JAMMU :
The sentencing of two members of Pakistan’s Ahmadi community to prison on charges related to hate speech and hurting religious feelings has once again exposed the disturbing state of religious freedom in a country that claims to uphold justice and constitutional governance. The case of Sheraz Ahmad and Zaheer Ahmad, who were arrested by Pakistan’s Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) in Punjab in 2019, highlights a deeply troubling question: can a state truly call itself democratic when members of a religious minority live under the constant shadow of prosecution, discrimination and social hostility?
According to the information reported by news agency PTI, Additional District and Sessions Judge Nusrat Ali Siddiqui Malik sentenced Sheraz Ahmad to seven years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 11 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA), seven years under Section 295-A of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), and three years under Section 298-C of the PPC. The sentences are to run concurrently. Zaheer Ahmad was sentenced to three years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 298-C. The case reportedly concerned allegations of sharing blasphemous material and banned books through social media and a WhatsApp group.
While the allegations must be assessed through a fair and impartial judicial process, the wider circumstances surrounding the treatment of Ahmadis in Pakistan demand serious scrutiny. The central issue is not simply the punishment imposed in one criminal case. It is the broader environment in which a vulnerable religious community faces legal restrictions, public hostility and persistent questions about its right to practise its faith freely.
Pakistan’s treatment of the Ahmadi community is particularly disturbing because discrimination against Ahmadis is not confined to social prejudice. It has deep roots in the country's constitutional and legal framework.
In 1974, Pakistan amended its Constitution to declare Ahmadis non-Muslims for constitutional purposes. A decade later, Ordinance XX of 1984 imposed further restrictions on their religious expression and the terminology they could use. These provisions have created a legal environment in which ordinary expressions of religious identity can expose Ahmadis to criminal prosecution.
This framework raises fundamental questions about equality before the law. Religious identity should not determine whether a citizen can worship, express personal beliefs or participate fully in public life. Yet Ahmadis have long faced restrictions that distinguish them from other citizens on the basis of their faith.
A government cannot credibly champion religious tolerance while maintaining laws that subject a minority to unequal treatment. Nor can the language of constitutional order justify denying citizens the basic dignity and freedom that a constitution should protect.
Pakistan’s blasphemy-related laws have attracted sustained criticism from human rights advocates because of concerns about their potential misuse, the severity of punishments and the risks faced by those accused.
Allegations involving religion are particularly sensitive in Pakistan, where accusations of blasphemy can trigger intense public anger and, in some cases, mob violence. Even before a court reaches a verdict, an accused person may face social ostracism, threats and pressure that undermine the presumption of innocence.
For religious minorities, the consequences can be especially severe. The mere accusation of offending religious sentiments may place an individual and their family in danger.
The case of Sheraz Ahmad and Zaheer Ahmad must therefore be viewed against this wider background. Their convictions should be examined through the principles of due process, proportionality and equal protection under the law. The government must ensure that allegations are supported by credible evidence and that criminal proceedings are not influenced by religious prejudice.
The right to investigate a genuine offence does not give the state unlimited authority to suppress religious expression. Justice requires clear legal standards, reliable evidence, independent judicial scrutiny and meaningful safeguards against discrimination.
Pakistan's establishment frequently invokes national unity, constitutional order and religious identity. Yet the treatment of minorities exposes a profound contradiction between these claims and the principles of a modern, rights-respecting state.
A country's strength is not measured by how strictly it enforces religious conformity. It is measured by whether citizens with different beliefs can live without fear, exercise their rights and seek justice on equal terms.
The state has a particular responsibility to protect vulnerable communities. When laws or official practices contribute to their marginalisation, the authorities cannot simply dismiss the resulting concerns as internal religious matters.
The judiciary, law enforcement agencies and political leadership must recognise that religious freedom is not a privilege granted by the majority. It is a fundamental human right.
Pakistan's international commitments, including those associated with freedom of religion and equality before the law, also demand serious attention. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognises freedom of thought, conscience and religion, including the freedom to manifest one's beliefs. These principles cannot be applied selectively according to a person's religious identity.
Fear of prosecution can discourage people from openly expressing their beliefs. Discrimination can restrict educational, professional and social opportunities. Hostility can force families to conceal their identity or consider leaving their homes in search of safety. Such conditions damage not only the affected community but also the moral credibility of the state itself.
A society that allows religious identity to become a basis for exclusion risks normalising intolerance across generations. Once unequal treatment becomes embedded in institutions, it becomes more difficult to restore public trust and establish a genuinely inclusive national identity.
Pakistan's leadership must understand that protecting minorities does not weaken the country. It strengthens social stability, institutional legitimacy and the rule of law.
The persecution concerns surrounding Ahmadis cannot be resolved through official assurances alone. They require concrete legal and institutional action.
Pakistan should review laws that impose discriminatory restrictions on religious minorities, strengthen safeguards against the misuse of blasphemy provisions, and ensure that every accused person receives a fair trial. Law enforcement agencies must investigate allegations impartially, while the judiciary must remain independent of political pressure and public intimidation.
Authorities must also take credible action against threats, harassment and violence directed at religious minorities. Those who incite violence or attack vulnerable communities should face the law, regardless of their religious or political affiliations.
Above all, the state must abandon the dangerous assumption that national unity requires religious uniformity. A stable country is one in which citizens can disagree, worship differently and express their convictions without fearing punishment merely for belonging to a particular community.
The imprisonment of Sheraz Ahmad and Zaheer Ahmad is a reminder of the state of Ahmadis in Pakistan and the urgent need to examine the laws and practices governing religious expression.
The allegations in their case must be judged on evidence and through fair legal procedures. But no individual should be denied equal protection because of religious identity, and no legal system should become a vehicle for institutionalised discrimination.
Pakistan's establishment must confront an uncomfortable truth: a state cannot claim moral authority while allowing a religious minority to live under the persistent threat of exclusion and prosecution. Constitutional declarations and international commitments mean little if they are not reflected in the everyday lives of vulnerable citizens.
The ultimate test of justice is not how a country treats its most powerful citizens, but how it protects those who are least able to defend themselves.
Until Pakistan guarantees Ahmadis the same dignity, security and equality that every citizen deserves, its claims of religious tolerance and democratic governance will remain open to serious challenge. A state that demands conformity instead of protecting freedom may enforce obedience, but it cannot command genuine respect.
===========