PART 1 TO 3
PART 4 TO PART 6
REPORT
of
THE COURT OF INQUIRY
constituted under
PUNJAB ACT II OF 1954
to enquire into the
PUNJAB DISTURBANCES OF 1953
CONTENTS
|
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
From
The Punjab Disturbances Court Of Inquiry,
Lahore
To
The Home; Secretary To The Government Of
Punjab, Lahore.
Dated Lahore, the 10th April 1954
Sir,
WE, the President and Member of the Court of Inquiry constituted under the Punjab Disturbances (Public Inquiry) Act, 1953, have the honour to submit the following report:-
CONSTITUTION OF COURT
In the beginning of March 1953, widespread disturbances broke out in the Punjab which in some places continued till the middle of April 1953. These took so alarming a turn and assumed such a menacing form that in several places the military had to be called in, and in Lahore Martial Law had to be proclaimed, which remained in force till the middle of May 1953. Before the declaration of Martial Law, the police had to resort to firing in several places and at least two persons were killed on the night of 4th March and ten on 5th March, Sixty-six persons more must have been injured in the firing because that number of wounded persons admitted to the Lahore hospitals had gunshot wounds. The number of casualties admitted by the military to have been caused in quelling the disturbances in Lahore was eleven killed and forty-nine wounded. In some other towns also there were a number of casualties caused by firing by the police or the military.
The disturbances were the direct result of the rejection by Khwaja Nazim-ud-Din, the then Prime Minister of Pakistan, of an ultimatum delivered to him in Karachi on 21st January 1953 by a deputation of the ulama who had been authorised to do so by the Majlis-i-Amal constituted by the All-Pakistan Muslim Parties Convention held in Karachi from l6th to 18th January 1953. The ultimatum was to the effect that if within a month the Qadiani Ahmadis were not declared a non-Muslim minority and Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan, the Foreign Minister who is an Ahmadi. and other Ahmadis occupying key posts in the State, not removed from their offices, the Majlis-i-Amal would resort to direct action (rast iqdam). At a conference of the Central Ministers and representatives of West Pakistan Provinces held in the early hours of the morning of 27th February it was decided to reject the ultimatum and to arrest the prominent members of Majlis-i-Amal in Karachi and some leaders of the movement in the Punjab. The disturbances commenced immediately after, and as a direct result of, these arrests.
On 19th June 1953, the Governor of the Punjab promulgated Ordinance III of 1953 which, with certain amendments suggested by us, became the Punjab Disturbances (Public Inquiry) Act, 1953, Punjab Act II of 1954, directing the setting up of a Court for holding a public inquiry into the disturbances. In exercise of the powers given by subsection (1) of section 3 of the Ordinance, the Governor appointed us members of the Court of Inquiry with the direction to make an inquiry into the disturbances in accordance with the following terms of reference:-
the circumstances leading to the declaration of Martial Law in Lahore on 6th March 1953;
the responsibility for the disturbances; and
the adequacy or otherwise of the measures taken by the Provincial civil authorities to prevent, and subsequently to deal with, the disturbances.
We commenced the inquiry on 1st July 1953 and held 117 sittings of which 92 were devoted to the hearing and recording of evidence. The evidence was concluded on 23rd January 1954 and arguments in the case lasted from 1st to 28th February 1954. Five weeks were taken by us to formulate our conclusions and in writing the report.
The record consists of 3,600 pages of written statements and 2,700 pages of evidence. Three hundred and thirty-nine documents have been formally exhibited, while a large number of books, pamphlets, journals and newspapers was referred to in the course of the evidence and arguments. Besides, a large number of letters, each extending to several pages and a few to even more than a hundred pages, were received, each of which has been carefully perused by us.
PROCEDURE AND PARTIES
As the inquiry was to be of a general character and not against any named party, and as the Government of the Punjab had no views in the matter, we adopted a procedure of our own to ensure that all relevant material was placed before us to enable us to discharge our functions under the Act. Subsection (5) of section 5 of the Act had declared that we were not bound by the Provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and in exercise of the powers given to us by the same subsection we framed a rule that we were not to be bound by the Evidence Act. The object of framing this rule was to complete the inquiry within the shortest possible time, consistently with the duty of collecting as reliable and authentic a material for our findings and observations as was possible in the circumstances. Despite this rule, however, we have substantially adhered to the principles of the Law of Evidence and have refrained from recording any serious finding against any party on what under the Law of Evidence is not relevant and admissible. In view of the bulk of the material and the scope and extent of our inquiry, we could not, on occasions, help departing from the rule against hearsay but we have accepted hearsay only where we felt there could be no doubt as to its truth. The parties and some important officers were required to put in written statements but we allowed inspection, of such statements and gave to the party affected the right to recall for cross-examination the makers of such statements. We feel that by adopting this procedure we have eliminated the element of error as far as possible.
In the course of discussion we have referred to numerous extracts from speeches alleged to have been, made by certain persons on specific occasions. These speeches, unless they were published in newspapers or occur in some publication of the party concerned or have been deposed to in the evidence before us, cannot be said to have been formally proved. But the fact that a speech, whether it has or has not been proved, was reported is relevant to determine the adequacy or otherwise of the action taken thereon. .References in the report to speeches should, therefore, be read subject to this observation.
We have quoted in English certain verses of the Holy Qur’an, which were relied upon. by the parties. The translations so quoted have all been taken from Allama Abdulla Yusuf Ali’s Translation of the Holy Qar’an.
We took judicial notice of the fact that certain persons and organisations were in a position to assist us in returning a reply to the terms of reference. We, therefore, made them parties to the proceedings and directed them to put in written statements expressing their respective views on each of the terms of reference. The organisations that wore thus made parties were:-
The Punjab Government,
The Provincial Muslim League,
The Majlis-i-Ahrar,
The Majlis-i-Amal appointed by the Majlis-i-Tahaffuz-i-Khatm-i-Nubuwwat, Punjab,
The Jama’t-i-Islami,
The Sadr Anjuman Ahmadiya, Rabwah.,
The Ahmadiya Anjuman-i-Isha’at-i-Islam, Lahore.
During the period over which the inquiry extends, Sardar Abdur Rab Nishtar was the Governor of the Province till 26th November 1951 when he was succeeded by Mr. I. I. Chundrigar who held that office till after the proclamation of Martial Law. Except for a few months when Mr. Fida Hasan occupied that post, Hafiz Abdul Majid was the Chief Secretary to the Government of the Punjab. He was also the Home Secretary from 30th September to 7th December 1951. Sayyad Ahmad Ali and Mr. Ghias-ud-Din Ahmad were Home Secretaries, the former from 17th March 1949 to 30th September 1951 and the latter since 7th December 1951. Mr. Qurban Ali Khan was the Inspector-General of Police till 11th February 1953, on which date he was relieved by Mr. Anwar Ali who, in addition to the duties of Inspector-General of Police also continued to perform the duties of his original office of Deputy Inspector-General of Police, C. I. D. Hafiz Abdul Majid, Mr. Ghias-ud-Din Ahmad, Mr. Anwar Ali, Mr. S. N. Alam, Sayyad Ijaz Husain Shah and Mirza Naeem-ud-Din—the last three during the relevant period were respectively the Deputy Inspector-General, Lahore Range, District Magistrate, Lahore and Senior Superintendent of Police, Lahore—who in the ordinary course of their official duties were supposed to have firsthand knowledge of the origin and development of the disturbances, were also required to submit their written statements on the terms of reference. The police officers mentioned above were further required to state the quantity of the ammunition actually issued and used during the disturbances and the number of casualties caused by police firing. Sayyad Ijaz Husain Shah was directed to give a complete statement respecting the Magistrates who were daily detailed for duty during the disturbed period, the instructions issued to them and the reports, if any, made by them. He was further required to submit copies of all orders promulgated under section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, together -with instances of breaches of those orders and the action taken thereon. We also directed him to state whether any requisition for the military under section 129 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was made and with what. result, and if no such requisition was made to give reasons for the omission.
After perusing the statements of these officers, we considered it necessary to require Mian Mumtaz Muhammad Khan Daultana, who was the Chief Minister of the Punjab during the disturbances, to submit a written statement on behalf of his Ministry and to communicate to the Court whether he would like to be made a party to the proceedings. In response to this notice, Mr. Daultana presented a petition praying that he be impleaded as a party. We considered this request quite natural and therefore made him a party and required him to submit a written statement.
As the disturbances had affected the districts of Rawalpindi, Sialkot, Lyallpur, Gujranwala and Montgomery, we directed the District Magistrates and the Superintendents of Police of these districts to submit detailed accounts of the disturbances in their respective districts, the origin and development of the disturbances, the measures taken to suppress them and the offences committed or reported during, and having reference to, the disturbances. together with copies of all first information reports of such offences. These officers were further asked to submit copies of extracts from daily situation reports, special reports and weekly reports, sent by them to Government or any superior authority from 1st January 1953 to 15th May 1953, with reference to the anti-Ahmadiya, agitation and the consequent disturbances. They were requested specifically to mention all instances of incitement to violence on the part of individuals or organisations and to disclose all references concerning the situation made by them to Government and all instructions received by them from Government.
Major-General Muhammad Azam Khan, General Officer Commanding the 10th Division, who constituted himself Chief Martial Law Administrator, was requested to give a complete description of the situation at the time of the proclamation of Martial Law and the reasons which led him to proclaim Martial Law.
The public were notified by advertisements in the newspapers that any person who wished to give evidence before the Court of Inquiry in relation to any of the terms of reference should communicate with the Secretary of the Court, submitting a brief statement of the evidence he proposed to give. This statement was to be kept confidential unless the person submitting it. chose to appear in Court and give viva voce evidence in a public sitting.
As most of the leaders of the movement which led to the disturbances were confined in jails, having either been convicted or ordered to he detained under the Public Safety and Security Acts, we requested the Punjab Government to use its good offices to have such of the prisoners as were confined in jails outside the Punjab, brought to Lahore in order to enable them to instruct their representatives in the preparation of the written statements. The Punjab government acted accordingly and we are glad that the other Governments honoured the Punjab Government’s request and sent such prisoners and detenus to Lahore.
With the exception of the Punjab Government and the Punjab Muslim League, each party has put in an exhaustive statement, and we take this opportunity of expressing our gratitude for the wealth of detail, incident and argument which the parties have embodied in their written statements. Maulana Abul Ala Maudoodi, the head of Jama’at-i-Islami, who is under-going a life sentence awarded to him, by a Military Court, has also submitted a written statement in his capacity of ex-Amir of the Jama’at and the written statement of the Jama’at closely follows his statement. Maulana Abdus Sattar Khan Niazi, who also is a prisoner under a similar sentence, applied to be made a party to the proceedings, but on the principle we had adopted in impleading parties, we could not accede to his request and permitted him, if he so chose, to submit a written statement. Accordingly he submitted a statement which covers several hundred pages which we have carefully read.
The written statement of the Punjab Government covers a few lines and merely informs the Court that the Government, has no views on the subject but undertakes to assist the Court by placing before it such material as the Court may require. This undertaking has been discharged in letter and spirit, and but for the promptness with which the Court’s requests for documents and information or other action were attended to, the inquiry would have been indefinitely prolonged. At the conclusion of the evidence, Mr. Fazal Ilahi, counsel for the Punjab Government, reiterated the Government’s stand that it had no views in the matter, but on the basis of the material on record he placed his personal views before the Court in a three-day argument. Though there were not only allegations which we have found to be substantially correct, that there was a complete absence of ideological resistance by the Muslim League to the subversive movement of direct action, but that the officers of the League in several districts took prominent part in the agitation, the written statement submitted on behalf of the Provincial Muslim League is a complete disappointment inasmuch as it contents itself with sending copies of some resolutions passed by the Working Committee or by the Council of the Punjab Muslim League indicating its views on the anti-Ahmadiya agitation.
Subsection (2) of section 5 of the Act gave the Court the power to direct a police officer, not below the rank of a Superintendent of Police, to conduct such investigation as it considered to be necessary for the purpose of the inquiry. We made frequent use of this provision and appointed Mr. Muhammad Husain, Superintendent of Police, C. I. D., to hold investigation into several matters, direct trial of which by the Court would have involved considerable expense and delay. Mr. Muhammad Husain discharged this duty with his usual promptitude and thoroughness.
Khwaja Nazim-ud-Din, who was the Prime Minister, Mr. Chundrigar, who was the Governor of the Punjab, and Sirdar Abdur Rab Nishtar, who was a Minister in the Central Cabinet, during the disturbances, and Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan, the Foreign Minister, Sirdar Bahadur Khan, the Communications Minister, Dr. Ishtiaq Husain Qureshi, Minister for Information and Broadcasting, and Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad Gurmani, Minister for the Interior, were also examined by the Court at the request of one party or another. Of course, Mr. Daultana offered himself as his own witness. The evidence of all these witnesses was recorded in camera but portions of it were released to the press for publication.
SUBJECTS TOUCHED
On the doctrinal aspect of the inquiry and other connected religious topics, we examined the leading ulama on the one side and Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad, the present head of the Qadiani section of Ahmadis, on the other. In this part of the inquiry almost every important branch of human knowledge was touched—religion, philosophy, science, ethics, attributes of God, anthropomorphism, reason and revelation, exegetics, cosmology, creation, time and space, origin and destination of man, aim and object of life, functions of the State and the church, sovereignty, democracy and theocracy, subjects, as the sequel will show, by no means irrelevant to the inquiry. The issues under. lying the inquiry, which frequently emerged in all their directness and with all their implications, are so deep and fundamental that a reply to them one way or the other can make or mar the new State of Pakistan and entirely change the future course of her history.
Our thanks are due not only to the Honourable Ministers, past or present, some of whom undertook long journeys to place their views before us but also to officers and the ulama who assisted us throughout this lengthy investigation, Maulana Murtaza Ahmad Khan Maikash, on behalf of the Majlis-i-Amal, Maulana Mazhar Ali Azhar on behalf of the Ahrar and Mr. Said Malik on behalf of Jama’at-i-Islami must indeed have worked hard to do the job assigned to them by their principals. It was quite an experience for us to be associated with these learned scholars, an experience novel and exceedingly pleasant, which will live long in our memory. Equally grateful do we feel to the professional gentlemen, Mr. Yaqub Ali Khan, Mr. Nazir Ahmad Khan, Mr. Bashir Ahmad, Mr. Asadullah Khan, Mr. Abdur Rahman Khadim and Mr. Fazal Ilahi who in presenting the cases of their respective clients were a source of great help to us.
With these remarks we approach our statutory task.
DIVISION INTO PARTS
After hearing arguments, we agreed between ourselves as to the answers that we should make to each term of reference, and then divided the work so that one of us should deal with general responsibility and the other with administrative action in particular. In the first three Parts, we have given a factual statement of relevant events, thus;
PART I—From the Partition to the All Muslim Parties Convention, held in Lahore on 13th July 1952.
PART 11—From the Convention to 21st January 1953. when the ultimatum was delivered to the Prime Minister.
PART III—From the date of the ultimatum to the end of the disturbances.
Replies to the terms of reference will be found in the last three parts, thus:
PART IV—Circumstances leading to Martial Law.
PART V—Responsibility for the disturbances.
PART VI—Adequacy or otherwise of administrative action by the civil authorities.
For the purposes of Part VI, the period under observation has been divided into four sub-parts, according to the peculiar problem that each sub-division presents.
PART I
FROM PARTITION TO
LAHORE CONVENTION
THE CONTROVERSY
The genesis of the controversy that led to the disturbances is to be found in what has been described in official documents as ‘the Ahrar-Ahmadiya controversy’, which had existed since long before the Partition. But this description was objected to, in fact resented, before us by all non-Ahmadi parties, on the ground that differences with the Ahmadis are not confined to the Ahrar and are common to all sects of Musalmans. Similarly the use of the word ‘Ahmadi’ exclusively in respect of the followers of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was resented by non-Ahmadis for the reason that all Musalmans are Ahmadis, being the followers of the Holy Prophet Muhammad, whose other name was Ahmad, and that it has been wrongly usurped by the followers of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. We have decided to use the word ‘ Musalman ’ to distinguish the general body of Muslims who do not believe in Mirza Ghulam Ahmad from those who believe in him and the word ‘Ahmadi’, ‘Qadiani’ or ‘Mirzai’ for the Qadiani section of Ahmadis who believe that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was a prophet (nabi).
AHMADIS
In Part V we will deal in greater detail with the doctrinal and social differences between the Qadianis and Musalmans. Here we content ourselves with only giving a brief account of the Ahmadiya movement, which was founded by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, a grandson of Mirza Ghulam Murtaza who was a General in the Sikh Darbar. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was born on 13th February 1835, at Qadian, a village in the district of Gurdaspur, which exclusively belonged to his family in proprietary rights. He learned Persian and Arabic languages at home but does not appear to have received any Western education. In 1864 he got some employment in the District Courts, Sialkot, where he served for four years. On his father’s death he devoted himself whole-heartedly to the study of religious literature, and between 1880 and 1884 wrote his famous ‘Buraheen-i-Ahmadiya’ in four volumes. Later he wrote some more books. Acute religious controversies were going on in those days and there were repeated attacks on Islam, not only by Christian missionaries but also by preachers of Arya Samaj, a liberal Hindu movement which was becoming very popular.
In March 1882 Mirza Ghulam Ahmad claimed, to have had a revelation (ilham) to the effect that he had been entrusted by God with a special mission, in other words, that he was a ‘mamoor-min-Allah’. In 1888, again under an ilham, he demanded homage (bai’at) from his adherents. Near the end of 1890, Mirza Sahib again received an ilham that Jesus of Nazareth (Isa Ibn-i-Maryam) had not died on the Cross, nor lifted up to the Heavens but that he was taken off the Cross in a wounded condition by his disciples and cured of his wounds, that thereafter he escaped to Kashmir where he died a natural death, that the belief that he will reappear in his original bodily form near the Day of Resurrection was wrong, that the promise relating to his appearance merely meant that another man with the attributes of Isa Ibn-i-Maryam would appear in the ummat of the Holy Prophet of Islam and that this promise had been fulfilled in the person of Mirza Sahib himself who was Maseel-i-Isa, and thus the promised Messiah. The publicity given, to this doctrine created a stir among the Musalmans because this was contrary to the generally accepted belief that Isa Ibn-i-Maryam was to descend from Heaven in his bodily form, and gave rise to strong opposition among the Muslim theologians. Subsequently. Mirza Sahib also claimed to be the promised Mahdi, not the Mahdi who was to engage himself in conquest and bloodshed but the reasoning Mahdi who would vanquish his opponents by argument. This new claim gave further impetus to the opposition to Mirza Sahib and theologians began to pronounce fatwas of kufr against him. In 1900 he expounded another doctrine that thereafter there was to be no jihad bis-saif and that jihad was to be confined to efforts to convince the opponent by argument. In 1901 Mirza Sahib claimed to be a ‘zilli nabi’ and by an advertisement ‘Ek ghalati ka izala’, explained the doctrine of khatm-i-nubuwwat to mean that after the death of the Holy Prophet of Islam no nabi would appear with a new shari’at but that the appearance of a new prophet without a shara’a was not contrary to the doctrine of khatm-i-nubuwwat. In a public lecture in Sialkot in November 1904, Mirza Sahib also claimed to be a Maseel-i-Krishan.
The Jama’at-i-Ahmadiya was founded in 1901 and at Mirza Sahib’s own request was shown as a separate Muslim sect in the census records of that year. The present number of the jama’at is stated to be in the neighbourhood of 2,00,000 in Pakistan, Ahmadis are also to be found in other Muslim countries and in India, Europe and America.
The new movement had attracted substantial support in Mirza Sahib’s own lifetime, including several men of consequence and influence. On Mirza Sahib’s death in 1908 Maulvi Nur-ud-Din became the first khalifa of Jama’at-i-Ahmadiya. On Khalifa Nur-ud-Din’s death in 1914, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s son Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad, the present head of the Ahmadiya community, became the second khalifa. His succession as a khalifa caused a split in the jama’at and a section of the jama’at led by Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din and Maulvi Muhammad Ali, seceded and formed a separate party, called the Lahore party, the difference between the two being that whereas the Qadiani party believes Mirza Ghulam Ahmad to have been a prophet, the Lahore party deny this status for Mirza Sahib and hold that he was no more than a mujaddid or muhaddas. The seceders set up in Lahore an organisation called ‘Ahmadiya Anjuman-i-Isha’at-i-IsIam’. Both parties are engaged in extensive missionary work in foreign countries.
THE AHRAR
The Ahrar were a party of nationalist, Muslims who seceded from the Congress and in a meeting held in Lahore on 4th May 1931 founded the Majlis-i-Ahrar-i-Islam. They first came into prominence during the Kashmir agitation of 1931 when on 30th October in that year Mazhar Ali Azhar led a determined band of one hundred volunteers from Sialkot to march into the Jammu territory. The Kashmir agitation in the Punjab was a spontaneous expression of sympathy with the Kashmiri Muslims who were being subjected to ruthless oppression by the Dogra Darbar. The grievances of Kashmiri Musalmans comprised the appropriation by the State of a number of mosques, graveyards and other places sacred to Muslims, the exclusion of Muslims from public offices, the restrictions imposed on the observance of their religious ceremonies and the absence of a properly constituted legislature in which Muslims could be represented in accordance with their numerical proportion in the State. A campaign in the press against these grievances resulted in a communal riot in Srinagar on 13th July 1931. Attempts to take charge of the agitation, resulting from this riot were made both by the Majlis-i-Ahrar and by a body styled “The All India Kashmir Committee”, which came into being on July 26, and included in its personnel Doctor Sir Muhammad Iqbal, Nawab Sir Zulfiqar Ali Khan, Khwaja Hasan Nizami, Nawab Ibrahim Ali Khan, Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad, the present head of the Ahmadiya community, and Abdur Rahim Dard, an Ahmadi, as Secretary. The subsequent conflict between the Ahrar and the Ahmadis was largely due to the mutual hostility arising from their having been in opposite camps during the period of the Kashmir agitation. The Ahrar arranged to celebrate the 14th of August as the ‘Kashmir Day’, and on the following day officially announced that they had taken up the agitation on behalf of their co-religionists in Kashmir. As already stated, on October 30, Mazhar Ali Azhar with one hundred followers entered the Jammu territory. This dramatic act at once brought the Ahrar into prominence.
