her clear statement to the opposite. That was the point that emboldened those having a sinister hand in the case. After the court gave up its authority over the process of justice by allowing Mian Mitho take Rinkle from Ghotki to Sakhar police station while she was given in police custody, the court gave a silent message to all of us as to who was in-charge. The same was repeated on February 27 in the court of judicial magistrate Mirpur Mathelo, when he ordered to give Rinkle’s custody to Naveed Shah.

The timeline of injustice in this particular case presents many discrepancies and clearly points towards collusion between the entire state structure, landed influential politicians, religious elite and ‘innocent’ media who swindled the process of justice. Despite Rinkle’s repeated statements in different courts that she wanted to go to her parents, courts could not ‘respect’ her choice. Not many would blame the poor magistrates considering the conditions in which they try to give a semblance of justice. In the absence of any security mechanism ensured for them, it was understandable when judicial magistrate in Mirpur Mathelo told counsels of Rinkle’s family that had he given a decision otherwise, he and thousands of Hindus in Ghotki district would have been killed by religious extremists. The instance has been recorded in the note submitted to honorable Supreme Court by the counsel Rasheed A. Rizvi.

The farce of ‘free will’ should have been gotten exposed on March 11 when Rinkle was made to address a press conference while, theoretically, in the custody of police. The way she was surrounded by Mitho’s armed men who dragged them in and out of the venue and then how the media portrayed it as her free will statement, was a shameless display of our collective failure on basic levels of honesty, intellect, sense of judgment and reasoning.

On March 12, when Rinkle was produced in the High Court Karachi, she was once again dragged in the courtroom by Mitho’s men and women with policewomen silently watching on the side.  Veengas, the journalist from Karachi who has been closely following the case, tells that Mitho’s men appeared to be in-charge of the courtroom. “They were everywhere and were not letting anyone come towards Rinkle” says Veengas. The court had to rise twice in order to make order in the courtroom, as has been recorded in the High Court Order of March 12.

Leaving aside what happened next, come fast forward to March 26 and we see Rinkle once again pleading helplessly to the Chief Justice that she wanted to go with her mother. To quote Chief Justice, as was reported by various TV channels and newspapers and was never denied by the honourable court, “Rinkle wants to go with her parents while Dr. Lata is double minded”. Despite this clear statement from Rinkle, she was sent to Panah, the shelter home run by Justice Majida Razvi, former judge Sindh High Court and Chair NCSW. The order was issued to ‘give the girls pressure-free environment for recording free-will statement’ under section 164 of Criminal Procedures Code.

According to the SC’s orders, all the parties to the conflict were barred from meeting her. But to one’s utter shock, reports have emerged that she was not spared even in Panah. Although Justice Majida Razvi categorically denies any such event, but Rinkle’s family insists Panah’s lower level staff was intimidated and threatened by Mitho’s men to let Naveed Shah meet her. Justice Razvi, in her written response to this scribe, has strongly denied this and has offered to produced CCTV camera footage if the accusers tell the date and time of the suspected meeting. The court could probably get the evidence from Panah and burry the disturbing rumors forever.

After, this ‘pressure free period’, Rinkle was produced in Supreme Court on April 18 where she was not allowed to talk before the Order was dictated, despite her murmuring to let her say something. On refusal to be heard by the court, she gave the Chief Justice a piece of paper, which was not read. She was then directed to the Registrar’s office for stating her willingness to accompany either of the parties.

It is unknown how the court determined whether she was ‘sui juris’ (capacity to manage one’s own affairs) when her birth certificate shows her to be less than 18 years of age (16 years 5 months to be precise). Moreover, no procedure was adopted to determine if she had embraced Islam without coercion. There was no cross-questioning allowed to either of the counsels who were not allowed to speak. According to another unconfirmed report, Mitho’s son, Naveed Shah and handful of policemen were already in Registrar’s office where Rinkle recorded her statement. Moments later, media was reporting that Rinkle has opted to go with her ‘husband’.

Interesting to note here that Rinkle’s statement does not say whether she has embraced Islam. Question arises, if she, as Hindu, has married Naveed Shah, would the court and the religious parties ever allow a Muslim girl to marry a Hindu boy? If 16 years old Rinkle’s ‘right to choice’ is so important for all of us, would we allowe adult Muslim girls to marry out of their choice without their parents? We must.

Yousaf Leghari, former Advocate General Sindh is of the opinion that the way case was handled and the Order was written was violation of the procedure laid down for statements under section 164. According to CrPC, the statement had to be recorded under oath in the presence of judge(s). Nothing was done to determine the proverbial ‘free will’ of the abductee, he said. Mr. Amarnath Mottumal, Vice-Chairperson Sindh Chapter of Human Rights Commission of Pakistan emphasized that the court had to make sure if the conversion was forced. To which end, nothing was done.

The way the petition of Pakistan Hindu Council was disposed off by the apex court is also noteworthy. It diluted the issue of necessary legislation to prevent forced conversions when the Court opined that no legislation was required thereon in the presence of Article 20 of the Constitution. Asad Jamal, Advocate Lahore High Court and noted human rights activist says that the Court Order does not and cannot bar the parliament from legislating on an issue it deems necessary to legislate upon. However, legislation on this issue must be done with care and due diligence, as it might be used against the minorities. Precedence of similar legislation could be taken from Indian statutes, Jamal said.

