Ahmadi Muslims: Pakistan

Debate between Elliot Colburn and Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi

Wednesday 6th September 2023 Westminster Hall

[Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the treatment of Ahmadi Muslims in Pakistan.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. I thank the House for granting us the chance to debate this matter today. The debate is a very heavily subscribed, so I will try to be as fair as can to colleagues by rustling through my speech so that everyone can have their say.

We meet at a very pertinent time, because tomorrow marks 49 years since the Pakistani constitution was amended to declare that Ahmadis are not Muslims. As I will set out later in my remarks, that was just one step in the ongoing discrimination against and persecution of the Ahmadi population in Pakistan—a process that seems to have only picked up pace rather than slowed. As the Minister will be aware, the issue is incredibly important to constituents of mine. The UK has always been a welcoming home for the Ahmadi community, many of whom have settled in my Carshalton and Wallington constituency because of its proximity to the Baitul Futuh mosque in the constituency of the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), who is the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the Ahmadiyya Muslim community—[Interruption.] The mosque is in Wimbledon—I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond). I thank all for attending today and look forward to hearing the response from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office.

The change in the constitution marked by tomorrow’s anniversary was followed 10 years later by the so-called anti-Ahmadi laws, which were enacted in 1984. The ordinances made it a criminal offence for Ahmadis to call themselves Muslim or practise Islam. Alarmingly, such changes to the law have not slowed or abated; in fact, in the last decade, anti-Ahmadi changes to the law have only picked up pace. For example, in January 2015, the Government introduced a national action plan as a tool to crack down on terrorism, but a number of human rights organisations have noted that the plan has been misused to target religious communities, especially Ahmadiyya Muslims, simply for practising their faith.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing the debate and thank him for allowing me to intervene. I have often spoken up about the human rights of minorities, and freedom of religious belief is something that we should strongly protect across the globe. Does he agree that standing by while people are being discriminated against because of their religion, ethnicity or background is simply not on? Is he also concerned, like me, about the potential spillover effect to the United Kingdom of Ahmadi Muslim persecution?

[Elliot Colburn]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Member. In fact, later in my speech I will speak about just that subject. I am grateful to him for his intervention.

In 2017, just two years after the national action plan, the Koran publications Act was introduced, which prevented Ahmadis from publishing the holy Koran. What followed was a litany of blatant amendments to existing laws, or the introduction of new ones, that leave no question whatsoever as to their intention: not only to discriminate against Ahmadis but ultimately to persecute them in society, both symbolically and physically. That was seen just five years ago in a judgment of the Islamabad High Court that called for the nation’s Ahmadis to be identifiable by adding Qadiani or Mirzai to the end of their names, or by their attire. It also called for them to be identified when applying for key roles in the civil service, education, armed forces or the judiciary—all purely to prevent anyone who is Ahmadi from holding such key posts in their country.

Those are just some of the many recent legal changes that seek to affect every layer of Pakistan’s political and civil society, further pushing out and ostracising Ahmadis, whether that is through the insistence of the Khatme Nabuwwat—the finality of the prophethood clause, which is against Ahmadi belief or teachings—or through even more stringent changes to blasphemy laws, including in the digital space. These state-led anti-Ahmadi legal changes are having real impacts across Pakistan. The numbers speak for themselves. I thank the many human rights and civil society organisations that have been in touch with us ahead of this debate for shining a light and maintaining these figures.

Sri Lanka

Debate between Elliot Colburn and Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi

Wednesday 9th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Elliot Colburn]

I am grateful to my constituency neighbour for that intervention, and I absolutely agree with her. One of the shocking things we have heard—she will know this as a member of the APPG—is that those credibly accused of committing these war crimes have been, have recently been or still are serving at the top level of Sri Lankan society. That is absolutely shocking, but I will come on to some more of that in my speech.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

I thank and congratulate the hon. Member for securing this important debate, because many of my constituents are extremely concerned about the safety and wellbeing of their loved ones, given the reports of increased militarisation and human rights violations, particularly when the country is going through a severe economic crisis. Does he agree that, as friends of Sri Lanka, we all have a duty to stand by that country in its time of need and impress upon its new Government the need to promote peace, justice and a brighter future for all, regardless of people’s background, colour or creed?

[Elliot Colburn]

I absolutely agree. I am very glad that the Government have decided to support the motion today, so that we can get to work on bringing everyone back around the table, because we have seen so little progress on implementing UN resolutions so far. There is a lot of hopelessness out there, particularly among the Tamil community, that any progress will be made. We need to get on top of this and use our position as a friend of Sri Lanka to do just that. I am grateful to the hon. Member for his intervention.

If I may, I will talk a little bit more about some of the violence and atrocities used during the end of the conflict. Rape and sexual violence against Tamil women and, in some reports, against Tamil men during the final stages of the armed conflict and in its aftermath are also considered to be greatly under-reported. That is according to an investigation by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights into Sri Lanka. Several witnesses have spoken about women being taken away towards the jungle by soldiers, allegedly for sexual abuse, as they crossed over into Government-controlled territory.

An investigation by Human Rights Watch reported on one woman’s experience. She said:

“The army made us strip completely in front of the children. All the women were made to walk around the soldiers in a circle. The soldiers were laughing at us. All the women were then raped in front of everyone. My daughter and I were raped in front of her children. I was raped in front of my grandchildren. After about two hours, the soldiers asked a naked boy and girl, who didn’t know each other, to hug each other at gunpoint. As they hugged due to fear, they were shot in front of our eyes.”

These atrocities did not take place during a medieval skirmish hundreds of years ago; they took place in a Commonwealth country in 2009. Many of my constituents and those of other Members in this place have suffered to this day because of the crimes that they saw or were subjected to. The physical and mental scars are still there. Thirteen years later, these families are still waiting for peace, justice, truth and accountability.

I am pleased that last month the UN Human Rights Council adopted resolution 51/L1 on Sri Lanka, which will extend and reinforce the capacity of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to collect, consolidate, analyse and preserve evidence that may be used in future war crimes trials. The Sri Lankan Government have rejected this resolution, as they have previously, instead claiming confidence in their domestic mechanisms, which 13 years on from the end of the war are yet to produce any results for the victims of the atrocities. The new resolution certainly is a step in the right direction to achieving justice and accountability, but—with respect—we have had resolutions before. International action at the Human Rights Council on its own is not enough. The resolution falls short of providing a mechanism to truly investigate war crimes and pursue criminal accountability.

Specific resources need to be raised to build cases against those who are accused of war crimes and to prosecute them. Criminal accountability should be pursued by referral to the International Criminal Court. Those who commit war crimes should not enjoy immunity because the state in question is unwilling or unable to prosecute them. Furthermore, the UK should follow other allies around the world, particularly the United States, in introducing a targeted sanctions regime for those who are credibly accused of committing war crimes and human rights abuses in Sri Lanka.

That should include notable Sri Lankan individuals, such as Shavendra Silva, a current army commander. General Silva stands credibly accused of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity during the final phases of the conflict. The accused war criminal was head of the notorious 58 Division during the conflict. In his experience as a commander, he oversaw the unit committing grave violations of international law. Under his command, hospitals were repeatedly bombed and widespread sexual violence occurred, as well as the torture and executions of surrendering Tamils. Eyewitnesses also demonstrated that he was present at the Wadduvakkal bridge, where, according to the available evidence, he oversaw hundreds of surrendering Tamil military and political leaders and their families being subjected to summary execution and arbitrary detention, as well as enforced disappearance.