Though they had cut themselves off from the Congress, the Ahrar continued to flirt with that body right up to the Partition. One of the resolutions passed by the Working Committee of the Majlis-i-Ahrar which met at Delhi on 3rd March, 1940, disapproved of the Pakistan plan, and in some subsequent speeches of the Ahrar leaders Pakistan was dubbed as ‘Palidistan’. In a press statement issued on 29th November 1940 Maulana Daud Ghaznavi announced the decision of the Ahrar to merge themselves into the Congress. In the resolution passed by the Punjab Provincial Ahrar Conference held at Gujranwala from 17th to 19th March 1943, and in a subsequent resolution passed at Saharanpur in the same year they declared themselves against the proposed Partition which they described as vivisection of the country. In every important speech one leader of theirs or another criticised the Muslim League and its leadership, including the Quaid-i-Azam for whom they had little love and who in those days had come to be regarded as the sole and undisputed leader of the Muslim nation. They took mean advantage of his liberal views and lack of ostentation in religious matters by calling him an infidel. The author-ship of the couplet—
‘Ik kafira ke waste Islam ko chhora
yeh Quad-i-Azam, hai keh hai kafir-i-azam’
is attributed to Maulana Mazhar Ali Azhar, a leading personality in the Ahrar organisation, who had the audacity to assert before us that he still held that view. References were made in the speeches of the Ahrar not only to Quaid-i-Azam’s marriage with a Parsi lady but also to his not having gone on pilgrimage to Mecca. In 1945, they attempted to revive the Sunni-Shia controversy and Mazhar Ali Azhar and his son Mustafa Qaisar left Lahore for Lucknow on 16th November to re-open the Madah-i-Sahaba agitation. In the elections of 1946, three Ahrar candidates stood against the Muslim League candidates but they were all defeated. From the subsequent direct action which the Muslim League started in the Punjab they kept themselves completely aloof.
One of the main activities of the Ahrar was their opposition, in one form or another, of the Ahmadis. It may indeed be said that the Ahrar took their birth in the hatred of the Ahmadis. Only two years after they founded the Majlis-i-Ahrar, they passed a resolution that no Qadiani should be elected to any public body. Qadian, as already stated, was, before the Partition, almost exclusively an Ahmadi town. In 1934, the Ahrar decided to hold a conference in Qadian itself but on the meeting having been banned, they held the conference on 2lst October of that year in the playground of the Dayanand Anglo-Vedic High School in Rajada, a village only a mile away from Qadian, where they attracted an audience of many thousands. In that conference the popular Ahrar speaker Sayyad Ata Ullah Shah Bukhari delivered a 5-hour diatribe against the Ahmadis in the course of which he said “things which could have no other effect but to rouse hatred of the Ahmadis in the minds of the hearers”, the professions of peace in his speech alternating with abuse and wit of a very low order. Bukhari was prosecuted for this speech and convicted at the conclusion of a sensational trial which created more interest and anti-Ahmadiya feelings than the speech itself. Since then every Ahrar speaker of note has been saying one thing or another against the Ahmadis, their leaders and their beliefs.
The Partition of 1947 and the establishment of Pakistan came as a great disappointment to the Ahrar because all power passed to the Congress or the Muslim League, and no scope for activity was left for the Ahrar in India or in Pakistan. The new Muslim State had come to them as a shock, disillusioned them of their ideology and finished them as a political party. For some-time they found themselves in a state of frustration, completely bewildered as to their future. Two of their leaders, Maulvi Abdul Ghani Dar and Maulana Habib-ur-Rahman, decided to stay on in India ; Sheikh Husam-ud-Din, another equally important leader, wavered for some time and eventually decided to come over to Pakistan to take charge of a hotel, known as the Vira Hotel, in Lahore, which a Congressman Parbodh Chander by name had handed over to him. Master Taj-ud-Din Ansari of Ludhiana and Maulvi Muhammad Ali of Jullundur also came over to Pakistan, and while the former settled at Sialkot, the latter went to Multan. Even Sayyed Ata Ullah Shah Bukhari who belongs to Gujrat, shifted to a village in the Muzaffargarh district. Maulana Mazhar Ali Azhar renounced politics. Sahibzada Faiz-ul-Hasan took to a secluded life in his village Alo Mohar in the Sialkot district.
In November 1947, the Ahrar held a meeting of the Working Committee at Khangarh, where Sayyad Ata Ullah Shah Bukhari had settled, to consider what their future programme should be, but could come to no decision. The same was the result of a subsequent meeting held in December 1947, in Lahore where three possible courses, namely, of dissolving the party of giving up politics and confining themselves to religious activities, and of keeping the party alive, were discussed but the only decision taken was that an All-Pakistan Majlis-i-Ahrar should be founded. In the first conference after this, held in May 1948 at Lyallpur, faint references were made to Ahmadis and loyalty to Pakistan was affirmed. More distinct sentiments in favour of Pakistan were expressed in the next meeting in Lahore in June 1948, accompanied by a hint that the Ahrar were not joining the Muslim League because of the un-Islamic beliefs of men like Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan and Mian Iftikhar-ud-Din. Their moat important gathering since the Partition was on the occasion of the Ahrar Defence Conference which was held from 12th to 14th January 1949 at Lahore and at which they announced their decision to cease functioning as a political party and to continue their future activity as a religious group. In political matters, they announced, they would follow the Muslim League. After this they began holding their conferences under the label of Tabligh Conferences, and a series of such conferences was held at Okara, Lyallpur, Maghiana, Chiniot, Sialkot, Gujranwala, Gujrat, Pind Dadan Khan, Jhelum, Shujabad, Burewala and Multan. The demand for the declaration of Ahmadis as a non-Muslim minority was first made at a conference in Rawalpindi and reiterated at a public meeting held at Pind Dadan Khan on 1st May 1949. After this, criticism of the founder of the Ahmadiya community and Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan became a regular feature of all Ahrar addresses and they began to feel that it was not necessary for them to seek the help of the Muslim League and that they could in future function as a separate party. The Muslim League also adopted a friendly attitude towards them because the Working Committee of the Pakistan Muslim League in its meeting held in Karachi on 27th December 1949 excluded, the Ahrar from the list of nineteen parties which were tabooed for Muslim Leaguers.
ARREST OF TWO AHRAR LEADERS
The Ahrar should have had little difficulty in realising that with the creation of Pakistan their past ideology had become obsolete and that there was no scope for their past activities in the new State, but the Ahrar are not made of that stuff, and seasoned agitators as they are, having had experience of championing and conducting many an agitation to enhance their popularity, they began to think of an outlet for their activities in their new surroundings. From exploiting an existing agitation there is only one step down to creating an agitation, and as will be presently shown, they adopted that tactics to justify their existence and to keep themselves alive as a party.
Before a year had passed after the establishment of Pakistan, Makhdum Shah Banauri, Secretary, Majlis-i-Ahrar-i-Pakistan, was arrested on, 15th July 1948, under section 3 of the Punjab Public Safety Act. The precise reasons for his arrest have not been brought out in the evidence, though it is stated that the ground for his arrest was the suspicion of his being engaged in some prejudicial activity. His arrest was followed by that of Sheikh Husam-ud-Din, another Ahrar leader, on 28th September 1948, under the same provision. They were both released after they had made long statements.
MURDER OF MAJOR MAHMUD
Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad was sojourning in Quetta, in the hot weather of 1948. While he was there, a young military officer, Major Mahmud, who was an Ahmadi, was murdered in a singularly brutal manner. The Muslim Railway Employees Association had organised a public meeting which was held on the evening of 11th August 1948. Some maulvis addressed the gathering and, the subject selected by each one of them for his speech was khatm-i-nubuwwat. In the course of these speeches, references were made to the Qadianis’ kufr and the consequences thereof. While the meeting was still in progress, Major Mahmud, on his return from a visit to a patient, passed by the place where the meeting was being held. His car accidentally stopped near the place of the meeting and an effort to re-start it failed. Just then a mob came towards the car and pulled Major Mahmud out of it. He attempted to flee but was chased and literally stoned and stabbed to death, his entire gut having come out. The report of his post-mortem examination shows that he had as many as twenty-six injuries caused by blunt and sharp-edged weapons and that the death was due to shock and internal haemorrhage resulting from incised, wounds involving the left lung, left kidney and the right lobe of the liver. Nobody was willing to take credit for this act of Islamic heroism and out of a large number of persons who were eyewitnesses, none was able or willing to identify the ghazis who were authors of this brave deed. The culprits, therefore, remained unidentified and the case was filed untraced. The police record shows that the infuriated mob was frantically looking for men with short beards—Ahmadis it may be mentioned wear short beards—to kill them,
On coming to know of this gruesome murder the Intelligence Bureau of the Government of Pakistan by its letter No. 10/B/48-(6)-P., dated the 26th October 1948, to Mr. Zulqarnain Khan, Superintendent of Police (A), C. I. D., Punjab, Lahore, drew the attention of the Provincial authorities to the secret activities of Majlis-i-Ahrar which the Bureau considered to be prejudicial to the interests of Pakistan and, after stating that the pledges of loyalty to the State which had been given by top-ranking leaders of Majlis-i-Ahrar in their speeches and writings were mere eye wash, asked for the Provincial Government’s considered opinion, for the information of the Central Government, whether the activities of the Ahrar necessitated some strong action against them at that moment. In reply Malik Habib Ullah by his letter No. 22451-BDSB, dated the 20th November 1948, explained in great detail the attitude of the Punjab C. I. D. towards the Ahrar. The reply reproduced the substance of the speech made by Abdur Rahman Mianvi at Chawinda in the district of Sialkot on 7th May 1948, in which he had accused the late Quaid-i-Azam for the Muslim genocide in East Punjab, and to the speech of Sahibzada Faiz-ul-Hasan at village Bhullar in the district of Sheikhupura, in which he had made some vulgar references to Begum Liaquat Ali Khan and other educated women who did not observe pardah; stated that the Ahrar had become more sober by the arrests of Makhdum Shah Banauri and Sheikh Husam-ud-Din, that Sayyad Ata Ullah Shah Bukhari and Master Taj-ud-Din were willing to extend their co-operation to the Government by reiterating their loyalty to Pakistan, that a very keen watch was being kept on the Ahrar and that when-ever their activities showed any signs of becoming prejudicial to the interests of the State, prompt action would be taken to disband them; and expressed the Punjab Government’s view that at that stage it was not advisable to take the drastic action of banning the Ahrar organisation.
SPEECHES BY AHRAR LEADERS
The record of the speech, of Sahibzada Faiz-ul-Hasan referred to in Malik Habib Ullah’s letter shows that in his speech delivered on 27th August 1848, on the occasion of the Urs of Sayyed Imam Ali in village Bhullar, he described Begum Liaquat Alt Khan and other women who did not observe pardah as prostitutes and alleged that the abduction of one hundred thousand Muslim women by Hindus and Sikhs in East Punjab, was due to the Quaid-i-Azam’s desire to become the Governor-General of Pakistan.
On 8th August 1950, Assistant Director, Intelligence Bureau, Government of Pakistan, by his letter No. 9/B/50-(25) sent to the Superintendent of Police (B), C.1.D., Punjab, a copy of a congregational address by Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad in which he bad warned his followers of the grave danger with which they were confronted. In that address the leader of the Ahmadiya community had alleged that the situation was not being properly reported to the Government, that open propaganda for the extermination of the community was going on unchecked, that the Government was doing nothing to stop such propaganda, that their lives and properties were in grave peril and that they must be ready to defend themselves if it became necessary to do so. In reply to this letter Malik Habib Ullah, by his secret letter No. 9931-BDSB, dated the 3lst August 1950, informed the Bureau that the reference in Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad’s address was presumably to the speeches of the Ahrar who since the merger of the Majlis-i-Ahrar with the Muslim League had been carrying on a sustained campaign of vilification against the Ahmadis, that on several occasions these activities of the Ahrar had been reported for action to the Government, that the Adviser for Law and Order had declined to take any immediate action lest the Ahrar should earn cheap martyrdom, that a warning had been given to the Ahrar leader Master Taj-ud-Din Ansari, that the warning had produced no effect on the activities of that leader and that the results of a fresh warning by the Governor were being awaited.
The demand for declaring the Ahmadis as a non-Muslim minority was first publicly made at an Ahrar meeting held at Pind Dadan Khan on 1st May 1949. Thereafter Ahmadis were the sole subject of speeches made at public meetings organised by the Ahrar, and not only the leaders of the Ahmadiya community but Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan, the Foreign Minister, became the chief object of their abuse. In the Tabligh Conference held by the Ahrar on 26th and 27th November 1949 at Sialkot, speeches were made to an audience of 11,000 persons by Master Taj-ud-Din, Maulvi Muhammad Hayat, Maulvi Muhammad Alt Jullundri, Sheikh Husam-ud-Din, Qazi Ehsan Ahmad Shujabadi and Sayyad Ata Ullah Shah Bukhari, each of them abusing the Ahmadis, their founder and leaders and Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan. A specimen of the kind of speeches that were made in that meeting will be found in the record of the speech of Maulvi Muhammad Hayat who said :—
“We don’t blame Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, false as he was, because he committed fornication only occasionally. Our objection is to the present khalifa who commits fornication every day.”
The prosecuting police officer who examined this speech for action thought that such observations were merely a stock-in-trade of political demagogues which caused no offence to anybody.
In the subsequent public meeting arranged by the Ahrar in the name of Ahl-i-Sunnat-wal-Jama’at at Naushehra Virkan on 7th December 1949, Maulvi Ghulam Ullah Khan described Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as a Dajjal who had been created by the British to disrupt Islamic solidarity and alleged that the Qadianis, particularly Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan, were causing great damage to Pakistan and the Muslim community and that they were arranging to barter away Kashmir for Qadian. This speech was reported to be actionable under section 153-A of the Penal Code and section 21 of the Punjab Public Safety Act, and Mr. Anwar Ali, D.I.G., C.I.D., while forwarding the case to the Home Secretary, inquired from him whether it was Government’s intention that action should be taken against those who were abusing Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan and engendering hatred against a particular section of the people. In his comments Mr. Anwar Ali also alluded to an arrangement which the Ahrar leaders said had been made by them with the Prime Minister to knock Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan, who had become a political menace, out of the Cabinet. The case came up to the Adviser for Law, who referring to his opinion in another case, ordered that no action was to be taken against the Ahrar leaders for the present and that Government would wait and see.
The next important Tabligh Conference was held by the Majlis-i-Ahrar at Lyallpur on 17th and l8th December 1949, in which, before an audience of about 5,000, Maulvi Ghulam Ghaus Sarhaddi, Qazi Ehsan Ahmad Shujabadi, Maulvi Muhammad Ali Jullundri, Sheikh Husam-ud-Din and Master Taj-ud-Din Ansari made speeches which, according to Mr. Anwar Ali’s note dated 30th December 1949, were actionable under section 153-A of the Penal Code and Section 21 of the Punjab Public Safety Act. The Adviser for Law made the following comment on this case on 2nd January 1950 :—
“They have made the Ahmadis the target of their attack in order to gain a hearing from the public. They are trying to exploit the religious feelings of an average Musalman against the Ahmadis ; but I do not think it would be advisable to take any action against the Ahrar for the present as the Muslims are very touchy on the point of Ahmadism and to prosecute the Ahrar for their vituperations against the Ahmadis, would, give them an air of martyrdom in the eyes of public which they do not deserve. I would not, therefore, advise any action against the Ahrar leaders for the present”.
When the case came before Sirdar Abdur Rab Nishtar, the Governor, on 5th January 1950, he noted that he had already warned the Ahrar leader Maulvi Ghulam Ghaus Sarhaddi who had come to see him a few days before that while Government did not prevent anyone from propagating his religious views, it would not tolerate speeches which might lead to a disturbance of the peace.
The Tabligh Conferences that were being held by the Ahrar and in which the Ahmadis were being abused provided an excuse to the latter to hold their own meetings. One such meeting was held at Sialkot on 15th January 1950 in reply to a Tabligh Conference which had been held by the Ahrar on 26th November 1949. The Ahrar, however, attempted to break up that meeting by throwing brickbats and the police had to resort to a mild lathi-charge. The Superintendent of Police, the District Magistrate and the Additional District Magistrate arrived on the scene and after the police drove away the rioters, the meeting was resumed but immediately a large crowd collected at a little distance, installed a loudspeaker and demanded the release of four rioters who had been arrested and the surrender of an Ahmadi who had stabbed a non-Ahmadi.
The Tabligh Conference at Multan was held on 28tb and 29th January 1950, which was addressed by several speakers including Sayyad Ata Ullah Shah Bukhari, Qazi Ehsan Ahmad Shujabadi, Ghulam Nabi Janbaz and Maulvi Muhammad All Jullundri. The meeting attracted a large crowd and in the speeches made on that occasion, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was compared to Master Tara Singh, and disparaging references were made to Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan who was described as a traitor to the Muslim community. There were also obscene references to the founder of the Ahmadiya community and its present leader. General Nazir Ahmad also came under comment. Sayyad Ata Ullah Shah Bukhari alleged that the Deputy Commissioner of Multan had dispossessed Muslims of mosques which he had given over to the Mirzais. When the report of this incident came up before the Adviser for Law on 11th February 1950, he repeated his previous argument that any action taken against the Ahrar for their vilification of the Foreign Minister and the Ahmadis, would make them martyrs and earn for them considerable public sympathy and that they did not deserve such “honourable place” in the public estimation. When Sirdar Abdur Rab Nishtar saw the case on 13th February 1950, he noted that he would like the President of Majlis-i-Ahrar to be sent for and warned against the consequences of the campaign of vilification that was being carried on against the civil and military dignitaries of the State. He remarked that nobody could be permitted to undermine the State in the name of religion and added that he had spoken about this aspect of the matter to Qazi Ehsan Ahmad Shujabadi and Maulvi Ghulam Ghaus Sarhaddi but that it appeared that the hint given to them had not proved effective. He directed that the Ahrar should now be spoken to a little more frankly, and observed that if the Adviser for Law felt some difficulty in talking to them, he would do so himself. Accordingly Master Taj-ud-Din, the President of Majlis-i-Ahrar, was sent for by the Adviser for Law on 20th February 1950 and warned against the consequences of vilification of high State Officers like Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan and General Nazir Ahmad. He was told that if the warning went unheeded, Government would be constrained to take severe action against the Ahrar and that the result of this warning would be watched.
STONING TO DEATH OF AHMADIS IN AFGHANISTAN
AND THE ‘ASH-SHAHAB’
According to the view propounded by the leading ulama before us the punishment for apostasy (irtidad) in Islam is death. If, therefore, Ahmadis are kafirs, a person who becomes an Ahmadi renders himself liable to the capital punishment. This doctrine seems to be in force in Afghanistan as part of the law of the land and several persons there have paid the supreme penalty for their un-Islamic beliefs. The first Ahmadi to experience the rigour of this law was one Abdur Rahman Khan who was executed in the time of Amir Abdur Rahman Khan. The second was Abdul Latif who was stoned to death in 1903 during the reign of Amir Habibullah Khan. Abdul Latif was an Afghan national who, after living for sometime with Mirza Ghulam Ahmad at Qadian, had himself become an Ahmadi. When he returned to Afghanistan in 1903, he was declared by the Ulama to be a murtadd for having become an Ahmadi and was ordered to be put to death. He was fixed alive in the ground up to the waist and was then stoned to death. The same fate befell one Ne’matullah Khan who, on the ground of his having become an Ahmadi, was declared by the ulama of Afghanistan to be a murtadd and on 31st August 1924 was publicly stoned to death at Sherkot.
The execution of Ne’matullah Khan gave rise in India to some controversy about the punishment of apostasy in Islam. Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Usmani, a scholar of Deoband, wrote on the subject a pamphlet called ‘Ash-shahab’. The first part of this document was devoted to establishing that Ahmadis were apostates (murtadds) and the second to proving that the appropriate penalty in Islam for apostasy (irtidad) is death.
This pamphlet had remained in oblivion for about thirty years bat some-time before March 1950, Qazi Ehsan Ahmad Shujabadi obtained the permission of its author who had now become Sheikh-ul-Islam-i-Pakistan, to reprint and publish it. The permission was granted and the pamphlet began constantly to be quoted and cited as a fatwa in the speeches of the Ahrar. In a public meeting held in Company Bagh, Rawalpindi, from 14th to 16th April 1950, almost every speaker appealed to the audience to purchase copies of the ‘Ash-shahab’. This was reported to Mr. Anwar Ali, D.I.G., C.I.D., who, by his note, dated the 20th March 1950, drew the attention of the Chief Secretary to the possibility of a person’s getting incited by the fatwa and killing some Ahmadi. Mr. Anwar Ali, however, expressed the opinion that for obvious reasons it was not advisable to take any action against the publication and contented himself merely by suggesting that Master Taj-ud-Din Ansari and other Ahrar leaders who were becoming unbridled should be sent for and formally administered a warning. The Chief Secretary, Mr. Fida Hasan agreed with the D.I.G., C.I.D., that tae banning of the pamphlet would bring the Ahrar into the limelight and that a strong warning would be sufficient. The Adviser for Law accepted this view, and when the file came up to the Governor, Sirdar Abdur Rab Nishtar, on 30th June, he wrote :—
“Previous warnings have not proved effective. A stern warning should be given to the fellows and they should be told that provocative speeches against a group or an individual, particularly when the individuals concerned are distinguished public servants and are performing important State duties, cannot be tolerated. If the Ahrar do not desist from it, the Government shall be forced to take action against them”.