In this judicial hustle bustle, everyone forgot Presidential order of instituting an inquiry on the issue. Probably it is high time that the Honorable court orders the relevant departments to carry on with the inquiry into the role of Ghotki police, of lower judiciary and of Mian Mitho while taking into account his criminal record. The concept of ‘free will’ should not be abused by making it so illusionary, yet decisive.

As these lines are being written, the rumor has it that Mian Mitho has made arrangements for Rinkle to leave the country on May 28. We must amend last point in the timeline of Rinkle’s case and be able to write, Rinkle finally got justice!

A massive rally by Muslims and Hindus in Karachi against Rinkle’s abduction

February 24:

1. Rinkle Kumari was abducted / disappeared early in the morning. At 11:00 am Nand Lal, her father received a call from Mian Aslam son of Mian Abdul Haq (aka Mian Mitho) who informed that Rinkle was with him and had embraced Islam. Later in the evening, family was informed that Rinkle’s Nikah had been administered with a Muslim boy Naveed Shah.
2. Hindu community’s Mukhi (leader) from Deherki, Mr. Namo Mal contacted Mitho and requested him to bring the girl and settle the dispute. Mitho didn’t.
3. Muslims and Hindus of the area jointly protested against this and blocked the National Highway. Police showered heavy shelling on the protesters after which they went on strike closing the markets and lodged the FIR for kidnapping
4. Police refused to name Mitho and his sons in the FIR. Even DPO could not recover Rinkle from Mitho’s custody.

February 25:

1. Rinkle was produced in the court of Hasan Ali Kalwar, Judge Civil Court Ghotki. As soon as she saw her family in the court, she screamed before the judge and pleaded to let her go with her mother. The judge, however, had to inform her parents if they insisted on taking Rinkle along, they would be responsible for the killing of 2000 Hindus of District Ghotki at the hands of religious extremists.
2. Rinkle’s custody, thus, was given to the police with an order to send her to Sukkur Women’s Police Station. But she was taken to Sukkur in the car of Mithu’s son, as reported in Sindhi newspapers. Point to be noted, a private car belonging to the accused party was used to transport the victim, who was in police custody.
3. The judge gave a new date for hearing (February 27)

February 26:

1. Rinkle’s family met Rinkle in Women’s Police Station Sukkur, where she was kept on court’s orders.
2. Rinkle informed her family that Mian Mitho spoke to her earlier that night on the cell phone of a police constable. When she refused to talk to him, she was manhandled and was made to speak to Mitho who reportedly threatened her to change her statement if she wanted to see her family alive.

February 27:

1. Police took Rinkle from Sukkur to Mirpur Mathelo, at 2:00 am according to the sources in Sukkur Police Station. The official version, though, is that they took her at 3:30 am to the Sukkur District Headquarters.
2. According to the official records, DIG Sukkur Police was in Karachi on February 27, while DPO was in Khairpur Mirs and DSP Mirpur Mathelo was in Karachi bench of Supreme Court. Who was the Headquarter under, that day? Why police deemed it necessary to take the girl to the Headquarter at that point in the night?
3. At 3:30 am, SHO Zulfiqar Meher called Rinkle’s family and informed that the Hearing would be in Ghotki instead of Mirpur Mathelo.
4. Half of the family decided to go to Ghotki, half to Mirpur Mathelo. Hearing took place in Mirpur Mathelo eventually but it is unknown why the SHO misled the family?
5. About a kilometer radius of the area around the court in Mirpur Mathelo was sealed. For Hindus, that is. Nobody from Hindu community was allowed even near the court, while hundreds of Mitho’s armed men were there.
6. Four people from Rinkle’s family who were allowed in the court were Sulachini, Rinkle’s mother, Daya Ram, her paternal uncle, Rajkumar, her maternal uncle and Manohar Lal, her grandfather.
7. Mian Mitho said outside the court, if the decision comes against him, he would ‘be obliged to fire the bullets’.
8. At 8:30 am, only two of the four allowed family members got permission to enter the courtroom, i.e., Sulachini Devi and Daya Ram. According to Sulchini Devi, the court room was full of Mian Mitho’s men
9. At 8:45 am, people outside the court heard loud noise of ‘Mubarak’ (congratulations) from inside the courtroom for her ‘embracing Islam’.
10. The court gave the judgment that Rinkle Kumari was Muslim and had married Naveed Shah.

February 28:

1. Rinkle’s uncles addressed a press conference against this injustice and unfair treatment on the part of the state institutions and high-handedness of local the local vadera (feudal) having full governmental support.
2. Mitho’s men, led by one Hisam Kalwar (Mian Mitho denied this but there are eye witnesses of the incident) stormed into Rinkle’s grandfather’s office and fired at him. The old man survived, but the family got scared and shifted to Karachi.

February 29:

1. Mr. Ghulam Shah from Sindhi United Party and Mr. Riaz Chandio from Jiye Sindh Qaumi Mahaz were contacted by Mian Mitho, who expressed his willingness for a deal. He offered to let Rinkle meet with her family if the family compromises and accepts her religious and marital status. The family responded positively and gave commitment to honour Rinkle’s decision to convert and to marry, if and only if she was doing it on her free will, not under someone’s coercion. To ensure that, Mr. Ghulam Shah, a respected Sindhi nationalist (Muslim by religion) offered to keep Rinkle as his daughter in his home for 12 hours and give her free environment without letting any party meet her. Mitho did not agree to the proposition and a thin hope of resolving the issue died down.
2. Mr. Khalid Soomro of JUI-F was contacted by the family and by the Sindhi nationalists to mediate between Hindu community and Mian Mitho. Soomro tried, but failed due to Mitho’s stubbornness.

