A minority’s security cannot depend merely on constitutional promises; it requires functioning institutions, impartial police, independent courts and political courage.
Dr Jaipal Chhabria
Freedom of religion is one of the fundamental principles of a civilized and democratic society. Every citizen should have the right to choose, practice and change his or her religion freely and without coercion. Conversion based on genuine personal conviction is a matter of individual conscience. But conversion obtained through kidnapping, threats, deception, economic pressure, sexual exploitation, forced marriage or the manipulation of an underage child cannot be regarded in the same way as a free religious choice.
The issue of alleged forced conversion of non-Muslim girls in Pakistan, particularly Hindu and Christian girls, has remained a serious human-rights concern for many years. The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) has repeatedly documented cases and patterns involving minority girls who disappear and subsequently reappear after conversion and marriage. Its 2024/25 report states that the pattern of non-Muslim minor girls going missing and later being found converted to Islam and married to Muslim men persisted, particularly in Sindh and Punjab. HRCP also reports that Scheduled Caste Hindu communities are particularly vulnerable because of lower socioeconomic status and limited social mobility.
This is therefore not simply a religious debate. It is a question of child protection, women’s rights, freedom of conscience, rule of law and equal citizenship.
A forgotten principle from the Muslim League
One of the most important historical facts in this debate is that the concern about forced conversion of minors is not a new concept introduced by modern human-rights organizations.
In December 1927, the All-India Muslim League adopted a resolution at its Calcutta session concerning religious conversion. According to the historical record cited by historian Ghulam Ali Allana and discussed in Pakistani journalism, the resolution stated that people could convert or reconvert others through argument or persuasion, but that conversion should not be attempted through force, fraud, unfair means or material inducement. Most importantly, it stated that persons under 18 should not be converted unless they were converted along with their parents or guardians.
This historical principle deserves serious attention in Pakistan today.
The point is not to argue that a century-old political resolution automatically constitutes present-day law. Rather, it demonstrates that the political tradition associated with the Muslim League itself recognized the special vulnerability of minors and the importance of voluntary religious choice.
Quaid-e-Azam and Ruttie
The personal history of Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah provides another important historical example concerning age and consent.
Jinnah and Rattanbai “Ruttie” Petit fell in love when she was still 16. Her father opposed the marriage, and legal restrictions prevented the couple from marrying immediately. They waited until Ruttie reached 18. Jinnah married her on April 19, 1918, when she was 18, and she converted from Zoroastrianism to Islam before the marriage. The official Quaid-i-Azam Academy account records that the couple waited until she attained the age of 18.
This does not establish a general legal rule about religious conversion today, nor does it prove that Jinnah personally regarded every conversion under 18 as legally invalid. But it is historically significant that in his own marriage, the relationship proceeded after Ruttie had reached adulthood.
That historical example should encourage Pakistanis to ask a simple question: If an adult can make a mature decision about religion, why should the state leave an especially vulnerable 13, 14-, 15-, 16- or 17-year-old girl exposed to pressure when her religion, marriage and entire future are being decided at the same time?
The present situation
HRCP’s recent reporting shows that allegations of forced conversion remain persistent. Its research has identified cases involving both Hindu and Christian girls. Its reporting on 2022 recorded at least 20 alleged forced-conversion cases in Sindh, while research cited by HRCP from the Centre for Social Justice identified 124 alleged cases nationally in 2022—81 Hindu, 42 Christian and one Sikh. Forty-five victims were reported to be between 14 and 18, and 29 were under 18. Sindh accounted for the largest provincial number in that dataset, followed by Punjab. HRCP also reported that human-rights defenders considered the problem underreported.
These figures should be treated as reported or alleged cases, not as a precise census of every forced conversion in Pakistan. The lack of reliable official national data itself demonstrates the need for a proper mechanism for recording, investigating and independently verifying such cases.
The problem is particularly serious when the victim is a minor.
A 13- or 14-year-old child cannot reasonably be placed in the same category as a 35- or 40-year-old adult who independently studies another faith, reaches a personal conclusion and voluntarily changes religion.
Poverty, illiteracy and vulnerability
Another important dimension is socioeconomic vulnerability.
HRCP has reported that many victims come from low-income households and that Scheduled Caste Hindu communities in Sindh are especially vulnerable because of poverty and limited social mobility. Human-rights defenders cited by HRCP have also raised concerns about delayed FIRs, victims being kept away from their families while in shelter homes, and allegations of grooming and sexual violence.
This means that the state cannot look at the final statement of a girl in isolation.
If a poor minor girl disappears from her home, is taken to another district, separated from her parents, placed in a religious environment, married and then asked whether she has converted voluntarily, the state must investigate the circumstances that preceded the statement.