Accordingly a stern warning was given to Master Taj-ud-Din Ansari by the Governor himself. The pamphlet, however, continued to be quoted in speeches at public meetings until the Minister for the Interior saw it. He must have been shocked to realise the implications of the doctrine propounded in this document because he suggested its immediate proscription by the Punjab Government.
In the meantime a report was received of speeches made at an Ahrar conference held at Hafizabad in which Muhammad Ali Jullundri had called Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan a mad dog. Malik Habib Ullah who submitted this report with his comments to the D.I.G., C.I.D., on 19th June 1950, said that unless the tone of the speeches of the Ahrar were controlled Government would have to face quite a few cases of murder or rioting before very long. Mr. Anwar Ali, D.I.G., C.I.D., submitted the case to the Adviser for Law who in turn marked it to the Governor, Sirdar Abdur Rab Nishtar, who said that he would like to talk to D.I.G., C.I.D., about the matter. It was at this stage that Mr. Anwar Ali, D.I.G., C.I.D., took stock of the whole situation and wrote the following note :—
“Lately the Majlis-i-Ahrar has apart from making obscene and indecent references to the founder of the Ahmadiya faith and the present khalifa begun to advocate violence advertently as well as inadvertently. It will be recalled that last year a young Ahmadi officer of the rank of a Captain was brutally attacked and killed at Quetta because he took exception to the conduct of certain anti-Ahmadiya demonstrators. The Majlis-i-Ahrar was opposed to the Partition of the Indian sub-continent. Ahrar leaders enjoyed the confidence of the Congress and used to hob nob with Congress workers. After the Partition they went low. For a time they were afraid of public fury and used to give occasional statements to establish that they were loyal to Pakistan. They were purely on their defensive and did relief work in refugee camps and elsewhere. The members were scattered and for a while the party broke up. Sayyad Ata Ullah Shah Bukhari shifted from Lahore and took refuge in a village in the Muzaffargarh district. Sheikh Husam-ud-Din announced that his political career had come to an end and opened a joint stock company for the purpose of doing inter-Dominion trade. For a while, Sheikh Husam-ud-Din was kept under detention under section 3 of the P.P.S.A. because his loyalty to Pakistan was questioned. One of his colleagues, Makhdum Shah Banauri, was also interned for sometime.
When the Muslim League in this Province became torn with dissensions and its influence suffered a severe set back, the Ahrar thought that it was high time for them to enter the political field. Accordingly, they started a series of Tablighi Conferences. The burden of Ahrar speakers used to be that they were loyal to Pakistan, that they acknowledged the Muslim League as the only political party in the country, that the Kashmir Jehad was fully justified and that public effort should be mobilised for improving the defence of the country. Later they also began to speak against the Ahmadis. The Majlis has some very effective speakers and soon S. Ata Ullah Shah Bukhari emerged from his retirement and with his eloquent tongue aroused public interest once again in his party. As time went on, the tone of the speeches continued to deteriorate. Other items on the programme were forgotten and the Ahrar began to concentrate on the Ahmadis vilifying them in a most shameful manner. As confidence was gained, Sir Zafrullah Khan, began to be attacked and described as a traitor. The Ahrar are no longer on the defensive but have positively become aggressive. Conditions have now gone too far and bounds of decency and political morality have been surpassed. The following things which are significant have taken place :—
The writings of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad are quoted ad nauseam and twisted and obscene and indecent inferences drawn.
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and the present khalifa are described as adulterers and given to unnatural indulgences.
The Ahmadis are described as traitors who have no loyalty towards Pakistan.
Sir Zafrullah is vilified and abused. He is often described as an ‘ass’ and as a ‘knave’ and it is imputed to him that he will barter Kashmir to safeguard Ahmadi interests at Qadian.
Alarm is created in the public mind by giving out that Pakistan is governed by Ahmadis who are traitors. In pursuance of this plan lists of army and civil officers who are Ahmadis, are often published.
S. Ata Ullah Shah Bukhari has often said that if Mirza Ghulam Ahmad had claimed prophethood in his lifetime, he would have killed him with his own hands.
At a recent Ahrar meeting passions were raised so much that a man in the audience got up and volunteered to kill Mirza Bashir-ud-Din.
At a meeting at Multan which was addressed by S. Ata Ullah Shah Bukhari, a man got up and asked if he should go and kill Sir Zafrullah Khan.
A booklet entitled ‘Ash shahab’ written by Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Usmani in which, it is made out that the Ahmadis are ‘murtadds’ and, therefore, deserve to be killed by every Muslim, has been reprinted and is being circulated (This book was written by the late Maulana when a controversy of had arisen about the lynching of two Ahmadis in Afghanistan.)
Against this, the Ahrar have not made any constructive contribution for the manifold problems, economic, social, political, etc., which confront Pakistan. They have practically no political programme except perhaps the desire to win supporters for the forthcoming elections.
Public memories are tragically short. In spite of the fact that about two years ago the Ahrar leaders were looked upon with distrust and suspicion, they are able to attract large audiences whenever they address public meetings. There are few who question their bona fides or even care to ask why all this fuss is made about the Ahmadis. The Ahrar have partially achieved their objective; they have rehabilitated themselves and will before long emerge as a political party not necessarily on the side of the Muslim League. They have their counterpart in India as well. If they are sincere, they should have dissolved their organisation and should have become Muslim Leaguers.
The Ahrar leaders probably do not realise that they are playing with fire. A certain amount of buffoonery can be overlooked, but where feelings are inflamed to such an extent that murders, riots, the heaping of insults, etc., are threatened, a halt must be called. It may not be advisable to proceed, against the Ahrar leaders under the Penal Code (in order to avoid raising a further controversy), but their activities being prejudicial to the, maintenance of public safety and public order, the following suggestions might be considered:—
Action should be taken where active violence is preached either under section 3 of the P.P.S.A. or for the abetment of the offence concerned.
Abuse and oblique insinuations against Sir Zafrullah Khan emanating from Ahrar leaders should on no account be tolerated. Any one who defames a Cabinet Minister in public, should be proceeded against under section 21 of the P.P.S.A.
Indecent and obscene speeches which corrupt public morals and outrage public decency, should not be tolerated. Often Ahrar speakers have said that Mahatma Gandhi and their khalifa slept together. Such abominable and nauseating humour should not be tolerated particularly in an Islamic State.
Lastly the question of declaring the Majlis-i-Ahrar as an unlawful association under section 16 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908, should be seriously considered.
H. A. L. will recall that the Hon’ble Minister for the Interior expressed it as his opinion that the book entitled ‘Ash-shahab’ which advocates violence against the Ahmadis should be immediately proscribed. It will also be recalled that he mentioned quite rightly that unless action is taken at this stage against the Ahrar party and its workers, its popularity may have increased manifold and later action might give them the role of martyrs apart from creating practical difficulties. I might also mention that intelligent and sane people do not want deprave utterances on the part of Ahrar leaders to be countenanced.
I will be failing in my duty if I do not point out to Government that the atmosphere aroused by Ahrar leaders is pregnant with dangerous possibilities and may lead to individual cases of violence against Ahmadis”.
This note was marked by the D.I.G., C.I.D., to the Chief Secretary who agreed that the ‘Ash-shahab’ should be proscribed and action taken under section 3 of the Punjab Public Safety Act where active violence was preached, or where any other offence was committed, for its abetment. As regards the proposal for launching a prosecution where Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan was defamed, he suggested that this should be done only if that Minister himself agreed to such course. As regards the proposal to declare the Ahrar an unlawful association, he remarked that the matter could wait for sometime more. The file was marked to the Adviser for Law who on 11th June 1950 wrote a long note agreeing with the proscription of the ‘Ash-shahab’ and stating that the strong warning given by him to Master Taj-ud-Din, the President of the Majlis-i-Ahrar, had had no effect and suggesting that the Ahrar leaders should be sent for and another stern warning given to them. He, however, remarked that the Ahrar were not advocating violence in their speeches but merely attacking the Ahmadiya faith, a course which was popular with the average Muslim, and that any action against them for their attack on Ahmadis and their faith will enhance the popularity of the Ahrar and make them martyrs. He, therefore, advocated caution and discretion in dealing with them for their activities. This note was placed before the Governor, Sirdar Abdur Rab Niahtar, who approved of it. The Governor remarked that earlier he had spoken to Maulvi Ghulam Ghaus Sarhaddi of Hazara and later to Qazi Ehsan Ahmad Shujabadi, warning them that if they overstepped the limits and continued making speeches containing incitement to violence, the Government would have to take action against them. He said that these warnings and that given by the Adviser for Law to Master Taj-ud-Din Ansari had had no effect and suggested to the Chief Secretary to speak to Master Taj-ud-Din Ansari about it. Later the Governor decided himself to talk to Master Taj-ud-Din Ansari. Accordingly Master Taj-ud-Din was sent for and after warning him the Governor recorded the following note:—
“Master Taj-ud-Din, President of the Majlis-i-Ahrar could be contacted only last night and he came to see me this morning at 8 a.m. I told him that while the Government does not want to interfere with the religious activities of any person or organisation, it cannot tolerate activities which are likely to result in the breach of peace. I informed him, that some months ago Maulvi Ghulam Ghaus, a Frontier Ahrar leader, came to see me and I spoke to him about this aspect of the activities of the Ahrar. Later on Qazi Ehsan Ahmad saw me and I explained the position to him also, but it was unfortunate that in spite of this the tone of the speeches of the Ahrar leaders was, (generally speaking, provocative. The warnings that ware given to Ahrar by H. A. L. through Master Taj-ud-Din under my instructions have also proved ineffective. The speeches of the Ahrar are not confined to legitimate criticism of the religious beliefs of ‘Ahmadis’. Some of their speakers indulge in utterances which may lead to trouble. This state of affairs cannot be tolerated by the Government and if the Ahrar did not desist from this attitude, Government will be forced to take suitable action against them in the interests of law and order of the Province. I further told him that it is believed and not without justification, that the conferences held by Ahrar under the garb of khatm-i-nubuwwat are really meant to farther their political end. The object is to gain popularity among the Muslim masses who are naturally averse to Ahrar on account of their pre-Partition activities. I also told him that the people are not so devoid of sense as not to see through the game which some of the Ahrar leaders are playing. Day in and day out they hurl abuses upon the Foreign Minister of Pakistan and a large number of high military and civil officers of Pakistan Government who are ‘Ahmadis’. Though the propaganda is given a religious colour, the real object is believed to be to create disaffection in the minds of the people against the Pakistan Government for entrusting responsible posts to such persons. A short while ago a long list of military officers who were described as ‘Qadianis’ was published by the paper which supports Ahrar. This can legitimately be interpreted to mean an attempt on the part of Ahrar to damp the zeal of the Musalmans for Pakistan Army. This is particularly significant when one finds Ahrar referring to the policy of the Government of Afghanistan towards ‘Ahmadis’. It is said in speeches that the Afghanistan Government condemn people of this faith to death and in the same text the attention of the people is invited towards the attitude of the Pakistan Government with regard to them. This comparison, may be interpreted to have been intended to create hatred against the Pakistan Government. I told him that so far the Muslim League Government have not come to the field to expose the activities of Ahrar but if the Ahrar go on like this, they shall have to come forward and remind the people of the past activities of this organisation, which would, in my opinion, condemn them for ever. I remarked that it was really strange for the Ahrar to rouse the feelings of the Muslims of Pakistan against ‘Ahmadis’ on the ground that a portion of the Gurdaspur district which at present forms part of India would have come to Pakistan if ‘Ahmadis’ had not adopted a certain attitude alleged by the Ahrar, while all their lives they, the Ahrar leaders, have been trying to hand over the whole of Pakistan to Hindus by opposing the Partition of India and supporting the Congress.
2. Master Taj-ud-Din replied that it was painful for him to find that I took such a view of their activities. He said that he had been trying to impress upon the Ahrar speakers to avoid saying anything which may create any embarrassment for the Government or which may result in the breach of peace. He promised to convey my observations to the leaders of his party and assured me that he would do his best that in future’ the Government is not given any cause for complaint”.
MORE MURDERS
The effect of the wide publication of the ‘Ash-shahab’ and the campaign, of hatred which the Ahrar were strenuously carrying on against the Ahmadis, brought definite and natural results. Muhammad Ashraf, a youth of 19, murdered an Ahmadi schoolmaster named Ghulam Muhammad at Okara. The following is the story of this murder :—
On 1st October 1950 Maulvi Nur Din, who was an Ahmadi, together with seven other Ahmadis, went on a propaganda (tabligh) expedition to Chak No. 5. The propagandists were surrounded by the non-Ahmadis of the locality who started throwing mud on them, blackened their faces and had them driven through filthy water to Railway Station Okara. The incident was reported to the police and one Maulvi Fazal Ilahi was arrested under sections 147 and 342 of the Penal Code. As a protest against this arrest, shops closed down in Okara and a public meeting was held on the night of 3rd October which was attended by several thousand people. The audience was addressed by several speakers who made highly inflammatory speeches. One speaker appealed to the young men present in the meeting to get rid of the Mirzai nuisance. On the following day Muhammad Ashraf who was listening to the speeches, armed himself with a knife, pursued Ghulam Muhammad while he was on his way to Okara, overtook him near a canal and stabbed him. Ghulam Muhammad was seriously injured and expired before he was taken to the police station. Muhammad Ashraf was produced before a Magistrate and made the following confession : —
“In September, again said, on the third day of October, a meeting was held at Okara, in which Rizwani Bashir Ahmad, Maulvi Zia-ud-Din, Qazi Abdur Rahman, Ch. Mahbub Alam and the President of the meeting who was probably Qazi Sahib delivered enthusiastic speeches that the Mirzais call Prophet (peace be on him) by bad name. We shall die on his grandeur. It was said in the speeches that those who would differentiate them (Ahmadis) and try to remove them should raise their hands. In the meeting the name of Ilam Din Ghazi was also mentioned and his history was told. I had also read before the history of Ilam Din Ghazi, and once I had been to his shrine. After that the meeting was over. I returned home. The words of the speeches resounded in my mind all night. Getting up in the morning I went to Chak No. 48 on a cycle where the master had gone to his house in recess. I stayed in the Chak till he came to school. At a shop in the village ckowk I smoked a cigarette. When I came out, master was not in the school. I was convinced that the master was a Marzai and I had come with this intention. In the Chak I inquired from a Sayyad as to whether any kafirwas teaching our children in the days of Holy Prophet. What right he has that he is staying in our Chak and has got the land allotted and teaches the children. After that I inquired from a boy as to where master had gone. He informed that he had gone to Chak No. 40/3-R. I inquired whether on cycle or foot. He replied, on cycle. I had a knife at that time. I overtook him at a distance of two miles. There I got down from my cycle and felled him by pushing his cycle. I inflicted a knife blow to master and he went running in the water of canal minor. The knife gave way and I set it right and gave him blows in the water. At the time of my beating some persons collected. They stopped me. I told them that they should not check me as I was killing a kafir. Another stranger met me and questioned me, I replied that I had killed a kafir, I went to Okara.”
The Sessions Judge sentenced Muhammad Ashraf to transportation for life and when the case came up on appeal to the High Court, a petition for enhancement of the sentence was also put in by the widow of the deceased. Dealing with the question of sentence, the bench of which one of us was a member made certain observations which are relevant to the present occasion and need reproduction in extenso. The bench said : —
“The question of sentence in this case presents real difficulty and for several days we have anxiously, pondered over it to take a decision. whether the young man, who is proved in this case to have been guilty of the premeditated murder of a completely innocent man, should live or die. The learned Sessions judge has given him a life sentence but a petition for enhancement of the sentence to that of death has been made by Mt. Daulat Bibi, the widow of the murdered man. It is urged in support of the petition that both on principle and precedent the sentence should have been that of death and that the imposition of the lesser sentence in this case has led to a miscarriage of justice. Reliance in this connection is placed on Ilam Din v. Emperor, A. I. R. 1930 Lahore 157, and Aziz Ahmad v. Emperor, A. I. R. 1938 Lahore 355. In the first of these cases, a youth of 19 or 20, prompted by feelings of veneration for the Prophet of Islam, had been guilty of the premeditated murder of a Hindu who in a vulgar and scurrilous publication had attacked the Prophet. Broadway and Johnstone JJ. who heard the appeal, held that neither the age of the offender nor the motive for the murder was an extenuating circumstance, and confirmed the sentence of death. The second case relates to the murder of a revolting Ahmadi by an orthodox Ahmadi because the leader of the orthodox sect had been attacked in, a poster by a party to which the murdered man belonged, While considering the propriety of the death sentence. Young C. J. observed : —
‘We consider it would be dangerous in this country to give cause for belief that death would not as a rule result from murders even when they are committed for attacks on leaders of religious communities, or under their influence unless they are committed in circumstances which do amount to grave and sudden provocation.
‘We feel it our duty to say that, conditions being as they are in India, it is most dangerous for leaders of religious communities to attack publicly their opponents from the pulpit, and, in particular, to use the language that has been used by the Khalifa Sahib with regard to Misri Abdul Rahman and his followers; someone may easily be influenced thereby to commit murder. This is not the first time in India that death has followed hard on the heels of similar denunciations. Even if we accept, as contended by counsel for the appellant, that the Khalifa Sahib referred to punishment in the spiritual sense, it must be remembered that some zealous followers of any religious leader have difficulty in distinguishing spiritual from corporal punishment. In any event there are always in this country fanatics who believe that they are the instruments of God in carrying out such punishments. We must confirm the sentence of death passed upon Aziz Ahmad and dismiss his appeal.’
“On the other hand. it was quite seriously contended for the appellant, and we refer to this argument not because it deserves any serious consideration but merely to illustrate how religious controversies may engender hate and anger, that the Ahmadis are an outstanding provocation to non-Ahmadi Muslims and that any public and aggressive propaganda in favour of the doctrines of that sect may amount to grave and sudden provocation so as to reduce the offence of murder to that of culpable homicide, and, in any case, should be treated by the Court as an extenuating circumstance Justifying the withholding of the capital sentence.
“If we were to follow the principle laid down in the two cases cited above, there would be no alternative for us but to enhance the sentence to that of death. But both these are pre-Partition cases and the actual decision in each of them was influenced by administrative considerations. In the present case, we cannot shut our eyes to the fact that the murder was not committed with any sordid motive and that the offender, who is a youth of impressionable age, was made to believe that in the circumstances the murder had become an obligation by discharging which he could earn religious merit. In the speeches made in the meeting of 3rd October, the Ahmadis were denounced as a menace to Islam and death followed hard on the heels of that denunciation. Where a youth commits murder under the influence of his elders, we have always taken the view that a sentence of death need not be imposed on him, and we are unable to distinguish that class of cases from the present one where learned religious divines take the place of elders and publicly preach violence as a religious duty. There is yet another category of murders where Courts do not generally give the capital sentence, namely, where the offence is committed under the influence of some mental derangement which does not in law amount to insanity, and the case of a religious megalomaniac does not seem to us materially to differ from that category. For these reasons we do not think enhancement of the sentence is called for in this case. We must not, however, be understood as laying down any general rule, and any recurrence of this species of crime, which tends to bring religion into disrepute and to make it the laughing stock of the world, might induce us to take a different view and revert to the normal sentence for murder.”
The Okara murder was followed by the murder of another Ahmadi in the same month, the interval between the two being only a few days. In Bagh Gowalmandi at Rawalpindi, Badar-ud-Din who was an Ahmadi was shot dead by one Wilayat Khan. The motive for the murder in that case remained obscure but one of the eyewitnesses, who was believed both by the Sessions Judge and the High Court, had deposed that on being arrested on the spot the accused himself had confessed that he had murdered Badar-ud-Din because he was an Ahmadi.
Indignant protests over these murders were made by the Ahmadiya community and some representations were sent to the Central Government in this connection. By its letter No. 109-S(1)/50 dated 2nd November 1950, the Ministry of the Interior sent the following resolution which had been passed by the Ahmadiya Muslim Association, Karachi, on. 20th October, 1950, to the Chief Secretary to Punjab Government for that Government’s comments : —
“This general meeting of the Ahmadiya community, Karachi, strongly condemns the murder of Master Ghulam Muhammad Ahmadi in Okara and of Chaudhri Badar-ud-Din Ahmadi in Rawalpindi which have been caused by the inflammatory speeches of the Ahrar leaders against the Ahmadiya community. The meeting expresses deep concern at the failure of the Provincial and the Central Governments to take notice of the mischievous activities of the Ahrar against a section of Pakistan citizens and invites the attention of the two Governments to the dangerous situation which has been created by such activities and urges upon the Governments to take suitable action in the matter.”
The Central Government also inquired from the Punjab Government whether there was, in their opinion, any danger of a general dead set being made against the Ahmadis in this Province. To this the Punjab Government’s reply was that there was no danger of any violent upheaval against the Ahmadis, that the two murders were being inquired into in Court, and that if the Ahrar, as reported, agreed to co-operate with the Muslim League, the sectarian propaganda in which they were engaged would end automatically.
