Religious Persecution of Ahmadiyya Muslim Community
Recommend UsEmail this PagePersecution News RSS Blog
Introduction & Updates
<< ... Worldwide ... >>
Monthly Newsreports
Annual Newsreports
Media Reports
Press Releases
Facts & Figures
Individual Case Reports
Pakistan and Ahmadis
Critical Analysis/Archives
Persecution - In Pictures
United Nations, HCHR
Amnesty International
US States Department
Urdu Section
Feedback/Site Tools
Related Links

Annual Reports on the Persecution of Ahmadiyya Muslim Community in Pakistan. These reports summarise the events and describe how members of the community are harassed, threatened and even killed by the extremists.
US$10.00 [Order]

Home Critical Analysis/Archives Report on Punjab Disturbances of 1953
Report of The Court of Inquiry


The Ahmadis were not directly responsible for the disturbances because the disturbances were the result of the action taken by the Government against the programme which the All Muslim Parties Convention had decided to adopt under the direct action resolution. But the demands related to the Ahmadis and came to be made because of their peculiar beliefs and activities and the emphasis laid by them on their distinction from other Musalmans. These beliefs and activities were undoubtedly an occasion for the demands and, therefore, it becomes necessary to determine whether the Ahmadis had any share in provoking the disturbances. Their differences with the general body of Muslims had existed for more than half a century and before the Partition they were carrying on their propaganda and proselytising activities without any let or hindrance. The entire complexion of the situation, however, changed the establishment of Pakistan and Ahmadis were befooling themselves if, in the absence of any enunciation of the policy as to the limits within which public preaching of religions other than Islam or sectarian doctrines within Islam was to be permitted, they ever thought that their activities would not be resented and would go unnoticed in the new State. The changed circumstances, however, brought no corresponding change in their activities and aggressive propagation and offensive references to non-Ahmadi Muslims continued. The Quetta speech of Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad in which he openly advocated the conversion of the entire population of that Province and the use of that Province as a base for further operations, was not only ill-advised but imprudent and provocative. In the same way, the direction to his followers to intensify their propaganda for the spread of Ahmadiyyat so that the entire Muslim population should fall into its lap by the end of 1952, was an open notice of their proselytising activities to the Musalmans. And the references to those who did not believe in Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as enemies or criminals or merely as Musalmans could not fail to provoke those whose attention was drawn to such references. The Ahmadi officers regarded it as their religious duty to engage themselves whole-heartedly in the campaign of proselytisation. This conduct of theirs encouraged the Ahmadis to pursue their objective more vigorously where they had or expected official support. We are quite sure that but for the fact that the administrative head of the district of Montgomery was an Ahmadi, the Ahmadis would not have dared to go on an open propaganda mission to a cluster of non-Ahmadi villages. When a public officer gives public expression to his sectarian views, as some of the Ahmadi officers did, the result is nothing but a complete lack of confidence in his impartiality in disputes to which a member of his community happens to be a party. However correct and honest his decision may be, if it goes against the party who does not belong to that officer’s community, it is impossible for such party to avoid the impression that he has been the victim of injustice on sectarian grounds. The conduct of these officers was, therefore, most unfortunate and displayed a lack of comprehension of the principle by which a public officer should govern his outward conduct. We are, therefore, satisfied that though the Ahmadis are not directly responsible for the disturbances, their conduct did furnish an occasion for the general agitation against them. If the feeling had not been so strong against them, we do not think that the Ahrar would have been successful in rallying round themselves all sorts of heterogeneous religious organisations.

Previous -> The Ahrar Table of Contents Top of Page Next -> Muslim League