March 3:

1. The family filed a petition in the Sindh High Court, Karachi challenging the February 27 judgment of Session Court Mirpur Mathelo.

March 6:

1. The appeal accepted by the Sindh High Court. March 12 was given as the hearing date. Takes Rinkle in police custody.
2. SHO thana Frear Town Karachi South allegedly facilitated Mian Mitho to speak to Rinkle, ordered Hajra Usman Inspector South to make Rinkle talk to Mitho. Inspector Hajra reportedly manhandled Rinkle and coerced her to take Mitho’s phone call. Mitho once again threatened Rinkle of dire consequences if she changes statement and denies being Muslim. Contact with both police officials could not be established, however, according to some Sindhi language newspapers, they denied these allegations.

March 8:

1. Supreme Court of Pakistan takes note of the incident and re-opens an old pending petition against forced conversions of Hindu girls by local extremist elements, filed by Pakistan Hindu Council (PHC) in 2007.
2. Supreme Court included Rinkle’s case in the PHC petition, along with two other recent cases of alleged forced conversion, Dr. Lata Kumari and Aasha Kumari.
3. Next hearing was fixed on March 26.

March 11:

1. Rinkle’s press conference was organized while she was still in police custody. Who bore the expenses for the press conference is unknown. Although some Karachi based reporters confirmed that Mian Mitho’s men informed them about and invited to the press conference.
2. In the press conference, Rinkle was being dictated through the Bluetooth mobile device. Her complete ignorance of basic Islamic tenants was visible to many reporters, while she insisted that she was ‘influenced by Islamic tenants’. Cross-questioning was not allowed by Mitho’s men, who took away Rinkle when the reporters tried to question.
3. Reports of the Press Conference were highlighted in the mainstream media to influence court’s proceedings and public opinion, who now believed that Rinkle had embraced Islam on her own free will.

March 12:

1. Around two hundred men of Mian Mithu with open display of weapons make their appearance outside the High court.
2. The court keeps Rinkle’s custody to Police and closes the proceedings in view of Supreme Court’s orders to produce Rinkle on March 26.
3. American Congressman Brad Sherman wrote a letter to the President of Pakistan urging him to look into the matter.

March 26:

1. Rinkle Kumari and Dr. Lata Kumari were produced in the Court. During the court proceedings, Rinkle cried and screamed she wanted to go with her mother. Seeing similar reaction from Dr. Lata, Chief Justice ordered the court to proceed in camera. After taking detailed statements from both the girls, Chief Justice announced in front of national and international media that Rinkle Kumari had pleaded to go with her mother while Dr. Lata was double minded.
2. To the surprise of many, despite her clear statement Chief Justice ordered to keep both the girls in Panah, the shelter home, where both should not be allowed to meet anyone so they get a free environment without any influence, to decide about their life. Panah is run by revered Justice Majida Razvi, former chairperson National Commission on the Status of Women.
3. Court adjourned till April 18

March 27:

1. Maulana Shirani, Chairman Council of Islamic Ideology gave the statement that Rinkle should be sent home if she has been forcibly converted and that forced conversions have no place in Islam

April 10:

1. Naveed Shah, so called husband of Rinkle, requested the Supreme Court for permission to meet Rinkle. Chief Justice rejected the application saying she wanted to go with her mother
2. Speaking at a seminar organized by Anjuman-e-Talaba-e-Islam in Islamabad, Mian Mitho while answering a question said he will not accept the decision of Supreme Court if it decides against him. He also said at the event that all the ‘gaddi nasheens’ (caretakers) of Dargahs in Sindh take money and let such girls go, including Mian Abdul Khaliq, the gaddi nasheen of Bharchundi Sharif (who is Mitho’s nephew).

April 12 – 14:

1. Naveed Shah and Mian Aslam allegedly met Rinkle several times in Panah, a charge Justice Majida Razvi strongly denies and offers to produce CCTV footage if needed by the court. The family, however, insists that they have credible information that two lower level staff members were threatened by Mian Mitho for facilitating those meetings. They said they would provide the witness in the court.

April 17:

1. Human rights activists along with the family of Rinkle held a press conference in Islamabad in which her family categorically declared that they have no objection if their daughter embraced Islam of her own free will and for the love of Islam. They also declared they would accept her decision of marrying Naveed Shah and would rather celebrate the wedding with all the traditional customs including gifting her dowry. But their only request from the court was to look deep into the matter if the conversion and marriage is on her free will in real sense of the concept.