In March 1951 a plot, to which high-ranking military officers were parties, was discovered, the object of which was to overthrow the Pakistan Government. One of the accused persons in that case which came to be called ‘The Rawalpindi Conspiracy Case’, was Major-General Nazir Ahmad, who was an Ahmadi. In a speech delivered by Maulvi Muhammad Ali Jullundri at the annual meeting of Jami’ Rashidia, Montgomery, on 15th April 1951, he alleged that eighty per cent pilots in the Air Force were Ahmadis, that the treachery of the Ahmadi officers had been revealed by the discovery of the Rawalpindi conspiracy, that this conspiracy had awakened the Government to realities, that he was in possession of documentary evidence to show the complicity of Ahmadis in tins conspiracy and that Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan had purchased with State money a luxurious mansion in America just opposite to the palace of President Truman, with the object of preaching Ahmadiyat there. When the report of this speech came up before Mr. Anwar Ali, D.I.G., C.I.D., he remarked that speeches of this kind would have a thoroughly bad effect on public tranquillity and might stir up indignation and wrath against the Ahmadis. He proceeded to add that if propaganda of this sort continued, the Majlis-i-Ahrar will have to be administered a formal warning. This note was placed before the Chief Secretary and then before the Chief Minister who initialled it but when the file went back to A.D.I.G., he noted that no orders in the case had been passed but that he presumed that it was not intended that any action should be taken.
YAUM-I-TASHAKKUR
By their Lahore resolution, of January 1949, the Ahrar had decided to convert themselves into a purely religious party and to assist the Muslim League in all political matters. They had also announced that they would support the Muslim League in the forthcoming elections, provided the candidate nominated by the League was not an Ahmadi. Electioneering began in early winter 1950 and the results were announced in March 1951, the Muslim League having won by a large majority. The Muslim League had nominated some Ahmadis as its candidates, but they were all defeated. The Ahrar’s own activity during the elections was not consistent. According to the evidence of Mr. Daultana, though they helped some Muslim League candidates they also opposed others who were not Ahmadis. The Muslim League Ministry with Mr. Daultana as the Chief Minister, was installed in office in early April 1951.
As no Ahmadi was elected to the Legislative Assembly, the Ahrar announced that a ‘yaum-i-tashakkur’ (thanks-giving day) would be observed to celebrate the victory which they had scored over their opponents. This ‘yaum’ was celebrated in several places on different dates from March to May 1951. At Lyallpur it was celebrated on 20th April 1951, when at a mammoth public meeting; Ghulam Nabi Janbaz threatened an Ahmadi shopkeeper Fazal Din with dire consequences. On 7th May this shopkeeper was attacked in broad daylight in his own shop. On 13th May a mob set fire to an Ahmadi mosque at Samundri and the worshippers present there were thrashed.
At Gujranwala the day was advertised on the 29th and held on the 30th March 1951. The manner in which the meeting was advertised led to a scuffle between an Ahmadi and a non-Ahmadi, resulting in injuries to the latter.
In Lahore the ‘yaum-i-tashakkur’ was observed on 25th and 26th May 1951. In view of the fact that earlier Ata Ullah Shah Bukhari at Lahore and Muhammad Ali Jullundri At Jami’ Rashidia, Montgomery, had accused the Ahmadis of complicity in the Rawalpindi conspiracy and specifically mentioned in this connection the name of Major-General Nazir Ahmad, it was considered necessary to warn the Ahrar leaders that any repetition of that allegation would arouse violent antagonism against a wrong party and that the speaker making any reference to this subject would make himself liable for contempt of Court. Accordingly Mr. Qurban Ali Khan, Inspector-General of Police, sent for Master Taj-ud-Din Ansari on 23rd May 1951 and warned him of the consequences if any reference to this subject was made.
On the first day of the celebrations bands of volunteers of Ahrar from all over the Punjab and the Frontier Districts of Peshawar and Haripur Hazara, paraded in a procession through the streets of Lahore, being accompanied by five bands. At the evening meeting, which was attended by several prominent men including Muslim League M. L. As. and office-bearers, speeches were made by Ahrar leaders including Sahibzada Faiz-ul-Hasan who demanded that the Ahmadis be declared a minority or forced to leave this country and settle in India. Maulana Ahmad Ali, who presided at the meeting, moved a resolution demanding the Pakistan Government to remove Ahmadis from responsible posts, while Sayyad Ata Ullah Shah Bukhari referred to the arrest of Major-General Nazir Ahmad, which arrest, he remarked, had converted the ‘yaum-i-tashakkar’ into ‘yaum-i-tafakhkhur’ because the State had been saved from a grave peril. In his usual vulgar humour he remarked that Major-General Nazir Ahmad had been stripped naked and that it was for the Ahmadis to get him another pair of trousers. He also alleged that Major-General Nazir Ahmad had been instigated to join the conspiracy by Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad. The slogans suggested by Bukhari to be shouted by the audience were :
“Namak-haraman-i-Pakistan murdabad”, “Ghaddaran-i-Pakistan murdabad”, “Pakistan zindabad”, “Mirza Bashir-ud-Din murdabad” and “Mirzaeeat murdabad”.
At the meeting of 26th May, Qazi Ehsan Ahmad Shujabadi again referred to the Rawalpindi Conspiracy Case while Sheikh Husam-ud-Din declared that Ahmadis who were a danger to the national unity of Muslims, should be removed from key posts. Disparaging remarks by him and Allama Ala-ud-Din Siddiqui were made about Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan, demanding his removal. On this day also a procession was taken out.
When the report of the speeches at this meeting was placed before the Chief Minister in the ordinary course he made the following significant remark : —
“Ahrar are merely trying to capture a political ‘living space’ on an issue which has obvious attraction for the common run of people in Pakistan. We have to watch closely that a measure is kept.”
AHMADI MOSQUE BURNT
A telegraphic complaint about the burning of the Ahmadiya mosque at Samundri and of mercilessly beating peaceful worshippers there, was made by Amir-i-Jama’at-i-Ahmadiya, Bhera, to His Excellency the Governor-General of Pakistan. The Ministry of the Interior by its letter No. 44/1/51-Poll(1) dated 28th May 1951, forwarded a copy of this telegram to the Chief Secretary to the Government of the Punjab requesting for an early report with the comments of the Punjab Government. In reply to this letter S. Ahmad Ali, Home Secretary to Government, Punjab, wrote the following letter No, 8447-BDSB, dated the 28th June 1951 :—
“Reference your letter No. 44/l/51.Poll(l), dated 28th May 1951, I am directed to report that on the afternoon of 13th May, 1951, a mob of non-Ahmadis (Ahrar) of Samundri town in Lyallpur district collected together and set fire to the mats and roof of the kacha mosque consisting of one room and a platform built on evacuee land in the vicinity of District Board School. Some members of the Ahmadiya community who happened to be present on the spot were assaulted. A peon of the D. B. School carried the news of the sacrilege and arson to the local police and they rushed to the spot immediately. The District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police also arrived without any loss of time and the situation was brought under control. Fourteen of the culprits were arrested flagrante delicto. Later, 6 more were arrested and on completion of investigation the case was put in Court for trial. The prompt action taken by the local authorities stopped, any deterioration of the situation and the atmosphere is now calm and quiet.
“The person who lodged the F.I.R. with the police gave an exaggerated version of the incident and involved some innocent persons, two of whom are revenue officials. It was found, after investigation that they did not participate in the commission of the crime and the allegations against them were unfounded.
“Further developments will be communicated in due course”.
OTHER SPEECHES BY AHRAR
On 25th August 1951, Mr. Bashir Ahmad, Amir-i-Jama’at-i-Ahmadiya, Lahore, addressed a letter to the Deputy Commissioner, Lahore, complaining of a speech by Sayyad Ata Ullah Shah Bukhari, made in a largely attended public meeting held in Lahore outside Mochi Gate on 19th August 1951, in which the speaker had alleged —
(a) that Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan, the Foreign Minister of Pakistan, was disloyal to the State,
(b) that before the Partition the head of the Ahmadiya community had told his followers that Pakistan was not going to come into existence and that if any such State was created, the divided country would again be re-united, and
(c) that the Ahmadis were spies of the Indian Government and that if war broke out with India, advantage should be taken of the opportunity to rout the Ahmadis who were enemies of the State.
This letter, with the Commissioner’s note, was sent to the Home Secretary (S. Ahmad Ali) who on 1st September 1961 made the following comments on it :—
“I have discussed this matter with H.C.M. who has asked me to request the I.G. Police to convey it to the Ahrar leaders that they have been exceeding their limits in their speeches, both in regard to the Foreign Minister and also in regard to the Ahmadiya community in general. There has already been a riot and murder, blackening of the face of an Ahmadi and making him, ride on a donkey and the burning of one of their mosques. If the Ahrar do not now atop their provocative speeches, the result on law and order might be disastrous. In the past several warnings have already been given to them. They should, therefore, now be told once for all that Government wants to stop them from these provocative speeches which are likely to disturb the peace of the Province and if they will not take this warning, Government will Take all steps to have its orders obeyed and the Ahrar themselves will be responsible for the consequences
“l have asked, the Deputy Commissioner to tell Mr. Bashir Ahmad, Advocate, that they should not hold this retaliatory meeting which they intend to hold tomorrow, and I hope he will obey, but if he does not, action will have to be taken under section 144, Cr. P. C. to stop the meeting.”
When the case came to Mr. Qurban Ali Khan, I.G.P., he wrote : —
“I have explained the whole position as explained in the above note, to Sheikh Husam-ud-Din, General Secretary of the Pakistan Majlis-i-Ahrar. He has understood the effect which the provocative speeches are likely to create on the law and order position, particularly at this juncture, and he assures me that it is their policy not to create any controversial situation while the country is facing a crisis to meet which unity amongst all sections of Pakistanis is imperative. Sheikh Husam-ud-Din further tells me that he will take the earliest opportunity to call an emergent meeting of their Working Committee to discuss what I have told him and to impress upon the members the need for being careful in their public utterances.
“This note has been read over to Sheikh Husam-ud-Din and, in fact, is partly dictated by him.”
The case was submitted on 3rd September 1951 to the Chief Minister for information.
On 4th September 1951, the Ministry of the Interior addressed a letter, D. O. No. 720-S(l)/51, to the Chief Secretary to the Government of the Punjab, saying that Sayyad Ata Ullah Shah Bukhari, while speaking at a public meeting in Mochi Gate sometime during August last, had alleged that Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan, Minister for Foreign Affairs, was “selling Kashmir to the Government of India for the sake of Qadian” and inquiring whether the report was correct and suggesting that a clear warning should be conveyed to Bukhari and other Ahrar leaders that they must desist from maligning the Minister for Foreign Affairs as well as the Ahmadis generally. In reply to this, the Chief Secretary wrote the following D.O.No. 11794-BDSB., dated the 19th September 1951: —
“Please refer to your D. O. letter No. 720-S-(I)/51, dated the 4th September, 1951. Sayyad Ata Ullah Shah Bukhari addressed a public meeting outside Mochi Gate, Lahore, on 19th August 1951. He did make disparaging remarks about the Ahmadiya community and said that Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud was opposed to the formation of Pakistan and had publicly made a plea for getting India united. This statement, he alleged, was made in the presence of Honourable Ch. Muhammad Zafrullah Khan who, according to him, did not contradict it. The Provincial Government has already taken note of the mischievous speeches which Ahrar leaders have been making. On the 1st September, 1951, Sheikh Husam-ud-Din, General-Secretary Of the Majlis-i-Ahrar, was sent for by the Inspector General of Police and administered a clear warning. Sheikh Husam-ud-Din assured the Inspector-General that it was not the policy of his party to create dissensions particularly when the country was faced with an emergency. He undertook further to call a meeting of the Working Committee at the earliest opportunity with a view to impressing upon the members to exercise forbearance and restraint in their public utterances. In view of this unequivocal assurance, the Provincial Government does not consider it necessary to administer another warning to Sayyad Ata Ullah Shah Bukhari. The situation is being watched and suitable action will be taken if it is found that the warning has not been heeded”.
On 27th September 1951, the Superintendent of Police, Sargodha, reported to A. I. G. P. that in a meeting held inside Juma Mosque Bhalwal on 22nd and 23rd September 1951, two Ahrar workers, namely. Habib-ur-Rahman and Maulvi Muhammad Hayat, had made virulent speeches against the Ahmadiya sect. These speeches were examined by Mr. Anwar Ali, D.I.G., C.I.D., who on 3rd October 1951 remarked, that the speeches were not only illegal but open to objection and that it appeared that the workers of the Central Committee of Majlis-i-Ahrar bad not issued any directions to their district workers in pursuance of the undertaking given by Sheikh Husam-ud-Din to Mr. Qurban Ali Khan. He directed the Superintendent of Police to send for the leaders of the local Ahrar party and to administer a warning to them. Mr. Qurban Ali Khan endorsed this action and said : —
“And if they do not, legal action should be taken against them at-once. We would be justified in this now as necessary warnings have been issued to their leaders and they have promised not to destroy the country by such speeches”.
POLICY AND MEASURES
By this time the Central Government had begun feeling concerned about the acute sectarian dissensions and repeated attacks on Ahmadis and their leaders and tenets which were being reported to it. Accordingly the Ministry of the Interior wrote the following letter to the Chief Secretary to Government, Punjab, on 7th September 1951 : —
“Instances have occurred where Muslim members of various sects have indulged in objectionable propaganda against, each other calculated to hurt each other’s feelings and leading, in its extreme cases, to personal violence. An illustration of this type of agitation is the Ahmadi-Ahrar controversy in the Punjab. The Central Government consider that while the legitimate rights of any community or sect to propagate its religious beliefs should not be unduly restricted, and no discrimination should be made between the protagonists of differing views, religious controversies should be confined to reasonable limits and should not be allowed to reach a point where the public peace and tranquillity may be endangered. Militant or aggressive sectarianism should, in the opinion of the Central Government, be suppressed with a heavy hand.
2. I am desired to bring the views of the Central Government in this matter to your notice for such action as may become necessary in your jurisdiction”.
On receipt of this letter, Mr. Anwar Ali, D.I.G., C.I.D., on 1st October 1951, wrote the following note on the sectarian position as it existed in the Province : —
“The Ahrar have exceeded the bounds of decency and have been making sacrilegious attacks against Ahmadis. They have even been responsible for provoking violence against the Ahmadis. At Okara, one Ahmadi was killed as a result of the tension which followed the speeches made by the Ahrar. At a village near Okara, Ahmadi preachers were waylaid and their faces blackened. At Rawalpindi, an Ahmadi was killed, although it could not be clearly established that the murder was communal. At Samundri, an Ahmadi mosque was set fire to and reduced to ashes. About three years ago, a young PAMC doctor, who was an Ahmadi, was attacked at Quetta and stoned to death. For all this violence the responsibility lies on the Ahrar.
2. Shia-Sunni differences have been reported from different parts of the Province. The incident at village Shahpur Kanjra, where a child of 3 and a woman were killed, was, however, the first incident in which Shias became the victims of communal violence.
3. At Gujranwala, sectarian tension existed between the Sunnis and the Wahabis. The difference arose over the number of travih which should be read in the month of Ramazan.
4. The immediate problem is to deal with the Ahrar. A warning has already been issued and I suggest that if this warning is not heeded, firm action should be taken. Government must also do everything to promote amity between Shias and Sunnis”.
Mr. Qurban Ali Khan, I. G. P’s. note, dated 4th October 1951, on this was: —
“On another reference this morning I have suggested to D. I. G., C. I. D., that if the Ahrar, despite repeated warnings, do not desist from making provocative speeches, they should be dealt with under the law by the local authorities. There is not the least doubt that Government must now deal firmly with all persons and parties indulging in sectarian propaganda”.
At this stage, sectarian disputes took a still more ugly turn. Shia-Sunni differences began to appear and develop in several places. There was a dispute about the construction of an Imambara in Krishan Nagar, Lahore, and a serious apprehension of breach of peace over a ta’zia procession was reported from Bhakkar. In Shahpur Kanjra, about seven miles from Lahore, there was Shia-Sunni riot in which two Shias were killed, one of them being a woman, and the other a child of three. When these disputes came to the notice of Government, S. Ahmad Ali, the Home Secretary, wrote the following note on 29th September 1951 :—
“The policy of the present Government has been made known, but it is now for the leaders of public opinion to take effective steps to check religious fanaticism of this sort. We have far more important things at our hands and certainly will not allow people to ruin themselves in religious squabbles. What is happening now, seems almost a writing on the wall and God help us if we do not stop these ignorant people from cutting each other’s throat and thus bringing comfort and cheer to our enemies”.
On reviewing the whole situation, the Chief Secretary on 3rd November 1951 wrote the following D. O. No. 7505-HG-51/76135 to all the Deputy Commissioners in the Punjab :—
“I am desired to say that various instances have come to the notice of Government where Muslim members of various sects have indulged in objectionable propaganda against each other calculated to hurt each other’s feelings and leading, not unoften, to personal violence. Glaring illustrations of this are found in the Shia-Sunni differences and the Ahmadi-Ahrar controversy. It has also been alleged that at times some local officers have identified themselves in these schisms. Those differences amongst various sects are a source of unrest in the Province and cause grave concern to the administration. Government consider that while the legitimate rights of any community or sect to practice its religious beliefs should not be unduly restricted and no discrimination should be made between the protagonists of different views, religious controversies should be confined to reasonable limits and should not be allowed to reach a point where the public peace and tranquillity is likely to be endangered. Government, therefore, direct that militant or aggressive sectarianism should always be suppressed firmly.
”2. Government have decided that—
local officers must take strong action whenever there is likelihood of trouble on account of communal provocative speeches or conduct leading to communal tension. For this purpose they should invoke the provisions of prohibitory orders as laid down in the criminal law.
In case it is found that any local officers are involved in the affair, drastic steps should be taken against them if the inquiry reveals that they had participated with any party in instigating the trouble.
District Officers should enlist the support and co-operation of the local public organisations to propagate against fanaticism and to preach religious tolerance as enjoined by Islam”.
Within a fortnight of the date of this letter, the Superintendent of Police, Lyallpur, by his wireless message dated 18th November 1951, reported that a Seerat-un-Nabi meeting held by the Ahmadis in Lyallpur was broken up by the Ahrar, with the result that the clash between the two parties had resulted in injuries to several men on either side.
MORE SPEECHES BY BUKHARI
An Ahrar conference called the Suba Conference or the Khatm-i-Nubuwwat Conference or the Difa’ Conference was announced to be held at Okara in the Montgomery district on 24th and 25th November 1951. The local police officers suggested that this meeting should be banned and the suggestion was accepted by the Chief Minister. In the meantime, however, the Deputy Commissioner, Mr. Cheema, had arrived at a settlement with the Ahrar and permitted them not only to hold the meeting but had also offered to preside over it himself. Mr. Cheema insisted that this conference be permitted to be held and the Government agreed to this. But the apprehensions of the local police officers turned out to be true because in the speech made by Qazi Ehsan Ahmad Shujabadi in the meeting presided over by Mr. Cheema, he alleged that Ahmadis had a hand in the assassination of the Quaid-i-Millat which had occurred in the preceding October. On the following day Mr. Faiz Muhammad Khan, the Additional District Magistrate, attended the meeting and delivered a short speech. Ata Ullah Shah Bukhari as usual made a long speech in the course of which he referred to Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad’s statement that even after the creation of Pakistan efforts would be made for reunion of the country. He described this as an act of treachery and proceeded to say that one traitor was worse than ten million swine (khanzeers).
Taking Mr. Cheema’s conduct as a precedent the Deputy Commissioner of Muzaffargarh attended a Defence Conference at Muzaffargarh on 28th and 29th November 1951, and the Deputy Commissioner, Gujrat, made a request to preside over a similar meeting in his district. The request, however, was turned down and Mr. Cheema’s own conduct, which was the subject-matter of lengthy correspondence between him and the Government, was not approved by the Government.
On 22nd November 1951, Mr. Bashir Ahmad, Amir-i-Jama’at-i-Ahmadiya, Lahore, wrote a letter to the Chief Secretary complaining of a highly inflammatory speech delivered by Sayyad Ata Ullah Shah Bukhari in Lahore in the preceding September. In this letter he pointed out that two meetings organised by the Ahmadiya community to which speakers of all sects had been invited to address the audience on the life of the Holy Prophet on the occasion of ‘Seerat-un-Nabi’, had been obstructed at Multan and Lahore, that religious intolerance had manifested itself in the assassination of the Quaid-i-Millat, in Shia-Sunni conflicts and attacks on Christians, and that unless curbed, it would assume proportions which may prove a headache for the administration. He claimed for every subject of the State the liberty to profess and preach his faith and asked the Government to have an absolutely clear policy in the matter which should be followed in practice. He complained that either the Government had no policy on the subject or those who had to carry it out were not serious about it and requested the Government to have the position examined thoroughly. The Chief Secretary asked for comments on this application from the Inspector- General of Police, Mr. Qurban Ali Khan, who wrote a short and clear note stating that he agreed with every single word of Mr. Bashir Ahmad’s representation and remarked that irrespective of religious faith or creed it was the clear duty of the Government to protect every one against aggression, that this could be done only if a firm policy were decided upon and clear instructions issued to the district officers and that the earlier this was done, the better it was for the administration and the people.
In those very days another incident had been reported by the Superintendent of Police, Muzaffargarh, in his weekly confidential diary for the week ending 27th October 1951. The report was that a public meeting had been held on 21st October 1951 at Alipur under the auspices of the Ahrar party, which was addressed by a single speaker, Sayyad Ata Ullah Shah Bukhari, that in his speech Bukhari had alleged that the Mirzais had not accepted the Partition willingly and expected once more to unite with India, that they were traitors to Pakistan and were working as Indian spies and that a Mirzai spy had been caught in Lahore collaborating with an Indian spy Gopal Das. This report was taken notice of by Mr. Khuda Bakhsh, S. P. (B) who sent it up to the D. I. G. with the remark that the warning administered once to Master Taj-ud-Dins the President, and subsequently to Maulvi Mazhar Ali Azhar, the General .Secretary, of the Majlis-i-Ahrar had had no effect. The D. I. G., Mr. Anwar Ali, again, wrote a long note on 7th November 1951 referring to the warnings given by the Governor, the Chief Secretary the Advisor for Law, and the I. G. Police, to the Ahrar leaders, including Sh. Husam-ud-Din, and to the irresponsible speeches made by the Ahrar at Okara in consequence of which faces of some Ahmadi preachers were blackened and one Ahmadi killed, and made the following proposals:—
-
that one or two Ahrar leaders who had been promoting hatred among classes should be served with a gag order and forbidden from making public speeches,
-
that as an alternative such persons should be restricted to their home villages and not allowed to move out without the previous sanction of Government, and
-
that they should be prosecuted under section 153-A for causing hatred between communities.
