While a convicted Indian prisoner, Hamid Nehal Ansari, is spending his days in solitary confinement at Peshawar Central Prison, his desperate mother has launched a fresh campaign on social media requesting the prime ministers of India and Pakistan to help her in bringing back her son.

Hamid Nehal Ansari, who is 31, had gone missing in Nov 2012 after illegally entering Pakistan from Afghanistan and was finally traced in custody of security forces in Jan 2016. He was convicted by a military court and was sentenced to three years imprisonment. According to official comments submitted in the Peshawar High Court, he was convicted on Dec 17, 2015. However, his conviction was first reported in the print and electronic media on Feb 15, 2016.

Mr Ansari’s mother Ms Fauzia Ansari, who is a college teacher, has been engaged in a relentless struggle for first tracing the whereabouts of her son and then to ensure his return to India. She has now started a fresh petition campaign on the social media requesting people to sign a petition addressed to different important persons in India and Pakistan including Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi, prime minister of Pakistan Nawaz Sharif, India Minister for External Affairs Sushma Swaraj, Indian National Security Adviser, Ajit Doval, Indian Foreign Secretary S Jaishankar; Indian Joint Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, Gopal Baglay; Indian envoy to Pakistan Gautam Bambawale, Pakistani adviser to prime minister on foreign affairs Sartaj Aziz and Pakistan envoy to India Abdul Basit.

On a social media site Ms Ansari states that she just started the petition “Prime Minister Narendra Modi: Bring back Hamid Nehal Ansari, an innocent Indian Engineer from Mumbai stuck in Pakistan jail since 4 years”. She added: “I wanted to see if you could help by adding your name. My goal is to reach 50,000 signatures and I need more support.”

Presently, a writ petition filed by Mr Ansari seeking inclusion of his pre-conviction detention period in his prison term of three years has been pending before the Peshawar High Court. Advocate Qazi Mohammad Anwer, representing Mr Ansari, has stated that under section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure it was the right of the petitioner that his pre-conviction detention period should be counted in his prison term.

The ministries of defence and foreign affairs have opposed the plea of the petitioner and have requested the high court that his petition was not maintainable and may be dismissed. In their joint comments, they had stated that the petitioner was involved in espionage/anti-state activities and he was subject to Pakistan Army Act, therefore, the jurisdiction of high court was ousted in this case.

The comments state that the field general court martial (FGCM) had awarded the sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment reckoned to commence from Dec 17, 2015, the date of his conviction. It is added that the trial court had duly considered the length of period spent by the petitioner in military custody awaiting finalization of instant trial, as required under Rule 53 of the Pakistan Army Act.

It is claimed that the petitioner had preferred an appeal before Army Court of Appeals and the same was rejected. It is added that Section 133-B of Pakistan Army Act the decision of a court of appeals shall be final and shall not be called in question before any court or authority.

The petitioner’s counsel contended that once the petitioner was convicted and sent to prison the trial court had no concern with him and he was entitled to all the remissions provided under the law to every prisoner.

Mr Ansari, a 31-year-old MBA degree holder, was a teacher at Mumbai Management College. He claims that he had left India for Afghanistan on Nov 4, 2012 on a valid tourist visa. He left Jalalabad for Peshawar on Nov 12, 2012 and entered Pakistan with a fake identity card in the name of Hamza sent to him by one of his Facebook friends from Karak, with whom he stayed in Karak for two days. He added that on Nov 14, 2012, his friend left him at a hotel in Kohat following which he was arrested.

Interestingly, after he had gone missing his mother had approached different forums through a Pakistani freelance journalist Ms Zeenat Shehzadi, who herself disappeared mysteriously in August last year in Lahore. It is widely believed by human rights defenders in Pakistan that the kidnapping of 24-year-old Ms Shehzadi is a case of “enforced disappearance’ connected with her pursuing the case of Hamid Nehal Ansari.

The most tragic aspect of her alleged illegal detention is the suicide committed by her 17-yearl-old brother, Saddam, in March this year. Her family members claim that the deceased was emotionally attached to his sister.

For over three years whereabouts of Mr Ansari could not be traced as all the authorities were tightlipped about his detention. Finally, in January this year the high court was informed through a written reply by ministry of defence that Mr Ansari is in military custody and is being tried by Court Martial.

Contrary to the claims made by Pakistani security agencies, Ms Fauzai Ansari states in her petition that her son had befriended on Facebook and became close to a Pakistani girl. “Hamid is believed to have reached Kohat in Pakistan in an attempt to save this Facebook friend who reportedly was being forced to marry someone twice her age following a jirga decision. She shared her story with Hamid who became determined to help and save her,” she states adding it was clear from the communication between Hamid and the Pakistani girl that she was in despair and sought Hamid’s help.

A legal expert privy to the case said that there was so much mistrust between the two countries that they had been suspecting activities of each other citizens even if they were not involved in something objectionable. He said that the record of Mr Ansari trial was not made public so it could not be said with certainty what the evidences were against him apart from possession of fake identity card and illegal entry and stay here.

He stated that under normal conditions benefit of section 382-B of the CrPC were extended to prisoners, but as in present case the prisoner was convicted by a military court, therefore, the high court has to decide whether he should be extended this benefit or not.

Published in Dawn, July 11th, 2016