April 18:

1. Rinkle, along with Dr Lata and Aasha were presented in the Supreme Court. As soon as they appear, Chief Justice said they should record their statement in Registrar’s office and should ‘freely’ tell where they wanted to go. Based on their ‘free’ statement, they would be allowed to go wherever they wanted.
2. Upon entering the court Rinkle handed over a piece of paper to the Chief Justice. It never came out what Rinkle wanted to say, which was not heard by the court.
3. The Court wrote the Order before taking the statement from any of the girls and gave half an hour after which girls had to record their statements in Registrar’s office. But curiously enough, they were called in Registrar’s office after one and a half hour during which Mian Mitho and his sons are reported to have met with the Registrar. When asked via email, the Registrar’s office did not respond to the query. According to some reports, Naveed Shah, some policemen and Mian Mitho’s son were present when Rinkle’s ‘freewill’ statement was being recorded in Registrar’s office.
4. As per Rinkle’s statement issued later by the Registrar’s office, she opted to go with her ‘husband’.
5. The mainstream media glorified her exercise of ‘free will’ while demagogues on TV talk shows (including liberals) kept preaching about respecting Rinkle’s ‘right to choose’ who is an adult citizen of Pakistan and should be allowed to ‘freely’ make decisions about her life.

April 19:

1. In a popular TV talk show, a hyper anchor of the show invited Mina Mitho, Ramesh Lal, MNA, Aamir Liaqat Ali, a so called religious scholar known for extremist views (whose anti-Ahmadi tirade on his TV show ended up in killings of two Ahmadis four years ago), Aasha Kumari with her ‘husband’ and Rinkle Kumari on phone. In the show, the anchor deliberately did not let the other point of view come out. A lopsided discussion was engineered to prove that the girls have indeed converted on their free will and for the love of Islam, not just for marriages.

May 17:

1. While disposing off the petition by Pakistan Hindu Council regarding forced conversions of Hindus, Chief Justice of Pakistan declared that in the existence of Article 20 of the Constitution, there was no need for special legislation regarding the protection of the rights of minorities.

May 22: 

1. Rinkle’s family files a Review Petition in Supreme Court of Pakistan and urges inquiry into the role of Ghotki police and of Mian Mitho in the case.
2. Rinkle awaits justice!

Shri Joginder Nath Mandal, first Chairman of the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan addresses while the Quaid listens

Little do we know why Shri Mandal resigned from his office two years after the death of the Quaid. Here I present his resignation letter, which might throw some light what we had started becoming immediately after Quaid’s death. You would also realize that forced conversions and attempts to squeeze Hindus out of Pakistan are not a new phenomenon. It is neither an outcome of Bhutto’s alleged ‘mulla appeasement’ nor it started with Zia’s Islamization. Actions of both of them might be attributed to have accelerated it, but early leadership of Muslim League was responsible for this madness. One is not sure if Quaid really dreamed about a country that we live in today? Or his dream has gone terribly sour? In any case, do we understand that we have to disentangle ourselves from this bitter past and try to make things better for Pakistan?

Whatever early leaders of Muslim League have done with our country, this is probably high time for all of us to start thinking about our present and future. Can we afford to keep persecuting our minorities and still living in the paradise of denial? For how long should we keep regurgitating about what Quaid wanted or what Iqbal wanted? Aren’t we ready even now to make sure what we want Pakistan to be? Think!

Click on the image to read full document

//

Addressing the Press Conference

Pakistan’s daughters, Rinkle, Lata and Asha await justice 

We, the citizens of Pakistan hereby express our strong concern over the treatment of Hindus in Pakistan at the hands of some miscreants in the name of Islam. We want to draw the attention of authorities to the cases of forced conversion of Hindu girls to Islam, generally and most recent cases of Rinkle Kumari, Dr. Lata and Asha specifically.

We urge the media to kindly highlight the sides of these stories hitherto unheard by the masses. It is worrisome that an influential feudal, Mian Abdul Haq aka Mian Mithu who abducted Rinkle Kumari, has been able to evade law while making all pillars of the state, including the fourth pillar i.e. media, look like a joke. His sons with hundreds of their men were seen in the premises of Civil Court Ghotki where Hindu community was refused entry, when Rinkle Kumari was presented there. Mian Mithu’s sons were organizing press conference in Karachi while Rinkle was still in Police custody. His men were reportedly dictating Rinkle the answers to the questions of reporters present in the press conference. Such mockery of state and media should not be allowed and be dealt with iron hand.

It made us extremely concerned when Rinkle Kumari was produced in the Supreme Court on March 26 and after recording her statement in-camera, she screamed in front of media that she wanted to go to her mother and that she was converted forcibly. We are astonished to know that Mian Mithu has been involved in buying and selling of Hindu girls, as has been reported in Sindhi language newspapers and as per information from the victims’ families. A girl Anita was abducted and married to a Muslim from whose home Mian Mithu’s nephew abducted her and sold her to another hand. She is reportedly living with her fourth buyer, reportedly at the behest of this Mian Mithu. Mian Mithu, as per the inhabitants of Deherki, Sindh, possesses hundreds of licensed and unlicensed weapons with impunity while having as many as 117 criminal cases against him.

It is a matter of great shame for the citizens of Pakistan that Mian Mithu is not alone in this business of human trade in the name of Islam. He is supported by many including one Deher family who is allegedly responsible for the abduction of Dr. Lata. Dr. Lata was abducted a month ago and was forcibly married to a Muslim. It is noteworthy that in such cases, the Hindu girls are married within hours of their abduction. The discrepancy can be seen in the affidavit Dr. Lata has submitted to the court, where she signed it as “Lata Kumari”, and not ‘Hafsa’ as she is being called by the Deher family who abducted her.