He ended by pointing out that unless something drastic was done, the Ahrar leaders would not respond to any gentlemanly treatment. When the case came up to Mr. Qurban Ali Khan, he on 14th November 1951 took careful stock of the position and remarked that the Ahrar had done enough to justify firm action being taken against them, that the warning conveyed by him to Sh. Husam-ud-Din had had no effect on the Ahrar, that it was obvious that no warning could be of any use, that even if the Ahrar as a party refrained for some-time from denouncing the Ahmadis, Bukhari who had no qualification except that of abusing the Ahmadis and was incorrigible would not be able to desist from it. His own view he stated as follows:—
“Unless therefore he (Bukhari) is prohibited from attending public meetings or is shown some one else publicly to abuse he will never stop saying all that he is doing or even worse against the Ahmadis. If he is prohibited from attending or addressing public meetings, he and his party would be provided with a platform to come to life again. If he is arrested, his party, though dying, will gain vigour again. It is really now for the politicians to weigh and see which is the lesser evil—to deal firmly with the Ahrar and to face their agitation, or to let them go on with this nefarious and dangerous and uncalled fop propaganda against the Ahmadis. Personally I would take the former action. It will not only curb the Ahrar but would also help build a more tolerant character in the nation”.
The case came to the Chief Secretary who submitted it to the Chief Minister to decide the point after hearing the I. G. and the D. I. G., C. I. D. in his (Chief Secretary’s) presence. The Secretary to the Chief Minister returned the file with the remark that the Chief Minister intended to talk to the Ahrar leaders and that no action need be taken until he had discussed things with them.
A deputation of the Ahmadis waited upon the Chief Secretary on 30th November 1951 in connection with Mr. Bashir Ahmad’s representation. Mr. S. Alamgir, who was present at the interview, recorded a note of what transpired at the interview, and submitted it to the Chief Secretary on 1st December 1951. He pointed out that Ahrar-Ahmadiya controversy was gaining ground every day and was likely to develop further and that it was necessary for Government to evolve a definite policy to deal with this important question which had serious repercussions on law and order. He suggested to the Chief Secretary that the Chief Minister should call a meeting of the Chief Secretary, I. G. P. and Deputy Home Secretary before he (Chief Minister) talked to the leaders of the Ahrar party. Accordingly on 6th December 1951, the Chief Minister, the Chief Secretary, the Inspector-General of Police and Deputy Home Secretary met in a meeting and decided to issue a formal letter to Commissioners of Divisions and Deputy Commissioners that strong executive measures should be taken to enable the Ahrar and the Ahmadis to hold their respective meetings and to ensure that no violence was resorted to by either party. Consequently the following directive was issued to all Deputy Commissioners on 24th December 1951:—
“As you are aware, the Ahrar-Ahmadiya controversy has been brewing for sometime past in the Province and certain incidents of personal violence which occurred recently have caused grave concern to the administration. It has been Government’s firm policy that the legitimate rights of any community or sect to practise its religious beliefs should not be unduly restricted and that no discrimination in this respect should be made between different parties. It is, nevertheless, important that religious controversies should be discouraged or at any rate they should not be allowed to the extent of endangering the public peace and tranquillity. This letter is particularly designed to invite the attention of district officers to meetings held by the Ahrar or by the Ahmadis.
“2. Government feel that wherever the district authorities are vigilant and are able to enforce timely preventive measures, there is little or no likelihood of the Ahrar or of the Ahmadis disturbing each other’s meetings. Clashes have occurred only where the local authorities have failed to adopt a firm attitude or have otherwise failed to assess dispassionately the rights or wrongs of the parties concerned. If both parties are dealt with firmly and justly without any discrimination whatever, there is no reason why this increasing menace of vilification by one Muslim sect of another should not be brought under proper control”.
The Jama’at-i-Ahmadiya, Sialkot, intended to hold its Tabligh Conference in its own ground on 16th and I7th February 1952, but the Ahrar did their utmost to have the meeting banned. Failing in their efforts, they marched with a large crowd towards the place of the meeting with shouts of “banaspati nabi (spurious prophet) murdabad”. “Mirzaeeon ka jalsa band karo”, “Kufr ka jalsa band karo”, and attempted to break through the police cordon. As the Deputy Commissioner, the Superintendent of Police and the Additional District Magistrate were on the spot, having had previous information of the trouble, the Ahrar did not succeed in their design and satisfied themselves by throwing stones when the Ahmadis were returning to their houses after the meeting. Two foot constables were injured in the incident.
The Ahrar held an ‘Istehkam-i-Pakistan Ahrar Conference’ at Sargodha on 24th and 25th March 1952. As what happened at this conference was the subject-matter of correspondence between the Central Government and the Provincial Government, between the district officers and the Provincial Government and between a deputation of Ahmadis and the Punjab Government, and some decisions were taken to stop the recurrence of such, incidents, it merits a detailed description. A full account of the incidents connected with this conference is contained in Memorandum No. 385-87/C, dated 28th March 1952, sent by the Superintendent of Police to the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, C. I. D., Punjab, which is as follows:—
“The Ahrar of Sargodha held a conference advertised as ‘Istehkam-i-Pakistan Ahrar Conference’ at Sargodha on March 24 and 25. This conference was sponsored and organised by Maulvi Muhammad Abdullah Ahrari, bookseller of Sargodha. Maulvi Abdur Rahman of Miani, Maulvi Muhammad Ali Jullundri and Sayyad Ata Ullah Shah Bukhari were the most important speakers at this conference. Maulvi Muhammad Ali Jullundri remarked in the course of his speech that Mirzaies were zindiqs and according to Islamic law zindiqs were liable to be murdered. Another speaker named Ch. Muhammad Sharif Bahawalnagri remarked in the course of his speech that Muslims should be both namazi and ghazi, Sayyad Ata Ullah Shah Bukhari remarked in the course of his speech that Sir Zafrullah Khan was intentionally keeping the Kashmir affair unsolved and was also keeping alive the bitterness between Pakistan and Afghanistan, Sayyad Ata Ullah Shah Bukhari also advised the audience to take out a procession demanding the removal of Sir Zafrullah Khan from his office and further asked the audience to shout ‘Mirzaeeat murdabad’, ‘Sir Zafrullah murdabad’ and ‘Mirza Bashir Ahmad murdabad’.
2. In addition to other resolutions it was resolved in the course of this conference that the Mirzai community should be treated as a separate minority community and Mirzai public servants should be removed from all key posts as Mirzai public servants are establishing a separate organisation under the instructions of their khalifa and mirzaeeat was proving dangerous to the country.
3. The ‘Istehkam-i-Pakistan Ahrar Conference’ was held in the Municipal Gardens both on March 24 and 25 and its audience numbered from 1,000 to 2,000 on both the days.
4. I made police arrangements both on the 24th and 25th March as there was an apprehension of a breach of the peace and the local Ahmadis had made a representation to this effect to the District Magistrate.
5. The Ahrar of Sargodha decided to take out a procession after the Juma prayers today at Sargodha city as decided by Sayyad Ata Ullah Shah Bukhari and Maulana Muhammad Abdullah Ahrari in their conference with the object of shouting slogans against mirzaeeat, Sir Zafrullah Khan and the Khalifa of Qadian. This matter was brought to my notice as soon as I returned from my tour at midday and the District Magistrate also phoned to me to make suitable police arrangements in the city. I collected my force immediately and wont to the city at 1.30 p. m. Khan Abdul Hadi Khan, Additional District Magistrate, also reached there as directed by the District Magistrate. When I and my party reached the Gol Chowk Mosque, a procession of Ahrar led by Maulvi Muhammad Abdullah Ahrari, Maulvi Saleh Muhammad, Mu’allam of Siraj-ul-Uloom, and Abdur Rashid Ashk an editor of the local paper known as Shu’la came from Katchery Bazar. These persons had come from the Jami’ Masjid after saying their Friday prayers. The number of these processionists was approximately 200. I asked Maulvi Muhammad Abdullah Ahrari, Maulvi Saleh Muhammad and Abdur Rashid Ashk not to lead the procession as it was likely to create disaffection between different communities and cause a disturbance of the public peace but they paid no heed to my advice and insisted on loading and taking out a procession and asserted that that was the only way to protest against Sir Zafrullah Khan, mirzaeeat and the leader of the Ahmadis. In spite of my persuasion and advice these three persons asked their followers to shout ‘Sir Zafrullah murdabad’, ‘Mirza Bashir Ahmad murdabad’ and ‘Mirzaeeat murdabad’ and all their followers shouted these slogans vociferously and some of them jumped and clapped. This procession was swollen by more and more men as it advanced and after passing through Block No. 9 and Bansanwala Bazar it came back to the Katchery Bazar where it was met by another big procession which was equally strong in numbers and the whole procession then marched to the Municipal Gardens as advised by Maulvi Muhammad Abdullah Ahrari and Abdur Rashid Ashk. Abdur Rashid Ashk addressed the processionists at Gol Chowk and advised them not to disperse and go fearlessly through, their proposed route. The processionists shouted anti-Zafrullah Khan and anti-Mirzaeeat slogans with great noise and voice and at one time it seemed as if there was no law and order. All the shops were closed due to Friday and the Ahrar leaders had deliberately selected a free day for taking out their procession. The District Magistrate witnessed this procession when it reached the Chowk of the Katchery Bazar. The Ahrar procession started at about 1.30 p.m. and lasted till 2.30 p.m. When the procession reached the Municipal Gardens it assumed the shape of a public meeting and the audience was addressed by Maulvi Muhammad Abdullah Ahrari and Abdur Rashid Ashk, one after the other. The number of the audience at this time was not less than 500. Both the speakers thanked the audience for taking out a successful procession against Sir Zafrullah Khan, Mirza Bashir Ahmad and Mirzaeeat and again there was a chorus of the following slogans :
‘Sir Zafrullah murdabad’,
‘Mirza Bashir Ahmad murdabad’ and
‘Mirzaeeat murdabad’.The audience then started dispersing.
6. In addition to Maulvi Muhammad Abdullah Ahrari, Maulvi Saleh Muhammad and Abdur Rashid Ashk, the following were the most active members of the procession and marched in the van-guard of the procession and led anti-Zafrullah and anti-Mirzaeeat slogans :—
Abdul Hamid s/o Muhammad Umar, Arain, of Block No. 11, Sargodha city.
Bahaullah s/o Ata Ullah, Kashmiri, of Block NO. 19, Sargodha city.
Allah Rahm s/o Allah Mahi, Changar, wood merchant, Block No. 17, Sargodha city.
Majid s/o Allah Bakhsh, Gujrati, tailor, Block No. 3, Sargodha city.
Yunus s/o Abdur Rahman, Arain, of Block No. 3, Sargodha city,
Ahsan Ahmad, shopkeeper of Block No. 6, Sargodha city.
7. There is no doubt that Ahrar workers and leaders are out to sabotage the safety and peace of our State and miss no chance of creating disaffection against Ahmadis. Their outward object is to denounce Ahmadis, their khalifa and Sir Zafrullah Khan, but their inward object is to create disorder and lawlessness in our country. Ahrar leaders are occupying a good many mosques and are working as imams and khatibs. Their ringleaders usually keep behind the scene and incite others against Ahmadis in the name of their religion and in the name of our Prophet. Maulvi Muhammad Shafi Ahrari, who is a khatib of the Sargodha Jami’ Masjid, is one of their leaders. The likelihood is that some simple-minded Musalmans infuriated by their slogans and speeches may take to assaulting Ahmadis at Sargodha city or elsewhere in its vicinity where Ahmadis are living in small numbers and the result may possibly be the murder of some innocent Ahmadis. I have organised armed patrolling in the city today but it is not possible to protect all the Ahmadis and their houses.
8. It has also been brought to my notice by Sub-Inspector Sargodha city that local Ahrar leaders of Sargodha city, of whom Maulvi Muhammad Abdullah, Maulvi Saleh Muhammad and Abdur Rashid Ashk are the ringleaders, have decided to take out such processions frequently with the object of denouncing Ahmadiyyat, Sir Zafrullah Khan and the leader of Ahmadis and in this way impress upon the people that they are really bad persons and their religion is hateful. In order to put a stop to these processions and the prejudicial activities of these fellows it is essential that they should be very firmly dealt with as otherwise the public safety and the maintenance of public order will be gravely endangered and there will be law-lessness not only at Sargodha city but also in the whole of the district. As these persons may take some days before they take out another procession, I think it proper that I should take the Government’s orders before I take action against them. If in the meantime they take out another procession I shall take action straightaway without waiting for the Government’s Orders. The District Magistrate agrees with me that firm action should be taken against these men as that is the only way to put a stop to their prejudicial activities.
9. I propose to arrest Maulvi Muhammad Abdullah Ahrari, Maulvi Saleh Muhammad, Mu’allam of Siraj-ul-Uloom, and Abdur Rashid Ashk of Sargodha under section 3 of the Punjab Public Safety Act 1949, for 15 days if the Government approves of this action. It will of course be considered during these 15 days whether the Government should detain them for a further period or not. All these three persons are not men of much influence but are sufficiently mischievous and can make inciting speeches.
10. Against the following persons who took part in the procession in a very prominent and active way I propose to start proceedings under sections 107/151, Criminal Procedure Code, for keeping the peace. They are all enthusiastic followers of the above-mentioned 3 Ahrar leaders and are likely to disturb the public peace by assaulting or insulting Ahmadis :—
Abdul Hamid s/o Muhammad Umar, Arain, of Block No, 11, Sargodha city.
Bahaullah s/o Ata Ullah, Kashmiri, of Block No. 19, Sargodha city.
Allah Rahm s/o Allah Mahl Changar, wood merchant, Block No. 17, Sargodha city.
Majid son of Allah Bakhsh, Gujrati, tailor, Block No. 43 Sargodha city.
Yunus son of Abdur Rahman, Arain, of Block No. 3, Sargodha city.
Ahsan Ahmad, shopkeeper, of Block No, 6, Sargodha city.
11. It may be pointed out that processionists shouted ‘Muslim League zindabad’ while shouting other anti-Mirzaeeat slogans and it appears that they intentionally shouted ‘Muslim League zindabad’ in order not to alienate the sympathy of the local Muslim League workers. In their ‘Istehkam-i-Pakistan Ahrar Conference’ which the Ahrar held at Sargodha on the 24th and 25th of March, they invited Mian Muhammad Said Qureshi, President of the District Muslim League, to preside over another of its sittings. It is manifest that they purposely camouflaged all these arrangements. I understand that Ahrar are holding similar conferences all over the Province and taking out anti-Mirzaeeat and anti-Zafrullah Khan processions all over the Province and this seems to be a well-planned campaign, on their part and lawlessness is bound to follow this campaign of vilification of theirs unless it is nipped in the bud.
12. An Urdu stenographer of the Punjab C. I. D. recorded the proceedings of the Ahrar Conference held at Sargodha on. March 24 and 25 and he might have submitted his report by now to his officers.”
On receiving this report, Mr Anwar Ali, D. I. G., C. I. D., recorded the following note :—
“I. G. might see this alarming report from Sargodha. The S. P. rang me up yesterday morning and I conveyed his report briefly to the I. G.
2. The conduct of the Ahrar is highly mischievous and was deliberately designed to gain cheap popularity at the cost of Ahmadi blood. To say that the Ahmadis are zindiqs and as such deserve death and that Muslims are not only expected to be namazies but also ghazies can have no other meaning except that the Ahmadis should be put to the sword.
3. The open defiance of the S. P.’s authority and the shouting of such slogans as ‘Zafrullah Khan murdabad’ is most unfortunate. S. P. proposes to take action against M. Muhammad Abdullah, M. Saleh Muhammad and Abdur Rashid Ashk under section 3 of the Punjab Public Safety Act and under section 107/151, Criminal Procedure Code, against another six persons. He has, however, asked for Government’s advice. Abdur Rashid Ashk was arrested once before under the Punjab Public Safety Act as he is an erstwhile Congressite and was suspected to be engaged in anti-Pakistan activities. M. Muhammad Abdullah is notoriously anti-Government.
4. I have advocated for sometime that firm action should be taken against the Ahrar particularly because of their sectarian activities. They have been seen making violent speeches against the Ahmadis. At Okara and at Quetta Ahmadis lost their lives as a result of violence preached by the Ahrar. If Pakistan is to develop as a democratic and progressive State, sectarian activities must be put down with firmness; otherwise Pakistan will become a medieval and reactionary State.
5. M. Muhammad Abdullah, Ata Ullah Shah Bukhari and Muhammad Ali Jullundri all have political records. As the office is shut I am not able to attach it. In view of the urgency of the case, I am sending it by hand to I. G. My view is that we must fully support the D. C. and the S. P. in the maintenance of law and order and should allow them to take action against M. Muhammad Abdullah and Abdur Rashid Ashk. For the time being M. Saleh Muhammad should be ignored. The S. P. may also take action under section 107/151, Criminal Procedure Code.
6. The Ahrar are holding another conference at Lyallpur tonight.”
Under instructions from Mr. Anwar Ali, D. I. G,, C. I. D., Mr. Ata Muhammad Noon, A. D. I. G., rang up S. P., Sargodha, on 1st April 1952 and informed him that he could take action under section 107/151, Criminal Procedure Code, if he considered such action necessary against any persons but that action under the Safety Act was not desirable. Mr. Noon also told the S. P. that if he wanted to discuss the matter further with the D. I. G., he could come to Lahore. The report of the S. P. was forwarded to P. I. under the orders of Mr. Anwar Ali, dated 2nd April 1952, for opinion whether any legal action in the matter could be taken. On the same day the P. I. reported that the speeches and slogans were actionable both under section 153-A and section. 295-A of the Penal Code.
On 1st April 1952, the Superintendent of Police, Sargodha, wrote to the Superintendent of Police (A), C. I. D., demi-official letter No. 1922-SSS, informing him that the proceedings of the conference held on 24th and 25th March 1952, were covered by a C. I. D. Urdu stenographer, that no procession had been taken out at the termination of the meetings of the conference though some individuals had raised anti-Ahmadi slogans such as ‘Mirzaeeat murdabad’, ‘Zafrullah Khan murdabad’, etc., when returning to their homes after the meeting, and that a procession was taken out by the Ahrar workers on 28th March after the Friday prayers, detailed report about which had already been sent to the D. I. G., C. I. D.
On 4th April 1952, which was a Friday, the Superintendent of Police sent the following memorandum to D. I. G., C.I.D., in continuation of his confidential memorandum of 28th March :—
“2. I called Maulvi Abdullah Ahrari, Maulvi Jalal-ur-Rahman, Khatib of the Gol Chowk Mosque, and Maulvi Sami Ullah, son of Maulvi Muhammad Shafi, Khatib of the Jami Masjid, Sargodha, to my office on the 2nd of April and had a long talk with them. I advised them not to take out any anti-Ahmadi procession in the city as they would neither improve their religion nor damage the Ahmadiya sect by shouting publicly anti-Ahmadiyyat or anti-Zafrullah or anti-Mirza Mahmud Ahmad slogans but would only disturb the public peace and bring a bad name to their country and their Government in the eyes of the other countries of the world.
“3. There was an apprehension that the Ahrar might again take out an anti-Ahmadi procession after the Friday prayers today and I made adequate police arrangements for patrolling in the city and also went to the city with enough armed police and patrolled the main bazars in police vehicles. Khan Abdul Hadi Khan, Additional District Magistrate, accompanied me as directed by the District Magistrate. The Ahrar took out no procession today.
“4. If the Ahrar workers and their supporters behave peacefully and take out no more anti-Ahmadi processions I shall postpone taking any action against them under the security sections or under any other law for the time being. I shall, however, continue to watch the situation.”
It seems that the report of the Superintendent of Police, dated 28th March, 1952, relating to the proceedings of the conference had also been seen by the Chief Minister sometime before 3rd April when Mr. Anwar Ali recorded the following note on the file:—
“The speeches made at the Sargodha conference were recorded by a C. I. D. stenographer. They have been examined by the Prosecuting Branch. We are advised that they are not fit for forming the basis of a prosecution. They are, however, objectionable because they are designed to stir up hatred against the Ahmadis”.
The only opinion of the Prosecuting Branch to be found on the file is the Prosecuting Inspector’s opinion of 2nd April 1952, and it is not at all clear how and when a contrary opinion was subsequently expressed by the Prosecuting Branch. However, Mr. Anwar Ali suggested that if Government approved, all District Magistrates in the Province would be advised to remain alert and to ban the Ahrar conferences if they apprehended trouble. On this the Home Secretary remarked that action on the D. I. G., C. I. D.’s proposal for banning the Ahrar conferences was being taken separately.
On 17th April 1952, Mr. Anwar Ali noted on the case that the Chief Minister was going to Sargodha, that on his return the Superintendent of Police should be asked to come to Lahore with all the relevant papers and that the matter would then be discussed and proposals made to Government.
On 6th May 1952, Malik Habibullah, Superintendent of Police (B), noted that the Superintendent of Police, Sargodha, had already seen D. I. G., C. I. D., and I. G., probably on 21st or 22nd April, and that the proposals had been discussed.
As Mr. Lodhi’s note on the file, dated 24th April 1952, would show, no action in the case was taken because the Superintendent of Police, Sargodha, had stated in his memorandum, dated 4th April 1952, that since the Ahrar had behaved themselves, he had decided to postpone taking action against them.