A statement made after isolation cannot automatically answer the question of whether the original process was free from coercion.
The role of Dar-ul-Aman and judicial proceedings
There have been serious concerns about the treatment of girls who are recovered or who appear before courts after alleged abduction and conversion.
HRCP’s reporting has recorded complaints that victims were not always permitted to meet their families while staying in Dar-ul-Aman and that human-rights defenders raised concerns about grooming and sexual violence.
This does not mean that every court decision in favour of a convert is wrong, nor that every girl who converts has been forced. There are cases in which courts have accepted that a person converted voluntarily. For example, in the 2019 cases involving two Hindu sisters, the girls themselves claimed that they had converted willingly and that allegations of forced conversion were fabricated.
Therefore, the correct principle must be neither automatic acceptance of the family’s allegation nor automatic acceptance of the convert’s statement.
The correct principle should be independent investigation, protection of the minor, access to legal counsel, confidential interviewing, medical and age assessment where appropriate, and a genuinely free environment in which the child’s wishes can be determined.
Why the age of 18 matters
Pakistan already recognizes 18 as a significant threshold in many areas of civic life.
NADRA states that the standard CNIC is issued to citizens who have attained 18 years, while children under 18 are registered through the CRC or Juvenile Card system.
Pakistan’s electoral law provides that a person must be at least 18 years old to vote.
For ordinary motor vehicles, the minimum driving age is also generally 18.
The law has also increasingly recognized 18 as an important age for marriage. Sindh has had an 18-year minimum for both boys and girls since its 2013 child-marriage legislation. In February 2026, Punjab also moved to an 18-year minimum for both males and females through its Child Marriage Restraint Ordinance 2026.
If the state considers an individual sufficiently mature at 18 to vote, obtain an adult identity card, drive and enter marriage, there is a compelling policy question about why the same threshold should not be considered for a minor’s independent religious conversion.
This is not an argument against Islam or against voluntary conversion.
It is an argument for the protection of minors.
The 2021 parliamentary experience
Pakistan has already had a major parliamentary discussion on this issue.
In October 2021, a Parliamentary Committee to Protect Minorities from Forced Conversion rejected proposed legislation that included an 18-year minimum age for voluntary religious conversion. The debate demonstrated a sharp disagreement: some religious representatives opposed an 18-year minimum, while minority legislators argued that 18 was already the age used for several important civic decisions. Dr Ramesh Kumar Vankwani also referred to the 1927 Muslim League position on conversion.
This history demonstrates that the issue cannot be solved simply by avoiding the subject.
Parliament must debate it openly.
Ramesh Kumar Vankwani and the concerns of the Hindu community
MNA and Pakistan Hindu Council leader Dr Ramesh Kumar Vankwani has repeatedly raised concerns about forced conversions and underage Hindu girls.
In 2016, he said that he was not opposed to conversion resulting from genuine study or preaching but was concerned about forced conversion, particularly the repeated cases involving underage Hindu girls in Sindh.
In 2017, the Pakistan Hindu Council called for Supreme Court attention to cases involving alleged kidnapping, forced conversion and forced marriage of teenage Hindu girls in Sindh.
These concerns should not be dismissed as an attack on Islam. They should be understood as concerns about whether the state is adequately protecting vulnerable citizens.
The names of religious figures and the responsibility of the state
Human-rights reports and media investigations have repeatedly mentioned particular religious figures in connection with allegations surrounding forced conversions. HRCP’s 2024/25 report, for example, mentions Mian Abdul Haq, also known as Mian Mithu, and describes allegations concerning his influence in cases involving underage Hindu girls.
Such allegations must be investigated through evidence and due process. Individual guilt should not be declared merely because someone’s name appears in a report or allegation.
The same principle applies to other religious figures, including Pir Ayub Jan Sarhandi.
The fundamental question is not whether a particular cleric belongs to one sect or another. The question is whether anyone—religious leader, politician, landlord, family member, police officer or other influential person—has used power, threats, shelter, money or social pressure to obtain a minor’s conversion or marriage.
If such conduct occurs, the state must act.
The historical warning of Jogendra Nath Mandal
Pakistan’s first Law and Labour Minister, Jogendra Nath Mandal, provides an important historical reminder.
In his 1950 resignation letter to Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan, Mandal described serious abuses suffered by Hindus in East Bengal and complained about the conduct of the provincial government and police administration. Contemporary historical records note that he had raised these concerns with the prime minister and believed that effective action had not followed.
His letter also referred to cases involving abduction and conversion and expressed profound concern about the future security of Hindus.
The lesson for today’s Pakistan is clear: a minority’s security cannot depend merely on constitutional promises; it requires functioning institutions, impartial police, independent courts and political courage.