It further strengthens suspicions against Mian Mithu when Asha, another missing Hindu girl was presented to the court last week. In the premises of Supreme Court of Pakistan, Asha was seen in the custody of the sons of Mian Mithu. It is most disturbing that she went missing in March when FIR was lodged for her abduction. Since April 3 to date, Jaicobabad Police has been searching for her. On April 13, Jaicobabad Police contacted her family, told them that their daughter was kidnapped for ransom, asked them to collect ransom money. Suddenly she emerges from the custody of Mian Mithu and appears in the court with his sons. We are astonished that this horrific series of heinous crimes is being allowed by the state under broad day light.

We deem it pertinent to state here firmly that forcible conversion and human trade is absolutely repugnant to Islam. We are grateful to Muslim scholars and practitioners of Pakistan’s rich Sufi tradition, to stand up against forced conversions, especially the Council of Islamic Ideology and many Sufi Dargahs of Sindh and Punjab. It is thus strongly put forward that in the wake of forced conversions of these girls, it will not be unIslamic to send them back to their families if the honourable court decides so. We are concerned about the bad name this kind of instances are giving to Pakistan and to Islam internationally.

While we are grateful to the President of Pakistan for taking personal notice of the crime, and to the Chief Justice of Pakistan to open the long pending case of Hindus’ forced conversions, we demand from the ruling Pakistan Peoples Party to immediately suspend Mian Mithu’s membership of the party and disqualify him from Parliament membership. He should be arrested under Section 365(a) of PPC and Section 7 of Anti-Terrorism Act. We pray to the Chief Justice of Pakistan to kindly:

1. Call DIG Larkana Division to the Supreme Court of Pakistan and record his statement in-camera
2. Call SSP Jaicobabad and initiate investigation why he started negotiations with Asha’s family for collection of ransom money, and on whose behest he was doing so.
3. Initiate inquiry into the criminal cases against Mian Mithu, his sons Mian Aslma and Mian Rafique. We request to issue search order to recover his illegal weapons that he is keeping at his ‘dera’ in Deherki
4. Ensure that the state of Pakistan provides foolproof security to the families of Asha, Dr. Lata and Rinkle Kumari and their counsels.
5. Mian Mithu should be booked under Anti-Terrorist Act for terrorizing the honourable court and public in Ghotki and Mirpur Mathelo along side the families of victims
6. Recover all the Hindu girls from the custody of Mian Mithu and his collaborators like the Deher family of Jaicobabad.

We also urge the Chief Justice to kindly let the families of these Sindhi girls to meet them before recording their statements.

Finally, we urge the parliament to kindly make Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah’s speech of 11^th August 1947, an integral part of the Constitution. This and only this can save Pakistan from falling victim to communal, sectarian and ethnic hatred.

Pakistan, payendabad.

Signed:

1. Marvi Sirmed, human rights activist / columnist, Islamabad
2. Mehmal Sarfraz, Journalist, Lahore – Pakistan
3. Mohammad Tahseen, Executive Director, SAP-Pakistan, Lahore
4. Amar Lal, former Federal Minister & Chairman Minorities Commission
5. Babu Mahesh, President Jaicobabad Panchayet
6. Dr Ramesh
7. Naseer Memon, human rights activist
8. Faisal Gurchani, Human rights activist
9. Riaz Chandio, Chairman Jiye Sindh Mahaz
10. Rwail Sirmed, student
11. Shumaila Kaukab, Insan Foundation
12. Rafia Arshed, Uks
13. Salim Malik, Bedari Islamabad
14. Aqsa Khan, human rights activist, Islamabad
15. Dr. Farzana Bari, Human rights activist, Islamabad
16. Zubair Torwali, human rights activist / columnist
17. Rabia Aslam, human rights activist
18. Nusrat Zehra, human rights activist / Communication Specialist SPO
19. Harris Khalique, poet and columnist
20. Hasan Nasir, Awami Party Pakistan

The news item as appeared in Daily Dawn

Originally published in The Friday Times in its April 13-19, 2012 issue

Rinkle Kumari - reportedly abducted and forcibly converted to Islam


Click on the image to view the whole document

My Urdu article published in Daily Express in September 2011, might clarify few myths about the ‘liberals’ of Pakistan who are frequently accused of being ‘anti-Pakistan’ and ‘anti-Islam’. It also elaborates what I mean when I say I dream of a secular Pakistan. Your feedback will be most welcome.

Appeared in Daily Times on Monday March 26, 2012 as weekly BAAGHI

After more than five months since a preposterous ‘memogate’ was disclosed, Pakistan’s media and honourable Supreme Court are still struggling to make headway in a conspicuously tilted case. After an October 10, 2011 article by one Mansoor Ijaz, some in Pakistan considered it as an opportunity to take the sitting government to task. These included sections of media, political parties and military establishment. From what was too obvious to ignore, it clearly looked like an agenda driven home-grown ‘gate’ from the outset.

What was most unfortunate was that the superior court allowed itself to be dragged into this agenda-politiking. During its hearing in the Supreme Court, a far-sighted Asma Jahangir had warned the judiciary to not ‘grope for the jurisdiction’ under the public interest litigation window just to drag itself into this highly political case. What appeared as a trap for the incumbent civilian government is now proving to be a vise around the necks of those who tried to use it.

In an 83-page statement, Mr. Husain Haqqani, former Pakistani Ambassador to the United States, has detailed his response denying the allegations levelled against him by Ijaz. The statement, which was submitted to the court on March 22 for its hearing today, Monday March 26, explains Haqqani’s response in 85 points. After the denial of Ijaz’s claims, Haqqani continues that he “waited until now to submit a detailed statement before the commission to ensure that the purported evidence supporting Mr. Ijaz’s claim is first on the record before I respond to it”.