Dr. Hafiz Masood Ahmad, Secretary, Anjuman-i-Ahmadiya, Sargodha, complained of the behaviour of the Ahrar at Sargodha by telegrams to the Provincial and Central Governments. Some telegrams to a similar effect were also sent by him to the press. In the telegram to the Minister for the Interior it was alleged that at the conference Muhammad Ali Jullundri, Ata Ullah Shah Bukhari and other speakers had preached lawlessness and instigated the masses to finish the Ahmadis by force and get rid of Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan within a week, that they had described Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan as an enemy of Pakistan, worse than Khizar Hayat Khan Tiwana, that pledges to finish the Ahmadis were taken from the audience, that after the speeches a midnight procession of excited men was taken through different parts of the city, shouting slogans against Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan, the head of the Ahmadiya community and Ahmadiyyat, that the lives and properties of Ahmadis were in danger and that grave consequences were apprehended. The Ministry of the Interior sent this telegram to the Chief Secretary to the Punjab Government by its letter No. 44/1/51-Poll. (1), dated the 31st March 1952, with the request that a report about the said conference may be sent to that Ministry at an early date. When this telegram came to the notice of Mr. Anwar Ali, D. I. G,, C. I. D., on 5th April 1952, he strongly resented the Centre’s interference with law and order which was an exclusively Provincial concern. He said :—
“There is a tendency on the part of the Ministry of the Interior to call for reports on all and sundry matters. This unnecessarily increases work. The Central Government is not in a position to pass any orders and, therefore, all the energy spent in preparing reports purely for the information of the Central Government is wasted.* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
In this case the proper course for the Central Government should have been to transfer the telegram to the Provincial Government for necessary action. In the matter of law and order the Provincial Government is supreme. If reports are called, it will unnecessarily encourage the public to go over the head of the Provincial Government and to call for the interference of the Centre. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
As too many references have been made from the Centre of late it would perhaps be better to apprise C. S./H. C. M. with the situation and to obtain his orders”.
In reply to the inquiry by the Central Government, however, a copy of the S. P.’s memorandum No. 385-87/C, dated 28th March 1952, was sent to that Government. Hafiz Masood Ahmad, however, sent another telegram on 29th March 1952 to the Minister for the Interior saying :—
“As apprehended in our previous telegram after-effects of Ahrar conference appear. Processions of agitated mobs taken out again after Juma prayers. Highly provocative slogans shouted against the Ahmadis and their revered and most respected head of the community and the foreign Minister Pakistan. Creating hatred against the Ahmadis and the Government. Further trouble might arise. Effective check essential”.
This telegram also was sent by the Central Government to the Chief Secretary to the Punjab Government for information and such action as might be considered necessary by the Provincial Government.
The proceedings of the Ahrar conference at Sargodha were published by the Shu’la of 28th March under the following captions :—
“Jab-tak Sir Zafrullah wazir-i-kharija hai Kashmir Pakistan ko nahin mil sakta. (Maulana Muhammad Ali Jullundri, bahawala taqrir Allah Rakha Saghir).
“Zafrullah Pakistan ka wafadar nahin. Hukumat ki machinery ke purze Mirza Mahmud ki marzi ke mutabiq tabdil kiye jate hain. (Maulana Muhammad Ali).
“Ham jan de-denge lekan nabi ‘alai-hi’s-salam ki nubuwwat par anch nahin ane den-ge. (Amir-i-Shari’at).
“Alfaz ko qaim rakh kar uska mafhum badalne-wala zindiq hai aur zindiq Islam men wajibu’l-qatl hai. Har Mirzai hukumat ki duty ba’d men aur Mirza Mahmud ka hukm pehle manta hai. Hukumat ka har woh hukm jo Mirza Mahmud ki policy se takra-jai Mirzai mulazim us ki ta’mil nahin karta. (Maulana Muhammad Ali)”.
(Translation)
“So long as Sir Zafrullah is the foreign Minister, we cannot get Kashmir. (Maulana Muhammad Ali Jullundri, referring to the speech of Allah Rakha Saghir).
Zafrullah is not loyal to Pakistan. Parts of the Government machinery are replaced in accordance with the wishes of Mirza Mahmud. (Maulana Muhammad Ali).
We will give our lives, but will not let harm come to the prophethood of the Prophet, may peace be upon him. (Amir-i-Shari’at).
He who keeps words, intact but misinterprets them is a heretic ; and a heretic in Islam deserves death. Every Mirzai complies with Mirza Mahmud’s orders first and then performs his duty to the Government. A Mirzai public servant does not obey any order of the Government that clashes with the policy of Mirza Mahmud. (Maulana Muhammad Ali)”.
The report stated that at the conclusion of the conference, 10,000 young men paraded the city shouting slogans such as “Down with Sir Zafrullah”, “Down with Mirza Bashir Mahmud”, “Zafrullah resign”; that if Government failed to pay immediate attention towards these Dajjals, responsibility for such failure would devolve upon the Government; that Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan had officially circulated his programme when on his return from Paris he came to attend the conference at Rabwah; that at Rabwah he received Government officials; that he charged the expenses of his journey to Rabwah to the public Exchequer; that he was disloyal to Government; that he had made a bargain to give Kashmir to India in exchange for Qadian; that people would be justified to create a situation which would force this Dajjal son of Dajjal and his followers to run away from Pakistan; that Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud was Dajjal-i-Azam and the Musailima Kazzab of 14th century; and that only one hundred thousand Muslim girls were detained by Hindustan but that if the Mirzais succeeded in their object, four hundred thousand girls will be dishonoured by them.
A deputation of some Ahmadis to represent against the proceedings of the conference and its report in the Shu’la waited on the Chief Secretary in the presence of the Home Secretary. The record of the proceedings that subsequently took place in this case is as follows :—
“A deputation of four Ahmadi gentlemen including Sh. Bashir Ahmad, Advocate, waited on the Chief Secretary today to voice their grievances in connection with the recent conference held at Sargodha by the Ahrar. I was present during the interview. Their complaint in short was that the trend of speeches delivered during the conference was highly objectionable and too vituperative and that one of the speakers had advocated the extermination of the Ahmadis by the Government on account of their being zindiqs. They also gave the attached two newspapers to C. S.
2. Will D. I. G., C. I. D., please put up for Government’s information the report which he must have received from his staff at Sargodha? He should also kindly obtain the text of the speeches if a verbatim record thereof was made at the spot so that they can be examined to ascertain whether they are objectionable or not.
3. I might mention in this connection that the D. M. Sargodha had telephoned to me on Friday, March 21st, to say that the Ahrar were proposing to take out a procession in the course of which they would be shouting anti-Ahmadi slogans. He wanted to know as to what was the policy that Government desire to be adopted regarding such matters. I told him that the policy of the Government regarding the Ahrar-Ahmadi controversy had already been communicated to all the D. Cs. which he should look up and that in the light of that policy he should exercise his discretion. So far no report has been received from the D. C.
S. GHIAS-UD-DIN AHMAD— 1-4-52”
D. I. G., C. I. D. (U. O.),—No. 264-H-S., dated 2nd April 1962.
I dealt with this case yesterday which has been linked to this case.
2. It is true that the speeches which were made were highly provocative and objectionable. The Mirzais were described as zindiqs and they were otherwise ridiculed and opposed. Even the Foreign Minister was not spared and shouts of ‘Sir Zafrullah murdabad’ were raised. Under H. C. M.’s instructions the S. P. has been advised to take action under section 107/151 Criminal Procedure Code. The H. C. M. is not in favour of taking action under the Punjab Public Safety Act which the S. P. had also recommended.
3. The speeches were recorded in shorthand and according to the P. I. they are not actionable.
4. The article in the Shu’la is very objectionable. It not only attacks the Ahmadis but also contains uncalled for criticisms of the authorities. The editor of this paper, Abdur Rashid Ashk, is known to the C. I. D. He is, like many other Ahrar, a Congressite, He was detained under the Punjab Public Safety Act in 1947 because he was associating with political workers of the Indian Dominion.
5. It is my opinion that if this country is to progress on healthy lines political charlatans and jingoes, who endeavour to gain popularity by hurling abuse at each other and who make no contribution for the political advancement of the country, should be dealt with unsparingly. The Ahrar have a feeling that the Muslim League is at their back : otherwise their past is black and they would not have dared to step into the political field. They were stooges of the Congress and some of them are still loyal to that body. Habib-ur-Rahman, who is a well known Ahrar, left this Province after the Partition and went over to India. In their heart of hearts some of them are still disloyal to Pakistan. They are working outwardly on a religious platform not in order to serve their country but in order to retrieve their lost prestige. There are signs already that a section of the Ahrar led by Sheikh Husam-ud-Din wants to come into active politics and its members are contemplating the formation of a new party.
6. I have already proposed that District Magistrates should be advised in a circular letter to take a firm stand and to promulgate 144, Cr. P. C. if they have the least suspicion that the holding of an Ahrar meeting would promote sectional ill-will. Another thing we can do is to take action against the rag (Shu’la), which has shamefacedly publicised the evil attacks made against the Foreign Minister. It is the duty of the Government, as long as Sir Zafrullah Khan holds his office, to protect him from such malicious attacks. By abusing Sir Zafrullah Khan the Ahrar do not attack an individual but defame the Government to which he belongs—of which, in fact, he is a part.
7. The Ahrar are clever speakers and they take good care not to attract the law. It is not possible in this case to prosecute them for spreading sectional discord, under section 153-A., P.P.C. In my opinion their activities are such that there is full justification for taking action against one or two prominent ones under the P. P. S. A.
8. Two telegrams have been received from the Ahmadis protesting against the conduct of the Ahrar.
(Sd.) M. ANWAR ALI—4.4.52
I.G.
——U. O.—No. 216.BDSB, dated 5.4.52.
H.S.The Ahrar are a problem. They are not anti-Government or out directly to disturb the law and order. Personally I think they are quiet only because they are not strong enough to be able to achieve much if they did oppose the administration. But I have not the least doubt in my mind that the moment they are in a position to gather a sufficient number of people behind them they would raise their head and would not hesitate to do anything to be a source of trouble. They are men of no importance. They have no following and no programme but they are ambitious. And their ambition has frequently been titillated by various political parties particularly by the Muslim League I am told. They are, therefore, waiting that some day, even if not by their own merit, by the foolishness of other people they would come into prominence. For that day they are keeping this fire of anti-Ahmadi feeling burning. if this fire extinguishes the Ahrar would be left with nothing to attract any one to their party. This is their only hope. They must, therefore, go on with it. They are not concerned and are not interested in Pakistan or the importance of maintaining unity amongst its people. Some one else will have to decide some time how to deal with this problem. It is now definitely becoming a menace. Sufficient rope has been given to the Ahrar. On behalf of Government I was also commissioned once to talk to them. I held a meeting with Sh. Husam-ud-Din. A note of that meeting and agreement arrived at must be in the Secretariat. He promised that the party would not in future indulge in anti-Ahmadi propaganda but they have done so on every possible occasion. The Ahmadis are no lambs either. They aye lying low and do not retaliate because they are aware of their numerical weakness. But there is a limit to every one’s patience. And in any case Government’s own duty is very clear. How long are they going to permit this sort of cruel provocation. It is now almost persecution of the Ahmadis by the Ahrar. What the C. I. D. must however tell us is (a) what exactly can be done apart from the Safety Act, (b) what is the total strength of Ahrar and (c) how far would they be prepared to oppose or defy Government and what would be the general reaction if the question of Ahmadis is made an issue. Without some such data no firm decisions can be taken and a circular letter to D. Cs. without something definite does sot prove of much avail nowadays.
H. S. (Sd.) QURBAN ALI
The Ahrar-Ahmadi controversy, if it can be called by that name, is assuming alarming proportions. The Ahrar are mainly to blame for the trouble they have stirred up in this Province. The Ahmadis, as characterised by the I. G. P. are ‘no lambs’ but they have adopted their stubborn attitude only to preserve themselves as a community. If they were to take the attacks and onslaughts made on them by the Ahrar complacently they would be finished as a body in no time. Also, their stubbornness is mainly confined to the sphere of religion. It is a matter purely for themselves if they do not let the members of other Islamic sects participate in their ritual or they themselves scrupulously avoid taking part in the prayers and other religious ceremonies of the non-Ahmadi Muslims. It is, however, the duty of the Government to see that this controversy which is based on religion does not threaten the peace and order of the country.
2. I agree with the I. G. P. that Government should have something more concrete before them than what is available in the noting on this file before they can revise the policy which is being pursued at present and which was enunciated only recently (vide C. S’s circular letter No. 7505-HG-51/76135, dated November 3, 1951). Actually the existing policy need not be reorientated to meet the situation. What is needed is its firm implementation.
3. C. S. may please see at this stage. I think the case should be submitted to H. C. M. when the proposals have taken a more crystallized shape.
(Sd.) GHIAS-UD-DIN AHMAD — 8.4.52
C.S.
I AGREE.
(Sd.) H. A. MAJID — 9.4.52”
With a view to replying to the inquiry made by Mr. Qurban Ali Khan, the case was examined on 3rd May 1952, by Mr. Muhammad Khuda Bakhsh, S. P. (B), C. I. D., Punjab, who recorded the following exhaustive note on the activities of the Ahrar:—
“The Ahrar have almost regained the influence among the Muslim masses of the Punjab which they had lost by their opposition to the creation of Pakistan. This has been possible by their identifying themselves politically with the Muslim League and by an extensive anti-Mirzaeeat campaign. The former brought them support from that popular ruling organisation and the latter won them the goodwill of the general Muslim public who always takes pleasure in satire against the cult of new prophethood in Islam.
2. A list of the branches of the Majlis-i-Ahrar, which have since opened in the Province and annually subscribe to the Centre is appended. The number of uniformed razakars so far registered is reported to be 1,064. But the ‘fifth-column’ lies among the maulvis and pesh imams and fanatics who consider it a merit to keep the religious controversies alive from their individual quarters and pulpits. The Ahrar leaders are kept invited and entertained by them almost constantly at one or other comer of the country. And greater the virulence of their professional speeches against the ‘Mirzais’ the larger is the collection of chanda. The majlishas become financially sound and been able to produce rich patrons of whom the names of the following are taken as more liberate:—
(1) Nawabzada Nasrullah Khan, M. L. A., of Khan Garh, District Muzaffargarh.(2) Haji Din Muhammad of Badami Bagh, Lahore (Millowner).(3) Mian Qamar Din, Rais of Ichhra,, Lahore.(4) Rana Ghulam Sabir, M. L. A., Okara.The Ahrar are more influential at present in districts of Lyallpur. Sialkot, Sargodha, Rawalpindi, Gujranwala, Montgomery, Multan and Muzaffargarh and at Okara, Chiniot and Gujar Khan.
3. As regards suggestions for effective measures against this sectarian menace, I am of the opinion as follows:—
(a) The Muslim League should completely wash their hands off this movement. Their M. L. As. and office-bearers should not only not preside over the Ahrar meetings but should give clear indication to the public by their attitude that they do not want to help the Ahrar in any way. Unfortunately the trend of mind of the general Muslim public has so far gone against the Ahmadis that the workers of the Muslim League are sometimes forced to find security of their public influence in openly sharing these sentiments of the people. The fact that no Ahmadi was returned to the Assembly in spite of Muslim League tickets is attributed to the hold of the Ahrar speakers on the public.
(b) The Ahrar conference, though designated in the name of Defence, should be banned under section 144, Criminal Procedure Code.
(c) Arrangements should be made preferably through influential members of the Muslim League of the locality that public places are not lent to the Ahrar for meetings.
(d) Notices should be served on the more violent Ahrar speakers like Ala Ullah Shah Bukhari, Maulvi Muhammad Ali Jullundri, Qazi Ehsan Ahmad Shujabadi and Sahibzada Faiz-ul-Hasan that while speaking against Ahmadiyyat they should strictly remain within the religious limits of the controversy and not say anything capable of exciting hatred and the patriotic sentiments of the other citizens of Pakistan against the community. After all if any person or class of persons was engaged in activities calculated to harm the security of the State the matter essentially called for a report to the authorities for legal action and not for inciting the public for taking the law into their own hands.
(e) Action can always be taken with deterrence under section 107, Cr. P. C. by local Magistrates against the Ahrar speakers and their local hosts, particularly the maulvis and pesh-imams inviting them to speak from their mosques.
(f) In my opinion, action should not be spared even under the PPSA in worst cases, e.g., where abuses are hurled and mock funerals taken out for the Honourable Minister for Foreign Affairs and cases of repeated defiance of law and maligning the Government. Warnings have repeatedly proved ineffective. The Ahrar should be made to realise that the authorities this time mean business. At present they seem to be under the impression that Musalmans, whether district officers or ordinary commoners, actively sympathise with their professed, mission of the safeguard of finality of prophethood (tahaffuz-i-khatm-i-nubuwwat). They can cite at least four instances of District and Additional District Magistrates presiding over their conferences in the past year.”
In the light of the views expressed by the officers who had the occasion to note on the case the matter was discussed on 19th May in a meeting of the Home Secretary, the I. G. P. and the D. I. G., C. I. D. After the meeting the D. I. G., C. I. D., wrote the following note summing up the history of the Ahrar and suggesting certain action against them:—
“Government has been apprised from time to time about the serious threat to public peace which must inevitably result from Ahmadi baiting advocated by the Majlis-i-Ahrar. For facility of reference the particulars of these notes are given below:—
(1) Note dated 17th January 1950, in which, a suggestion was made that a warning should be administered to the Ahrar leaders. No action was taken on the note.
(2) Note dated 3rd February 1950, in which the objectionable propaganda carried out in the course of a conference at Multan was brought to the notice of the Government. The late Governor spoke to Qazi Ehsan Ahmad Shujabadi and Maulvi Ghulam Ghaus Sarhaddi.
(3) Note dated 23rd May 1950, in which a suggestion was made that Master Taj-ud-Din and other Ahrar leaders should be sent for and warned. Government asked C. S. to administer a warning.
(4) Note dated 28th May 1950, in which it was stated that the atmosphere created by the Ahrar would inevitably lead to outbreak of violence against the Ahmadis and was also otherwise dangerous. Certain concrete suggestions for dealing with the menace were also made. Government, however, decided only to warn the leaders.
(5) Note dated 4th April 1952, in which the dangers of the Ahrar movement were pointed out vis-a-vis the activities of the Ahrar at Sargodha. Government wanted more definite proposals to be made.
2. For a proper understanding of the case it is necessary to re-capitulate the objectionable incidents which have resulted from the reckless and exciting speeches made by Ahrar workers. These incidents are briefly as follows:—
(1) Okara—October, 1950—Ahmadi preachers were waylaid and their faces blackened. An Ahmadi schoolmaster was killed as a result of the tense atmosphere created by Ahrar speakers.
(2) Rawalpindi—October, 1950—An Ahmadi was killed as a result of hatred spread against the community although the immediate cause was different.
(3) Sialkot—January, 1951—An effort was made by the Ahrar to break up an Ahmadi meeting. The arrival of the police saved casualties.
(4) Chak Jhumra—February, 1951—At the railway station as a result of Ahrar violence, a man (son of Maulvi Ismat Ullah, who is an Ahmadi) was stabbed by Ahrar workers.
(5) Gujranwala—March, 1951—An Ahmadi shopkeeper was attacked when he objected, to the raising of slogans against Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. The police saved him from violence.
(6) Lyallpur—April, 1951—Following a threat held out by Ghulam Nabi Janbaz an Ahmadi shopkeeper was attacked.
(7) Samundri—May, 1951—An Ahmadi mosque was burnt by a mob led by Ahrar workers.
(8) Lyallpur—November, 1951—An Ahmadi meeting disturbed by Ahrar workers resulting in casualties on both aides. Police intervention checked further trouble.
(9) Multan—November, 1951—Fifty Ahrar attempted to break up an Ahmadi meeting. The arrival of the police prevented further trouble.
(10) Sargodha—March, 1952—Following an Ahrar Conference a procession was taken out in defiance of police orders. The processionsists were beating their breasts and shouting ‘Zafrullah hai hai’.
(11) Rawalpindi—April, 1952—After hearing the provocative and exciting speeches at an Ahrar meeting a youth got up and shouted ‘Zafrullah Mirzai ko hataya jawe’ — ‘Wazir Zafrullah, ko qatl kiya jawe, mar diya jawe’. Ata Ullah Shah Bukhari, who was addressing the meeting, after the shouting of the slogans by the youth, exhorted the audience to take out a procession and to press for the dissolution of the ‘Zafri wazarat’.
(12) Gujranwala—April, 1952—Ahrar workers organised a procession in which two mock funerals of Sir Zafrullah Khan were taken out and slogans, such as ‘Zafrullah puttar chor da, na’ara maro zor da’ were shouted.
(13) Lyallpur—May, 1952—Ata Ullah Shah Bukhari addressing a meeting said that anti-Ahmadi demonstrations would be staged on a large scale and would not be confined to places such as Lyallpur but also in Lahore and Karachi. A procession was also taken out. (His voice was almost prophetic because on the I8th May, i.e., a week after his claim violent demonstrations resulting in riots took place at Karachi.
(14) According to a letter which has come to my notice paradise has been promised to the person who will cut the throat of Sir Zafrullah Khan.
I have mentioned above only important incidents resulting in attacks and breach of peace arising from Ahrar truculence. Innumerable meetings have been held in which hatred against the Ahmadis has been openly advocated. Public mind has been poisoned. Ahrar leaders who were afraid of facing crowds after the Partition, have since become heroes. Sayyad Ata Ullah Shah Bukhari lived in seclusion at a remote village of Muzaffargarh district for nearly two years and declined to accept invitations for addressing public meetings. He now commonly addresses meetings all over the Province and is no longer on the defensive. His eloquence and loquaciousness have once again built around him a halo of importance. Muhammad Ali Jullundri, Ehsan Ahmad Shujabadi and Sahibzada Faiz-ul-Hasan are prominent among those who have been consistently making poisonous speeches against the Ahmadis.