This is not a question against Islam
Pakistan must be very careful not to turn the forced-conversion debate into an attack on Islam.
Islam is the religion of the overwhelming majority of Pakistan’s citizens, and many Pakistani Muslims themselves oppose forced conversion and the exploitation of religion.
The real issue is whether a person has exercised genuine freedom of conscience.
A Muslim woman should be able to choose Islam.
A Hindu should be able to remain Hindu.
A Christian should be able to remain Christian.
A Sikh should be able to remain Sikh.
And an adult citizen should have the freedom to change religion voluntarily.
But a child should not become the subject of a religious contest between adults.
The example of other Muslim-majority countries
Pakistan should also study how other Muslim-majority countries address questions of child protection, marriage, religious freedom and the capacity of minors to make major legal decisions.
It would be too simplistic to claim that Bangladesh, Indonesia or Malaysia has completely eliminated forced or coerced conversion merely because such cases may be less visible in public debate. Every country has its own legal and social problems.
The relevant lesson is that Pakistan should examine comparative legal safeguards rather than assume that the present system is adequate.
Political responsibility
Pakistan’s parliamentarians have a constitutional responsibility to protect all citizens.
Minority parliamentarians should be able to raise this matter without fear.
Muslim parliamentarians should also be willing to speak about it.
Silence does not protect Islam.
Silence does not protect Pakistan.
Silence does not protect minorities.
If an innocent adult voluntarily embraces Islam that is a matter of personal faith. But if a minor is kidnapped, isolated, pressured, sexually exploited, married and then converted, the state must treat the matter as a potential criminal and child-protection case.
My experience in the National Commission for Minorities
As a Member of the National Commission for Minorities, I raised the proposal that the minimum age for religious conversion should be 18 years.
In my view, this was a reasonable safeguard consistent with Pakistan’s existing approach to adulthood, voting, identity documentation, driving and marriage.
However, the proposal did not receive support from the Commission.
This experience demonstrates why the matter now requires serious parliamentary consideration.
The objective should not be to restrict an adult’s freedom of religion.
The objective should be to protect minors from coercion and ensure that an alleged conversion is genuinely voluntary.
What Pakistan should do
Pakistan should consider a comprehensive law or legal framework containing at least the following safeguards:
- No independent religious conversion of a person below 18 years should be legally recognized without robust child-protection safeguards.
- Every alleged conversion of a minor should automatically trigger an independent inquiry.
- The minor should immediately be protected from the alleged abductor, prospective spouse and all persons who may influence the child’s statement.
- The child should have access to an independent lawyer and child psychologist/counsellor.
- The child should be interviewed privately, without the presence of religious leaders, prospective spouses or influential adults.
- Parents should not automatically be assumed to be correct either; the child’s safety and independent wishes must remain central.
- Courts should examine the circumstances preceding conversion, not only the final declaration of conversion.
- Age must be properly established through official birth records and other lawful evidence.
- Any marriage involving a minor must be dealt with under applicable child-marriage and criminal laws.
- Police officers who refuse to register legitimate complaints or fail to protect a vulnerable child should face departmental and legal accountability.
- Religious seminaries and shelters involved in conversion cases should be subject to transparent legal oversight.
- Pakistan should establish reliable national statistics on alleged forced conversions, distinguishing allegations, investigated cases and cases judicially established as crimes.
- Parliament should hold an annual review of the implementation of protections for religious minorities.
A final appeal
Pakistan was created with the promise that citizens belonging to different religions would be able to live as equal citizens.
The protection of minorities should therefore not be treated as a favour granted by the majority. It is a constitutional responsibility of the state.
The issue of forced conversion should not be used to spread hatred against Muslims. At the same time, the suffering or allegations of minority families should not be dismissed merely because the accused invokes religion.
The test should be simple:
Was the conversion free?
Was the person an adult?
Was there coercion, kidnapping, fraud, pressure or exploitation?
Was the child protected?
Was the investigation independent?
Was justice done?
Nearly a century ago, the Muslim League itself recognized the principle that persons under 18 should not be converted except with their parents or guardians.
Today, Pakistan has the opportunity to revisit that principle in the light of modern child-protection standards.
The state should act before another child disappears.
Parliament should debate the issue.
Police should protect every citizen.
Courts should ensure genuine freedom of choice.
Religious leaders should reject coercion.
And society must understand one fundamental truth:
Faith has value only when it is freely chosen.
Pakistan can protect Islam, protect minorities and protect children at the same time.
That is not a contradiction.
That is the responsibility of a democratic state.
Read: The Unsung Pioneer of Equal Rights
_______________
Dr. Jaipal Chhabria is based in Karachi