From the affidavits to the apex court submitted by General Kayani and General Pasha, then DG Inter-Services Intelligence, it is clear that the latter made a visit to London in order to ‘investigate’ the memo. Ijaz had claimed in his October 10 article to have drafted a memo allegedly on behalf of Haqqani and delivered the same to General Mullen, then Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff. In the said affidavits, both the generals had claimed that Ijaz had ‘enough corroborative material’ and had been examined by General Pasha. According to Pasha, his meeting with Ijaz took place on October 22, while he reported back to the president on November 18. In his affidavit General Kayani said that he had urged the prime minister to take action urgently as time was of the essence and “the sooner we found out the facts the better it would be”. But it was quite strange that both the generals had wasted around 22 days — three weeks — that were ‘of the essence’, in doing no one knows what, before they could report back to the prime minister on November 13 and the president on November 18.

Even after both the generals, one of whom was leading the ‘intelligence’ of the country, submitted their affidavits to the court, they forgot to submit the ‘enough corroborative evidence’ that they claimed to have ‘examined’. It was this failure and a terrible collective oversight on the part of sections of the memo-euphoric media, the petitioners and probably the judiciary as well, who did not ask the generals to provide the evidence they had so blindly trusted against the country’s hardworking and committed ambassador having no history of betraying the nation’s interest. Even five months after the fishy ‘memogate’ emerged, every one of us is still waiting for the mythical Gul-e-Bakawli of the Arabian Nights that comatosed the brilliance of the good general. But we are not that naïve otherwise. Remember the recent re-emergence of the so-called ‘Mehrangate’? Referring to the affidavits submitted by General Asad Durrani and others, one of the judges on the bench passed an appropriate remark that mere affidavits could not be taken as evidence. But on guesses, the appropriateness of such arguments has to be applied with careful selection.

It not only sends chills down the spine of an ordinary Pakistani to even imagine that our collective security has been in such simple (if not wily!) hands but also rots much of the meat from most of the assertions made in the past by the ‘intelligence’ leadership, e.g., foreign hand in Balochistan etc, which obviously goes without any presentable evidence.

Now when all sides have failed to present any evidence to prove the claims made by Ijaz, it is sort of embarrassing for not only the military establishment, the media, the petitioners but also for the apex court, who in a departure from all judicial precedent, allowed this ‘star witness’ to record his statement outside the country. This would probably be the first and the only case in Pakistan’s judicial history when not only the counsels but secretary to the Judicial Commission (which is part of the judiciary), goes abroad to hear a witness who has an established track record of spreading venom against Pakistan on many occasions. As reported in newspapers on Saturday, Haqqani has requested the court to record his statement on video just as it did in the case of Ijaz. It is going to be a difficult ride for the apex court if it decides to deny Haqqani’s request.

The independent judiciary that we sacrificed so much for has to stand its ground. No matter who the petitioner is, no matter who submits the affidavit, no matter what the media screams, the judiciary will not let its independence be compromised. That is one thing that all of us have been led to believe. If the standards of justice are made subjective and selective, it will have far-reaching effects on judicial freedom. The media should resist the urge to become a power player, just as the judiciary should refuse to become a tool to serve the political purposes of various contenders for power. In this particular case, the judiciary could not appear as objective as it should have been. Right from accepting the petition and failing to reject it on very strong technical grounds, to facilitating Ijaz unprecedentedly, one could not see the norms of equality and justice being followed by all parties. This is one more test juncture of this case.

It might not affect Haqqani too much if he records his statement in London, Paris, NewYork or Islamabad. But if the commission fails to establish itself as a forum of justice, blind to all kinds of subjectivity, the effects will be on the judiciary. As a humble part of the movement for the restoration of the judiciary, the writer is nervously waiting with fingers crossed to see who wins — the judiciary or the egocentric politics of a few who are using the judiciary for their own selfish motives.

Published in Daily Times as my weekly BAAGHI, on Monday March 19, 2012

“Tacitly registering his concern over the debate in the media on the role of the army and the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), Chief of Army Staff (COAS) General Ashfaq Kayani on Wednesday said, ‘The national institutions should not be undermined’”, said a news item in an English language daily newspaper on March 15. What merited this royal annoyance was open to discussion in the media about the re-eruption of a long simmering ‘Mehrangate’ that should be best described as ISI-gate. According to this case, some Rs 140 million had been doled out to politicians to rig the elections in 1990. The rest of the money out of Rs 350 million, as claimed by one Younas Habib, Zonal Manager of Habib Bank at that time, who was allegedly asked by the ISI to generate these funds, eventually went to the coffers of ISI and its officials and General Aslam Beg, the then army chief.

The reports of kingly displeasure came when the ‘Chief’ (as is he called by the ranks) was informally talking to a group of editors at the farewell dinner hosted by Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani for the outgoing Air Chief Rao Qamar Suleman. ‘Oh, the Chief is not happy,’ was the buzz that quickly took over the atmosphere, if a fly on the wall is to be believed. Curious, as these media persons are normally quite committed to ‘freedom of press’ kind of slogans and usually hit the politicians hard if such a suggestion comes from them, I dared to speak with a couple of them and tried to get a sense if any discontent existed on the Chief’s remarks. There was. With understandable care and qualifying statements to justify the Chief’s unhappiness. Understandable, quite understandable.