4. Warnings to Ahrar leaders have been administered in turn by His Excellency the Governor, the Chief Secretary and the Inspector-General of Police. These warnings have had no effect; in fact it is obvious that the speakers are becoming more aggressive.
5. At one time Ahrar leaders were giving out that they had made up with the high-ups of the Muslim League and that they had nothing to fear even in spite of the fact that their speeches fell under the provisions of the ordinary law.
6. The Majlis-i-Ahrar has its headquarters at Lahore. It is without substantial finances and special levies are made for conferences. The last appeal for funds only brought Rs. 500. The following four persons regularly contribute to the funds:—
(1) Nawabzada Nasrullah Khan of Muzaffargarh.(2) Haji Din Muhammad, Millowner of Badami Bagh.(3) Mian Qamar Din, Rais of Ichhra.(4) Rana Ghulam Sabir, M. L. A. of Okara.7. The Ahrar have a volunteer organisation which has a member-ship of 1,064 persons throughout the Province. At the time of Partition the membership had shrunk as several volunteers resigned from the organisation. The membership was larger at one time. The party is at the moment only concerned in doing venomous propaganda against the Ahmadis. Lately demands have been made, in rather an objectionable way, for the removal of Sir Zafrullah Khan. The Chief demand is that the Ahmadis be declared a minority community.
8. The Ahrar have a party paper—‘Azad’ which is published thrice a week. It has a small circulation. Its editor is Dr. Sabir Multani.
9. The elections of the All Pakistan Majlis-i-Ahrar have not been held since 1947. The Punjab elections were held in November 1951 at Okara with the following result:—
President … Qazi Ehsan Ahmad Shujabadi.Vice-President … Maulvi Abdur Rahman Mianvi.General Secretary … Maulvi Muhammad Ali Jullundri.Secretary … Mehr Abdur Rahim Jhelumi.Treasurer … Muhammad Shafi.Salar-i-Suba … Chaudhri Meraj Din.10. It will be recalled that immediately after the Partition the Ahrar leaders were flirting with (General) Shah Nawaz of the I. N. A. who later shifted to India. A prominent member of the Majlis-i-Ahrar of the united Punjab, namely, Habib-ur-Rahman, shifted to India, One Parbodh Chandar who later became an M. L. A. and was a prominent Congress worker, handed over his hotel on the McLeod Road (Vira Hotel) to Agha Shorish Kashmiri and Nawabzada Nasrullah Khan Shorish resigned from the Majlis-i-Ahrar in 1948. He was previously a member of the Working Committee.
11. There is already a group amongst the Ahrar which favours collaboration with the opposition parties. This group is led by Sheikh Husam-ud-Din. Master Taj-ud-Din Ansari, however, has been counselling moderation, and is opposed to an open breach with the Muslim League at this stage. So far Master Taj-ud-Din’s party is stronger. There is no doubt that when the Ahrar find that they have sufficiently rehabilitated themselves with the public they may openly break with the Muslim League and set up an independent party.
12. As pointed out above the mischievous speeches made by Ahrar workers have already resulted in a large number of incidents of breach of peace and physical violence. The latest incident at Karachi is a pointer to what can happen if the activities of the Ahrar are allowed to go uncurbed. Moreover, it must be appreciated that if the Ahrar are allowed to gather strength and popular favour it will become more difficult to take action against them. They are no longer suspect as they were at the time of Partition.
13. The above situation was discussed with I. G. Police and Home Secretary yesterday and the following recommendations are made for the consideration of Government :
(a) The Majlis-i-Ahrar should be declared an unlawful association under section 16 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act. (This suggestion was made by me as early as May l950).
(b) The following prominent workers should be arrested and detained under the Public Safety Act:—
1. Sayyed Ata Ullah Shah Bukhari.2. Qazi Ehsan Ahmad Shujabadi.3. Muhammad All Jullundri.Against Ata Ullah Shah Bukhari the material is very strong because his declaration at Lyallpur seems to indicate that the happenings at Karachi were within his knowledge.
(c) In case detention is not considered advisable, the above three leaders should be restricted to their home villages.
After all Ata Ullah Shah Bukhari lived of his own choice for two years in a village of the Muzaffargarh district. Muhammad Ali Jullundri (who is a refugee and has since settled in the Multan district) and Qazi Ehsan Ahmad Shujabadi will have to be restricted in that case in the Multan district.
(d) In case it is not considered advisable to declare the Majlis-i-Ahrar as an unlawful association, its meetings at any rate for the next year or two, should be banned by orders under section 144, Cr. P. C.
14. At the meeting it was decided that it would be necessary to apprise the Central Government of what we propose to do in order to ensure uniformity of action. The Central Government should co-operate and ensure that similar action is taken in other Provinces of Pakistan. It will be meaningless if certain bans are imposed on the activities of Ahrar in one Province only. We were also of the opinion that in case the Central Government does not propose to take action on the above lines, it would not perhaps be advisable for the Punjab Government to do so unilaterally.
15. In case Government agree with the above views a suitable draft for C.S.’s approval will be put up.”
This note was placed before Mr. Qurban Ali Khan, Inspector-General of Police, whose comments on it, which are reproduced below, deserve special notice :—
“I do not know how long will we remain at the stage of writing notes informing Government what the Ahrar are doing and what should be expected of them if they are not checked in time. The Ahrar have already done enough to show without any doubt, which way the wind is blowing in their camp. I am for one convinced in my mind that if Government continues with its present policy of leaving the Ahrar alone, the Ahrar will sooner or later perpetrate some such horrible crime that Government would find itself in a difficult position to explain their failure to take action upon what the C.I.D. has been, repeatedly and vehemently reporting to them.
It is a difficult decision to take, I know, but some one has to take it. The Central Government is not likely to share the responsibility of getting involved in a matter which has the remotest chance of raising another opposition especially on an issue which may be exploited as a religious all-Muslims versus Ahmadis issue. There is a possibility of that, In fact the moment Ahrar are touched, they will make that an issue. But some Government somewhere must give the masses a correct lead. If every party is afraid that the Ahrar will join hands with the opposition no one will even be able to maintain the law and order. And in fact the Ahrar are to-day no power. Tomorrow they may become one. No sensible person can support their policy of violence. If Government is convinced that the conduct of the Ahrar calls for action, to-day is, I submit, the most opportune time to take it. Before H.C.M. leaves for Murree it may be worthwhile to call a meeting of the Honourable Ministers, C.S., H.S., D.I.G., C.I.D. and the I.G.”
A meeting of officers was called by the Chief Minister on May 25, 1952, to consider the proposals. Though Mr. Qurban Ali Khan had suggested that Ministers should be called to the meeting, this proposal did not find favour with the Chief Minister and none of the Ministers was summoned. It was decided in the meeting that the existing directive which left with the District Magistrates the discretion to ban meetings sponsored by the Ahrar or the Ahmadis was unsatisfactory, and that the District Magistrates should now be directed that whenever either party intended to hold a meeting, they should invariably ban it under section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, on 5th June the Chief Secretary issued the following D. O. Circular to all District Magistrates:—
“Dear Sir,
I am directed to address you in continuation of the Home Secretary’s demi-official letter No. 10027-51/463-HG., dated December 24, 1951, addressed to all the Deputy Commissioners on the subject cited above.
2. Government have noticed with concern that the Ahrar-Ahmadiya controversy instead of abating has now increased to an extent which if not checked immediately and firmly will constitute a real threat to the public peace. The trend of speeches delivered at the Ahrar conferences is generally marked by a deplorable lack of self-restraint and healthy tone. The speeches made recently by some of their leaders were particularly inflammatory. On the other hand the Ahmadiya community, in spite of the undisguised hostility of a section of the public or probably because of it, insist on holding their tablighi conferences frequently and in public. This attitude only succeeds in provoking fresh outbursts against themselves. After careful consideration, Government have decided that in the general interest of the public peace and tranquillity, neither the Ahrar nor the Ahmadis should be permitted to hold public meetings under any name or garb. You should, therefore, take preventive action under section 144, Cr. P.C., whenever either party intends to hold a public meeting. This directive supersedes the one referred to above which left the discretion, for taking preventive action with the Deputy Commissioners. Now preventive action will be taken regarding Ahrar/Ahmadi meetings invariably and without any exceptions until these orders are modified or withdrawn. The action taken by you and the reactions thereto should in all cases be reported to Government, as early as possible, for their information.”
When action was taken by the District Magistrates on this directive, the Ahrar resorted to a clever stratagem. They shifted the venue of their meetings from public places to mosques where they began to attract large gatherings, particularly before or after Friday prayers. This new situation was reviewed in a meeting of the I.G.P., D.I.G., C.I.D., the Home Secretary and the Legal Remembrancer on 19th June 1952. As a result of the decisions taken in this meeting the following instructions were signalled on 19th June 1952, to all District Magistrates and Commissioners after they had been seen and approved by the Chief Secretary :—
“It has been reported to Government that Ahrar want to hold anti-Ahmadi meetings in mosques immediately preceding or after the Juma-tul-wida prayers, because they think that such meetings are not liable to be banned by District Magistrates. If the Ahrar contemplate doing so within your district, you should immediately pass an appropriate order under section 144, Cr. P.C. banning public meetings on the day without making any mention of the venue of the meeting. You should then send for the imam and the persons connected with the management of the mosque and impress upon them that they should not become a party to this violation of your order and the desecration of a place of worship in the furtherance of the activities of a political party. It should be made clear to them that in the event of an infringement of your order you will not hesitate from prosecuting the persons connected with the management of the mosque for their abetment of the offence as well as the actual sponsors and other moving spirits of the meeting including the speakers. Government are aware that a public meeting may be dovetailed into a prayer congregation or that the complexion of an assemblage gathered for prayers may change into that of a public meeting by the tone and trend of speeches just before or after the prayers or the khutba. But Government are advised that such facts will not afford any legal protection to those responsible for the meetings from the consequences of a violation of your order. A Gazette Extraordinary is under issue today notifying the violation of orders under section 144, Cr. C.P. banning public meetings as non-bailable and cognizable offences. You will receive copies thereof in due course: meanwhile you should proceed on this basis. Government will also send you shortly a model order under section 144, Cr. P.C. for issue by you on such occasions. Lastly it should be noted carefully that Government do not desire any public meetings which are being held in mosques or other places of sanctity or worship to be dispersed by force or to be interfered with in any way while they are in progress. Nor do they desire that any arrests should be made while people are collecting for or dispersing from such meetings. The proper course to follow would be that a case should be registered and the culprits should be arrested after the excitement of the meeting is over at an appropriate time and place. The cases registered should be prosecuted vigorously. You and your Superintendent of Police should remain present at headquarters on Friday and also at the time selected for effecting arrests, if any.”
Simultaneously an Ordinance was promulgated in a Gazette Extraordinary declaring the violation of orders, passed under section 144, Criminal Procedure Code, banning public meetings, a non-bailable and cognizable offence.
At a meeting held by the Chief Minister with the Chief Secretary, the Home Secretary, I.G.P., and D.I.G., C.I.D., on 27th June 1952, it was decided to issue the following D. O. Circular to all District Magistrates, with a view to isolating the Ahrar :—
“Confidential.
D. O. No. 176-St. (HS)/52,
Punjab Civil Secretariat,
Home Department, Lahore.
28th June 1952Dear Sir,
I am desired to address you in continuation of the Chief Secretary’s wireless message No. 168-St(HS)/52, dated June 19, 1952, on the subject of the Ahrar-Ahmadiya controversy and to say that Government desire that if your order under section 144, Cr. P.C. has been violated by the Ahrar you should proceed only against the prominent members of the Ahrar leadership who may be among the offenders and ignore others of lesser importance or those who do not belong to the Ahrar party. Local persons should be particularly left out unless they belong to the hierarchy of the Ahrar organisation. The intention is that we should isolate the Ahrar leaders from the rest of the public. If we throw our net wider and draw in people of other denominations also simply because they were somehow or the other prevailed upon or inveigled into participation in their meetings by the Ahrar we shall only succeed in arraying a vast section of the public against the administration. By taking action against people who in the excitement of the moment allowed themselves to be made use of by the Ahrar leaders, in some cases quite unwittingly and inadvertently, we shall force them to joining hands with the Ahrar. If any of these people feel repentant and offer apologies you should accept them readily. In the case of such people even if they do not apologise cases should not be instituted against them or if they have already been instituted they should be withdrawn forth-with. When the public see that only the more important and prominent Ahrar leaders are being proceeded against their opinion will immediately veer round to the side of Government and the action taken by its functionaries will meet with general approbation.
2. The cases that you may institute against the Ahrar for the violation of your orders will be very hotly contested and pursued with keen interest in press and public. The object desired by Government as well as the justification and the correctness of your action will depend on their success. You should, therefore, get them thoroughly examined by your law officers from the point of law as well as fact before instituting them in Courts.
I am,
Your sincerely,
(Sd.) GHIAS-UD-DIN AHMAD”
SECTION 144 ORDERS ENFORCED AGAINST PUBLIC MEETINGS IN MOSQUES: SARGODHA AND GUJRANWALA CASES
Orders issued by District Magistrates in pursuance of the directions given by the Provincial Government were enforced in certain places by the prosecution of the offenders.
On 12th June 1952, the Ahrar announced that a public meeting would be held at 8 o’clock on the morning of the following day, which was a Friday, in Municipal Park, Sargodha. The District Magistrate banned the meeting by an order under section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, promulgated in pursuance of the policy laid down by the Government in the letter of 5th June 1952. Thereupon the Ahrar made another public announcement that the meeting would be held on the date fixed in the Juma mosque. But the District Magistrate lost no time in having it proclaimed that his order under section 144 was equally applicable to public meetings in mosques and that the holding of the proposed, meeting would be a contravention of that order. The meeting was, however, held at 10 o’clock and was presided over by Sheikh Husam-ud-Din. Speeches of the usual type against the Ahmadis were made by Master Taj-ud-Din Ansari, the President, and Sheikh Husam-ud-Din, the General Secretary, of Majlis-i-Ahrar-i-Pakistan, and Muhammad Abdullah, the President of the District Majlis-i-Ahrar, Sargodha, and slogans “Zafrullah murdabad,” “Mirzaeeat murdabad”, etc., were raised while the meeting was in progress. Mian Muhammad Ishaq, the Magistrate on duty, warned the audience and the organisers of the meeting that their act in attending the meeting was contrary to law, but nobody heeded him and the meeting continued till 11-45 a.m. For this contravention of the order under section 144, Master Taj-ud-Din Ansari, Sheikh Husam-ud-Din and Muhammad Abdullah were prosecuted in the Court of the Additional District Magistrate, who by his order, dated 14th July 1952, convicted them under section 143 and sentenced them to six months’ rigorous imprisonment each. On the basis of the same incident, two separate complaints were also field by the District Magistrate in the Court of the Additional District Magistrate under section 188 of the Pakistan Penal Code. These complaints came up for hearing on 14th July 1952 when the Prosecuting Sub-Inspector made a statement withdrawing the cases under the instructions of the District Magistrate.
The next contravention of an order under section 144 occurred when a public meeting was held in Juma Masjid, Sheranwala Bagh, Gujranwala, after Friday prayers on 20th June 1952. This meeting had been announced a day earlier by means of printed posters and loudspeakers in the streets of the town. While the khutba was going on, Muhammad Amin, General Secretary, Majlis-i-Ahrar, announced that Master Taj-ud-Din Ansari and Sheikh Husam-ud-Din, who had come from Lahore, would speak at the meeting. The meeting began after the prayers when several people had gone away. It was presided over by Sahibzada Faiz-ul-Hasan and the proceedings started with such slogans as “Mirzaeeat murdabad”, “Zafrullah ko hata do”, “Mirzaioon ko aqaliyyat qarar do”, and two resolutions were passed. Nine different persons, including Master Taj-ud-Din Ansari, Sheikh Husam-ud-Din and Sahibzada Faiz-ul-Hasan, were prosecuted for this violation, but on 16th July 1952, when the cases came up for hearing, the prosecuting officer made a statement withdrawing the cases under the orders of the District Magistrate. The prayer was granted and the accused were all acquitted the same day,
The Ahrar now began to confound the issue by making it a grievance that for purely religious activities inside the mosques the worshippers were being arrested and prosecuted and that the Government was thus encroaching on people’s religious beliefs and observances. The amusing case mentioned below is illustrative of the propaganda that began to be carried on against Government.
One Maulvi Muhammad Shafi, khatib of Jami’ mosque, Sargodha, together with certain other persons, was arrested for an offence under section 143 for having defied an order of the District Magistrate under section 144. He offered bail and was released. He, however, took advantage of his release by making a virulent speech in the form of a khutba in Idgah, Sargodha, on 24th June 1952. He asserted in that speech that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, who claimed to be a prophet, was a kafir together with those who believed in him, that his claim to prophethood was false, that false prophets had been killed in the past, that Government should declare whether the Government in Pakistan was Islamic or non-Islamic, that if it was an Islamic Government, Muslims had the right to discuss religious matters in mosques but that if it was not an Islamic Government, Muslims shall stop discussing such matters in mosques and in that case mosques will have to be closed down. He went on to announce that he had nothing to do with politics but that so far as his religious beliefs were concerned, he shall not refrain from saying things which pertained to religion. We are mentioning this case not because it has any importance of its own, but because of the ostensibly plausible argument employed to establish an unqualified right to do whatever the Ahrar liked in a mosque in the garb of religion and also because of the ludicrous position in which it put the prosecution and of the subsequent secretariat noting in which the real issue arising from the application of section 144 to mosques was brought out. Maulvi Muhammad Shafi was already on bail in another case of breach of section 144 order when he made the speech mentioned above. Because of that speech, he was arrested for a fresh offence but he gave bail and was again released. It appears that under a direction of the Majlis-i-Ahrar at this stage persons accused of breaches of section 144 orders by making speeches in mosques were to prefer jail to bail, and in pursuance of this direction Maulvi Muhammad Shafi appeared before the Magistrate and had his bail cancelled. In the case of maulvis of the type of Muhammad Shafi, who was not a prominent member of the Ahrar, the policy of the Government was that they should be released if they apologised; but this maulvi would neither apologise nor give bail. When Mr. Qurban Ali Khan was consulted about the embarrassing position that had arisen by the extension of section 144 orders to mosques, he brought out the precise issue which the Government had to face when he remarked in his note of 2nd July that unless it was conceded that a mosque was a sanctuary for those who defied the law, the Government could not absolve itself of the responsibility to see that the law of the land was enforced.
Having come across two posters expressing resentment over the application of section 144 to mosques and announcing a public meeting in the Barkat Ali Muhammadan Hall on 13th July to consider the situation arising therefrom, Mr. Anwar Ali on 3rd July 1952 wrote a note complaining that much mischievous propaganda was being done by the Ahrar and their friends against Government, that it was being given out that section 144 had been applied to mosques and the right to worship abrogated and that unless something on a big scale were done by the Public Relations Department to check this propaganda, popular ill-will against the Government would be the natural result. Mr. Qurban Ali Khan agreed with this, remarking that the Director of Public Relations was their only source. The Home Secretary expressed himself as follows on 4th July 1952:—
“2. I think it has become imperative now that we should intensify our propaganda because otherwise we shall lose our case by default. It has become very necessary that the man in the street should be told again and again what we have really done and the reasons for our various actions.
3. I sent for the D. P. R. this morning and told him to accelerate his machinery and flood the Province with propaganda material. I impressed upon him that one or two press notes will not meet the situation because the Ahrar have maneuvered to confuse the issue in order to enlist popular support.
4. As desired by H. C. M., I spoke to Maulana Akhtar Ali Khan and the editors of his group on July 1st and explained the whole situation to them and answered all the questions which they could think of for dispelling their apprehensions and misgivings. They went back completely satisfied but I am sorry to say that with the exception of one paper they did not express approbation of Government’s action even in a mild form. I again spoke to Maulana Akhtar Ali Khan yesterday as desired by H. C. M. on the telephone and after having been convinced once again about the bona fides of whatever we have done he has virtually upheld in today’s paper all that the Ahrar have been saying. The other papers of his group have done likewise (relevant cuttings from these papers are placed below). Messrs. Hamid Nizami and Mazhar Ali Khan were also called by me yesterday. I made it clear to them from the very out-set that my intention in calling them was only to explain the whole position to them and nothing else and that they were quite free to put their own interpretation on what I told them. They both considered, that whatever this Government had done was worthy of popular support and calculated to strengthen the integrity of the country. Mr. Hamid Nizami, however, said that he feared if he were to say so in his organ, the newspapers favoured by the Government as well as the Muslim League would be the first to denounce him as an Ahmadi for increasing their own circulation. He also said that the very purpose for which curbing action was being taken against the Ahrar would be defeated unless the newspapers also co-operated with Government and did not help in the spread of the virus through their columns. Mr. Mazhar Ali Khan said that the root cause of this trouble was that Government had themselves made religion their source of slogans and strength. He added that if one group could exploit religion how could the others be denied its use for furthering their own ends.
5. A conference of D. Ms. who are mainly concerned in this matter has been called for tomorrow after which a directive will be issued to all the D. Ms. for organising field publicity in their districts for which the D. P. R. will give them the necessary help and guidance. Other recommendations formulated at this conference will be submitted to H. C. M. immediately for his orders.”
The Home Secretary had called and addressed some newspaper editors on 1st and 3rd July also with a view to explaining to them how it had become necessary for Government to ban public meetings in mosques organised by the Ahrar and seeking their co-operation. He thought he had succeeded in clarifying the position but to his disappointment he discovered only a few days later that his optimism was misplaced and that in entertaining a feeling of satisfaction he had not taken into account the lack of conscience in many of the newspaper men.