To be fair to the Chief, there is little reason to disagree with him. This is perhaps the rarest agreement between us — the bloody civilians and the almighty generals. Indeed, the national institutions should not be undermined. National institutions are undermined when individuals take them for a ride. Institutions are emasculated when individuals responsible for them are allowed to get away with the biggest crimes committed under the guise of ‘national interest’. Institutions are ruined when they are allowed to overstep their jurisdictions with impunity and arrogate to themselves the right to demolish and weaken every other institution of the country. The institutions are, indeed, annihilated when they manipulate the people’s mandate and accord themselves the right to tamper with the country’s law and constitution. In strong agreement with the General, none of us should let the institutions be undermined and weaken themselves.

Now comes the worrying part of the General’s remarks: “The debate (on TV channels) does not support national institutions as it works to de-motivate soldiers performing their duties in 20° Celsius below freezing point. We need to motivate our soldiers instead of demoralizing them by such debates.” What are we being told? These oft- repeated reminders of ‘soldiers doing their duty in 20 minus Celsius’ are not only misplaced but are also hackneyed now to the point of engendering instant yawning. Soldiers on duty in extreme weather conditions are not even the topic of ISI-gate. The nation stands behind these soldiers and salutes them for their sacrifices. What about those who use their soldiers as human bait or as mere pawns to fight the wars created by a few generals? The talk shows discussing ISI-gate are hardly about these poor soldiers. They are, rather, about a handful of generals who subverted the constitution of the country, made an important institution — ISI — an unprofessional one, made this institution a moneymaking machine, put it on a dangerous and anti-state path of undermining the democratic process, filled their bank accounts and walked away. One is flabbergasted at the army’s ability to distinguish between friends and foes. How come nabbing the culprits is akin to ‘undermining’ the institution is an enigma, the answer to which is only known to the almighty generals.

The discussion did not end here. Senior editors were reminded of other countries, including India, USA and Israel, who never talked about their ‘intelligence’ agencies the way the ISI was discussed in Pakistan. Well sir, memory fails me to count the instances when spy agencies of these countries were caught distributing money among politicians to rig elections, kill their prime ministers and torture ‘uncontrollable’ elements of the media to death. “They are never caught,” reminds my friend, a senior editor with another daily, who happened to be present in the said informal media talk. What happened with Al Gore and later Hillary Clinton prompted another senior anchor, as evidence of the CIA’s overstepping the civilian mandate.

They, however, could not come up with a ready reference when I asked about such examples from neighbouring India and other countries, although, “There were many examples of RAW’s overstepping in India as well,” they claimed. While this scribe is not aware of any RAW-hatched conspiracy against their own politicians, the efficiency or lack thereof of IB and NIA is widely discussed in the Indian media. Their ‘soldiers working under 20 Celsius’ don’t mind too much, as professionalism in other countries is the focus of these institutions. We perhaps need to take extra measures to safeguard our soldiers’ morale, which inter alia includes clear demarcation of the role of spy agencies and making sure they don’t make or break democratic governments and people who suffer at their hands do not malign them.

Even if the agencies in other countries play this ‘august’ role of interrupting the democratic process in their countries, does it justify ISI’s doling out money to keep a certain political party of the people’s choice out of government? Now that’s dangerous, if the army thinks whatever happened in 1990 was justifiable and is an established way of agencies’ working around the world, it should worry every law-abiding citizen of Pakistan. If the army is insisting on being right when it dictates the democratic process, we need to worry about our future. In this case we really need to reflect what has really changed despite the army’s lip service that they don’t want to mingle in politics.

About ‘Mehrangate’, the General said, it happened 20 years earlier and discussing it now was fighting history. “We should learn from the past, live in the present with a focus on the future,” he goes on. If indeed it happened 20 years ago, then most of the current soldiers (who the General thinks are losing morale) were not even born. These young soldiers must see that the culprits of serious crime of undermining the constitution of Pakistan are not exempt from the law by virtue of whatever office they might have held in the past. These brave sons of ours, the soldiers, must be taught that whosoever takes the law into their own hands and compromises the professionalism of Pakistan’s army, must face the grip of the law. Giving them a practical example of how important it is to safeguard the army’s own professionalism should not be considered detrimental or negative.

Lastly, if we don’t have to ‘fight history’, the military leadership needs to investigate who from its ranks reportedly met with a retired judge and requested to pass on the message to the ‘right authorities’ to keep lynching the government on the NRO judgment and contempt cases. The ‘Do-Not-Fight-History’ doctrine is not selective sir, is it? Something seems badly rotten in the state that rests within a state.

Originally appeared in Daily Times on Monday March 12, 2012 as my weekly BAAGHI

The Supreme Court of Pakistan, in an unprecedented move, has recently started hearing a long pending case, human rights petition no. HRC 19/1996, Air Marshal Asghar Khan Vs retired chief of army staff General Mirza Muhammad Aslam Beg, the former Inter Services Intelligence chief retired Lt-General Asad Durrani and Younis Habib of Habib Bank (later associated with Mehran Bank fraud scandal). The case was started in 1996, saw few hearings and then was put in the Supreme Court’s case-mortuary for 16 years.

One wonders why they call the scandal ‘Mehrangate’ as Mr Younas Habib, the central character of the case was in Habib Bank back in 1990. Probably because it is too hard to pronounce it as ISI-gate. The story of ISI-gate started on June 11, 1996 when Gen (R) Naseerullah Babar, former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto’s Minister for Interior, while speaking on the floor of the house in the National Assembly, accused the ISI of defrauding the general elections by distributing money among the right wing politicians to make an election alliance and thus rig the elections to defeat the PPP. He alleged that former chief of army staff Gen (Retd) Mirza Aslam Beg withdrew an amount of Rs.140 million from Mehran Bank, and disbursed the amount through the ISI chief, Lt-General Asad Durrani to a selection of anti-PPP politicians and thus rig the elections in favour of the ISI-tailored IJI and Mian Nawaz Sharif.

Following this, the brave and indefatigable retired air marshal Asghar Khan wrote a letter to the then Chief Justice of Supreme Court, Justice Sajjad Ali Shah, who converted his letter with attached affidavit of Asad Durrani into a human rights petition under section 184(3). The petition was, however, stalled after Justice Shah’s unceremonious ouster in November 1997 when members of Nawaz Sharif’s Muslim League stormed the Supreme Court and later got the CJ ousted with the help of his Brother Judges. His successor, Justice Ajmal Mian remained completely mum over the case. So much so that his book A Judge Speaks Out does not even talk about Asghar Khan or his petition. All eight chief justices that followed him since then, never dared to open the case.

Meanwhile, the indomitable Asghar Khan kept writing letters to almost all of these incoming CJs including the current one, before and after his restoration. All his letters, pertinent to note here, kept going unanswered. The newly ‘freed’ judiciary made itself busy with more important things like NRO, NAB, sugar prices, appointment of grade 21 officers and the prime minister’s alleged contempt, etc. In these 16 years of the ISI-gate resting in the SC’s mortuary, prime witnesses and central characters of the scandal started disappearing. General Naseerullah Babar and Ghulam Ishaq Khan died, while the in-camera statements of General Asad Durrani and Naseerullah Babar given before the court in November 1997 got successfully demolished from the Supreme Court’s record.

Younas Habib, on March 9, categorically stated before the court that he was coerced into ‘arranging’ the money (through bank fraud), by President Ghulam Ishaq Khan and Army Chief Gen Mirza Aslam Beg. Of the Rs 1.48 billion that he ‘arranged’, around Rs 340 million were disbursed to different politicians, while rest of the money was deposited in different bank accounts belonging to ISI, whose numbers were provided by General Aslam Beg. General Beg, who denied the charges against him in Habib’s statement, had earlier submitted a statement in the court in 1997, whereby he had admitted disbursal of money to the politicians. As produced by veteran columnist Ardeshir Cowasjee in his August 19, 2007 column, some excerpts of General Beg’s statement are as follows:

“That in early September [1990], Mr Younis Habib then serving in the Habib Bank Ltd as Zonal Chief had called on the answering respondent [Beg] and informed him that he was under instructions from the President’s [Ghulam Ishaq] Election Cell to make available a sum of Rs.140 million for supporting the elections of 1990. He stated that he will be available to collect this amount through his own efforts from his community as donations and that he was under the instructions of the Election Cell to place this amount at the disposal of the Director-General, Inter Services Intelligence who would handle this amount as per instructions of the President’s Election Cell.”

“…That in 1990 the National Assembly was dissolved and the government of Mrs [Sic] Benazir Bhutto was dismissed. A caretaker government was formed to hold elections within 90 days. The then President, Mr Ghulam Ishaq Khan, had formed an Election Cell directly under him managed by Mr Roedad Khan/Mr Ijlal Haider Zaidi.”

“…That later on, the answering respondent was informed by the Director-General, Inter Services Intelligence that various accounts were opened and the amount of Rs.140 million was deposited in those accounts directly by Mr Younis Habib. Director-General, Inter Services Intelligence made arrangements to distribute these amounts amongst the politicians belonging to various political parties and persons as instructed by the Election Cell…”

“…That in 1975 Mr Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, the then prime minister, created a Political Cell within the ISI organization [Sic]. As a result, the ISI was made responsible to the chief executive, i.e. the prime minister/president for all matters of national and political intelligence…”

Here arise many interesting questions. Under what provision of law did Z. A. Bhutto create this infamous ‘political cell’ of ISI? Does it still operate? Does it have a legal cover? If not, should not the Supreme Court declare it null and void? What made the apex court stay quiet on this extremely important case for so long? Is this not an unconscionable negligence on the part of all pillars of the state including the judiciary? Will the apex court take this opportunity of self-correction? If Waheeda Shah’s “crime was more serious than the Karachi incident of killing a youth by Rangers” and memogate was more serious than all other pressing matters this country was facing, where does the Supreme Court place this case? Even after the resurrection of an ‘independent’ judiciary, why had the case to wait for three long years?

It is probably high time that the superior courts washed the stigma of being under the covert influence of the military establishment. If the judiciary takes this opportunity of mending the civil-military relations through showing the secret agencies (‘intelligence’ would be too much of an accusation against them) their place, defining their role and demarcation of the boundaries of their mandate, it would be writing and righting history. If, however, the judiciary loses this opportunity by giving the ISI a clean chit using the ‘advantage’ of loss of prime witnesses, who have been ‘lost’ due to the judiciary’s own negligence, it will go down in history as one-eyed justice.