It was at this stage that the Ahrar enlisted the support of the ulama by calling a convention of all Muslim parties at Lahore on 13th July 1952 and giving out that the doctrine of khatm-i-nubuwwat had become a general issue for all creeds and sects of Muslims. To consider the situation arising from a announcement of this Convention a conference of District Magistrates of all important districts was held on 5th July 1952, which was presided over by the Chief Secretary and attended by the Home Secretary, Inspector-General of Police, D. I. G., G. I. D., and the Director of Public Relations. This conference took the following decisions:—
“(1) The orders under section 144, Criminal Procedure Code, should be amended wherever necessary so as to make them applicable specifically to the public meetings organised by the Ahrar or the Ahmadis only without making any mention of the venue of the meeting. The model order promised by Government would be sent to the District Magistrates as early as possible but District Magistrates concerned need not defer the issue of revised orders to await the receipt of the Government draft.
(2) If any members of the Ahrar party or the Ahmadiya community deliver violent or inflammatory speeches at any public meeting not organised by their respective organisation a reference should be made to Government for action under section 153, P. P. O. or the Public Safety Act. Pending the receipt of Government orders the culprits should not be arrested unless it is considered to be absolutely necessary.
(3) No action should be taken to disperse meetings organised by the Ahrar or the Ahmadis even outside mosques unless it becomes an imperative necessity to do so for the maintenance of law and order. Meetings being held in mosques are in no case to be interfered with in any way and action should be taken regarding all meetings whether held inside a place of worship or in other public places by the registration of regular cases against the prominent loaders of the two groups only.
(4) The Government propaganda machinery should be accelerated so that the interested parties cannot dupe the public and the true significance and nature of the action taken by Government is explained to the common man. Pamphlets, leaflets and posters should be prepared and distributed to the District Magistrates for dissemination throughout their districts. Propaganda through newspapers should also be intensified and the papers which, are generally pro-Government should be asked to co-operate in this matter also because their attitude is anything but favourable towards Government in this matter.
(5) Maulvis and khatibs of the various mosques should be contacted by the District Magistrates and the true picture of the whole situation should be laid before them so that the interested parties cannot play upon their religious sentiments and mislead them into inveighing against Government.
(6) The Convention called for 13th July, 1952, in Lahore should not be interfered with in any way. The speeches delivered and the decisions taken there should be examined later to see what action, if any, is called for. This convention may actually prove to be useful from the point of view of Government if the intending participants are contacted by the District Magistrates or the Director, Public Relations and prevailed upon to denounce preaching of violence and defiance of law. The Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Criminal Investigation Department, will make an effort to intimate the names of the intending participants to the District Magistrates concerned.
(7) In all action taken in this connection by officers on their own initiative or in accordance with the Government instructions issued from time to time it should be borne in mind that the ultimate object is to kill the threat to law and order created by the Ahrar-Ahmadi controversy by isolating these two organisations from the rest of the public. This will destroy the unfounded bogey of interference with the religious and political rights of the public by Government which the Ahrar have created in their desperate effort to regain their lost power.”
The same day some Ahrar leaders saw Mr. Anwar Ali, D. I. G., C. I. D., and threw before him the bait of not making public speeches which were likely to disturb the public peace provided orders under section 144 and prosecutions for breach of such orders were withdrawn. Mr. Anwar Ali recorded his reaction to this offer as follows:—
“This morning Maulana Akhtar Ali Khan came to see me along with Maulvi Ghulam Ghaus Sarhaddi, the new President of the Majlis-i-Ahrar. It seems to me that the Ahrar realise that their fate is sealed and unless they can immediately rally to their side the sympathy of the general Muslim public, they will be finished as a political organisation. The object of the visit was to give an assurance that the Ahrar, as a party, were prepared to make a statement in public declaring that no speeches would be made which were likely to disturb peace and tranquillity. The demand was that at the same time Government should release the persons who had been arrested and the orders under section 144, Criminal Procedure Code, should be withdrawn. I explained the decisions which were reached at today’s meeting and said that Government might be disposed to consider the withdrawal of the orders and even release all the Ahrar if the two leaders tendered written apologies. Maulvi Ghulam Ghaus did not give any answer and said that, so far as he and his party believed, Master Taj-ud-Din Ansari had not committed any wrong. I have no doubt that once the Ahrar realise that Government means business and will not change its decisions, they will be more disposed to come to a settlement”.
Mr. Qurban Ali Khan’s matter-of-fact remark on this was:
“I do not think Government have any cause to change their decision that law and order shall be maintained. Whatever tends to create a situation which is likely to end in a breach of the peace, must be hit on the head well and hard”.
The Home Secretary congratulated himself and said:
“As far as the main issue is concerned, it appears now that the Ahrar have realised that Government have foiled their attempts for confusing the issue and that they are being isolated for being made ineffective as a source of threat to the public peace and order”.
Effectively to enforce the decisions that were taken in the conference of 5th July, instructions were issued by Mr. Anwar Ali D. I. G., C. I. D., to all Superintendents of Police in the Punjab, on 19th July 1952, requiring them to keep themselves informed of the speeches which were made in mosques or outside, and to detail intelligent persons who could keep mental notes of speeches.
The decisions of the conference were approved by the Chief Minister on 8th July. While the Chief Minister was in Nathiagali in the first week of July, Moulana Suleman Nadvi, who was also in Nathiagali in connection with a constitutional sub-committee, mentioned to him his concern in the application of section 144 to mosques. On 10th July 1952, three Maulvis saw the Home Secretary in his office and put him certain questions which were subsequently repeated by Maulvi Muhammad Ali Jullundri on 11th July by means of a letter asking clarification of the following four points :—
(1) whether restrictions under section 144 Criminal Procedure Code had been imposed on tardid-i-mirzaeeat in mosques;
(2) whether such restrictions had later been withdrawn from the mosques;
(3) whether the Muslims were allowed to deliver speeches on tardid-i-mirzaeeat and masala-i-khatm-i-nubuwwat in the mosques ; and
(4) whether the Muslims were allowed to hold meetings outside mosques to discuss these two issues.
The Home Secretary, after consulting the Inspector-General of Police replied to this letter saying that the orders promulgated under section 144, Criminal Procedure Code, applied only to those public meetings which were organised by members of Majlis-i-Ahrar-i-Pakistan or the Ahmadiya community and that, apart from this, Government had never imposed any restrictions on mosques or other places of worship or on worship and religious ritual. He further said that besides the Ahrar and the Ahmadis all other political and religious bodies were at liberty to hold public meetings. As already stated, the Director of Public Relations had also been directed to intensify his propaganda with a view to explaining the correct position regarding the application of these orders to gatherings in mosques but all that is known is that he also addressed some newspaper men after the Home Secretary had, done so in the first week of July and that some time before 11th July he issued a poster under the heading ‘Ihtiram-i-Masajid’ explaining that there were no restrictions on visits to mosques or on assemblies in and outside the mosques for the performance of religious rites, or on religious addresses or on the exposition of the doctrine of khatm-i-nubuwwat or any other religious doctrine and that the object of issuing orders under section 144 was to stop people from preaching violence or lawlessness and from causing provocation or creating occasions for disorder, violence and breach of peace between different religious sects under the garb of religion.
One of the points raised by Mr. Cheema, Deputy Commissioner, Montgomery, and supported by the other Deputy Commissioner in the conference of 5th July 1952 was that the Central Government should be requested to express its views on the situation by issuing an authoritative statement on the subject. It was felt by the officers that such statement would completely clarify the situation and considerably strengthen the hands of the Provincial Government in carrying out whatever policy was enunciated by the Centre. But by now Secret letter No. 4/9/52-S. (I), dated the 2nd July 1952, from the Secretary, Ministry of the Interior, Government of Pakistan, to all Provincial Governments and local administrations had been received which was as follows :—
“I am directed to invite your attention to the very noticeable increase in religious and sectarian controversies in parts of Pakistan during recent months. These controversies have been particularly rampant between the Ahrar and the Ahmadis and have led, in some places, to a disturbance of the peace. The Government of Pakistan consider that if this state of affairs is allowed to continue unchecked, grave consequences may well follow. The attention of the Provincial Governments and local administrations is, therefore, drawn to the Ministry of the Interior letter No. 738-S. (I), dated the 7th September 1951, to the present addresses which is reproduced below for ready reference :—
‘Instances have occurred where Muslim members of various sects have indulged in objectionable propaganda against each other calculated to hurt each other’s feelings and leading, in its extreme cases, to personal violence. An illustration of this type of agitation is the Ahmadi-Ahrar controversy in the Punjab. The Central Government consider that while the legitimate rights of any community or sect to propagate its religious beliefs should not be unduly restricted, and no discrimination should be made between the protagonists of differing views, religious controversies should be confined to reasonable limits and should not be allowed to reach a point where the public peace and tranquillity may be endangered. Militant or aggressive sectarianism should, in the opinion of the Central Government, be suppressed with a heavy hand.
2. I am desired to bring the views of the Central Government in this matter to your notice for such action as may become necessary in your jurisdiction.’
The Government of Pakistan will be glad if the Provincial Governments and local administrations will enforce, strictly and impartially, the policy enunciated in the above letter. This policy applies equally to newspapers and periodicals which habitually indulge in sectarian writings.
The Government of Pakistan have noted with satisfaction the action taken recently by the Punjab Government with sectarian agitation”.
The Home Secretary also thought that a reference to the Centre had become necessary and, therefore, on 4th July he recorded the following note:—
“Secret.
I am submitting the main policy file regarding the Ahrar-Ahmadi controversy to H. C. M. as I feel that the time has come when the Central Government should be addressed at the highest level to formulate their policy regarding this question, unless that has already been done, and to make it known to us and the people of the country by deed and directive.
2. This Province is no doubt the stronghold of the Ahrar and contains the largest number of Ahmadis in any one Province of Pakistan but the fanaticism and the philosophy of hatred which the Ahrar are preaching under the cloak of religion for their own political resuscitation, if not curbed, and killed now, will not remain confined to this Province or to the Ahrar and Ahmadis. This Government have taken certain steps to ensure that the conditions will not be created either by the Ahrar or the Ahmadis which will imperil the public peace and order. These steps have been taken after due deliberation and after all other methods had been tried to ensure that the Ahrar will desist from their evil course. There is no doubt that the Ahrar are the aggressors in this matter and are the originators and authors of the whole dispute. They are now feeling frustrated, and seeing their political doom they are making desperate efforts to exploit the sentiments of the Muslims by distortion of facts and misrepresentation of Government’s intentions and actions. It will become evident to everyone before long that Government only wanted to snaffle the Ahrar for curbing the agitation sponsored by them and that there is no question whatever of Government interfering with the legitimate religious or political activities of any party or group of people. The honesty and the bona fides of this Government do not require any vindication but I feel that we have a right to ask for the co-operation of the Central Government to facilitate us in the discharge of the administration of this Province, particularly in matters which properly speaking are within their scope and sphere.
3. The Ahrar are using three slogans now to enlist popular feeling in their support :—
(1) propagation of the masla-i-Khatm-i-nubuwwat ;(2) the declaration of the Ahmadis as a minority ; and(3) the removal of Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan.4. As far as (1) is concerned, the Central Government should tell us unequivocally what line to pursue. This demand means nothing else but what the Ahrar and many other Muslims call ‘radd-i-mirzaeeat’—eradication of mirzaeeat. Should we allow, encourage or connive at activities which aim at physical or religious annihilation of a minor section of our people? The orthodoxy of the Ahmadis is heterodoxy of the non-Ahmadis and if the latter class are allowed to inveigh against the Ahmadis, will they also be given the right to declaim from pulpit and platform that what they believe is the truth and the rest all blasphemy? If we concede this right to one section of the public, are we prepared to allow the Christians to preach what they piously believe regarding our Prophet (peace be on him) and shall we be prepared to risk public demonstrations by the Shias of their sentiments towards some of the most illustrious of the sahaba? Is it the intention to make this country a battle field for warring groups and religions with the ultimate object that the vanquished will either perish or will be converted ? The hydra which the Ahrar are trying to raise should be killed before it is hatched otherwise it will devour our freedom and all else that we cherish. This is a matter on which the Centre should give us a lead. This religious belief cannot be enforced by the Ahrar and other non-Ahmadis on the Ahmadis without creating problems of law and order. We should, therefore, know whether considerations of law and order should be given paramount importance or whether we should give priority and precedence to the religious beliefs and the susceptibilities of the majority of our people. All the above points can be settled and the questions answered competently by those who are framing our constitution and whose scope is not limited like that of the Provincial Government.
5. The second plan of the Ahrar is that the Ahmadis should be declared a minority. This is a matter entirely for the Central Government to decide and they should not leave it undecided any longer. If they feel that the demand is just and in accordance with what they have in mind regarding the future destiny of this country, they should concede the demand, forthwith. If on the other hand they consider the demand to be preposterous, they should issue an authoritative statement in unambiguous terms. It is for the Centre to decide whether they should give in to this pressure created by the Ahrar to undo Pakistan, against the creation of which they had done their utmost until the proverbial last minute. Whatever the decision of the Centre, it should he made known to every one as early as possible.
6. The third demand of the Ahrar is again a matter regarding which Centre should tell the public what their view is. If they still repose confidence in the Honourable the Foreign Minister which I am sure they do, what is preventing them from saying so openly to quell the campaign of vilification being carried on against him? The man in the street is now feeling, though quite unjustifiably, that some of the Honourable the Foreign Minister’s colleagues are behind this agitation, otherwise the complacency with which they are ignoring the insults heaped on him cannot be accounted for.
7. If H. C. M. approves of my suggestion for addressing the Central Government, he may kindly send an appropriately worded letter to H. P. M. Honourable the Chief Minister may also like to discuss the entire situation with H. E. the Governor.
8. I am not burdening this note with the action that is being taken to give a fillip to our propaganda so that we shall not lose our case by default and the public will know the real and true facts and the steps that are being taken to implement the policy of this Government to finish the Ahrar-Ahmadi controversy as a source of danger to the law and order of the Province. Honourable Chief Minister is being informed of the up-to-date position, verbally and otherwise but I may mention here that the Ahrar, as a clever move, have convened a convention of the various religious organisations on the 13th of this month to consider the question of khatm-i-nubuwwat. I have also called a conference of the District Magistrates who are mainly concerned with this matter for tomorrow. The recommendations formulated at our conference will be submitted to Honourable Chief Minister immediately. In view of the convention called for the 13th, I would request H. C. M. to consider the desirability of prevailing upon C. S. and I.G.P. to postpone their leave for the present. They may proceed on leave when this agitation has blown over.
9. Chief Secretary may please see before the file goes by special C. I. D. messenger to H. C. M. at Nathiagali.”
The following was the Chief Secretary’s view on this :—
“H. C. M. may please peruse the above note of H. S. from page 1.
2. I cannot say that we need seek support from the Central Government regarding the action which we have taken in order to maintain law and order in our Province. One would normally not ask them to issue any statement to the effect that they fully endorse the action taken by us. But in this case the Ahrar have been giving an impression that their agitation is endorsed by the Central Government or by some Ministers or officials of that Government. The C. I. D.’s report is that this matter is being whispered round in the towns. It is, therefore, desirable that we should report the position to the Central Government, and ask them to consider whether they would issue a statement to the effect that there is no truth in this rumour and that the Central Government fully support the action which the Provincial Government has taken.
3. If H.C.M. decides to write a letter to H.P.M. at a personal level, we are likely to achieve the beet results. But I feel that a, formal approach in respect of what I have mentioned above will also be proper.
4. H.S. has omitted to mention that the Central Government’s policy on this subject has already been explained to us at M/1-C. This policy is that religious controversies should be confined to reasonable limits and should not be allowed to reach a point where the public peace and tranquillity may be endangered. They have laid down that militant or aggressive sectarianism should be suppressed with a heavy hand. This policy has also been reiterated in a letter which was received yesterday and is placed below as P.U.C. In this letter they have noted with satisfaction ‘the action taken recently by the Punjab Government in dealing with sectarian agitation’. In these circumstances I do not agree with H.S. that the Central Government has not indicated its policy to us.
5. The questions : whether the Ahmadis should ever be declared as a minority, and whether the Honourable Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan should be removed from his office of Foreign Minister, do not concern the Provincial Government to give a declaration on the first subject. The decision, I think, rests with the Constituent Assembly. It is clearly inappropriate to suggest to H.P.M. that he should give a pronouncement on the point whether the Honourable Foreign Minister enjoys his confidence. But while we write to the Central Government, we canmention that these two demands are being put up by the Ahrar party as two of their three slogans.
6. The Question : whether the Inspector-General of Police and I should or should not proceed on leave, is for H.C.M. to decide. I have talked to I. G. and also H. S. and the impression I have formed is that there is no harm if I proceed on leave on the 7th for 16 days. The I.G. is proposing to go on leave on the 15th; but he will not do so if the situation deteriorates in any manner. I do not feel that there will be any serious development till I am due to return from leave.”
When the file came to the Chief Minister at Nathiagali, he observed :—
“I am already taking steps to secure the formulation of a consistent and definite policy by the Central Government for all the Provincial administrations on the question of the Ahmadi-Ahrar controversy as well as on the general attitude to be adopted in all agitations and movements likely to inflame and exacerbate sectional feelings. It is probable that a conference at the highest level will be held in Karachi towards the end of this month to consider this problem.
In the meanwhile I feel that there is no necessity to make a formal reference to the Centre on the point suggested by H. S. :—
(a) in view of the Central Government’s very recent communication placed as P.U.C. below, and
(b) particularly in view of the obvious and overriding fact that we need no guidance or consultation to make us realise our primary duty of maintaining law and order in the Province.
Our general policy in respect to the Ahrar and Ahmadis is absolutely clear. As a Provincial Government we are not concerned with any religions difference of opinion, or as to what should be the political status of a particular community, or as to what relation of mutual trust or distrust exists between certain Ministers of the Central Government. Our only concern is to see that the law of the land is not broken, and that the security and safety of all citizens is safeguarded.
We must keep ourselves strictly aloof from all religious and political controversies and their merits in their own context. Our publicity should make this point clear.
Specifically :—
1. We should pursue with a heavy hand all persons who incite to violence.2. Continue our present ban on sectional meetings.3. In view of the sensitivity felt by all sections and opinions of Muslims keep strictly aloof from any sort of interference in mosques. I see the logical difficulties in this position, but too technical and legalistic an attitude will inflame rather than solve the problem. Besides I am inclined to discount the agitational effect of meetings and gatherings exclusively held in mosques.I feel that if the situation remains as uncertain as it is at present, I.G.P. may consider postponing his leave for a few days.
C. S. may go, but he should hold himself in readiness to be recalled from Karachi at the shortest notice.”
The matter rested here when the ulama, gathered in Lahore for the All Muslim Parties Convention to be held on 13th July 1952.
CHAUDHRI ZAFRULLAH KHAN’S SPEECH IN JEHANGIR PARK
A meeting of Anjuman Ahmadiya, Karachi, was advertised to be held. in Jehangir Park, Karachi, on 17th and 18th May 1952, and Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan, foreign Minister, was mentioned as one of the speakers. Though, the meeting was held under the auspices of Anjuman Ahmadiya, it was a public meeting as any member of the public could be present to hear the proceedings. A few days before the meeting, Khwaja Nazim-ud-Din, the Prime Minister, expressed his disapproval of Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan’s intention to attend a sectional public meeting. Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan, however, told Khwaja Nazim-ud-Din that he was committed to the Anjuman but that if he had been advised earlier he would have refrained from attending the meeting. In view of his commitment, he said, he felt it his duty to speak at the meeting and that if the Prime Minister insisted on his not attending it, he could have his resignation.
The first session of the meeting was held under demonstration of public resentment and there were attempts to interfere with the proceedings. On the 18th May, however, special arrangements for preservation of order were made and Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan spoke on ‘Islam as a Live Religion’ (Islam zinda mazhab hai). The speech was a learned discourse on the superiority and finality of Islam as a world religion and the speaker made it clear that the Qur’an was the last revealed book, that it contained the final code for humanity, that this code was not to be abrogated or superseded by any subsequent code, that the prophet of Islam was khatim-un-nabiyin, who had given the last Divine message to humanity and that no prophet would ever appear with any new law or any law in supersession, abrogation, or repeal of the law contained in the Qur’an. The only reference in the speech to the Ahmadiya creed was in connection with the promise of the appearance of persons who would be commissioned by God for tajdid-i-din, namely, for reforming or renovating the original religion, with a view to preserving its purity and originality, and if mistakes, errors or innovations had crept into it, to removing them. Such renovator, he claimed, had appeared in the person of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. Concluding his speech, he said, that Ahmadiyyat was a plant implanted by God Himself, that this plant had taken root to provide a guarantee for the preservation of Islam in fulfilment of the promise contained in the Qur’an, that if this plant were removed, Islam would no longer be a live religion but would be like a dried up tree having no demonstrable superiority over other religions.
The meeting of Anjuman Ahmadiya provided an occasion for riots in Karachi. The authorities had received previous information that attempts would be made to create disorder at the meeting and necessary arrangements for the maintenance of order had already been made. Some persons began throwing stones at the audience in an attempt to disturb the meeting on 17th May. Fifteen police constables received injuries, but the situation was controlled, the rioters arrested and the proceedings continued. On the following day a crowd of men gathered round the meeting and they had to be dispersed by tear gas. A group of rioters went to Shezan Hotel, an Ahmadi concern, where they broke window glasses and attempted to set fire to the building. The show room of Shahnawaz Motors, owned by an Ahmadi, was brickbatted and one new car damaged. Attempt was also made to burn the Ahmadiya library and the shop of an Ahmadi manufacturer of furniture on the Bunder Road. Sixty persons were arrested on that day. After the riots, Mr. A. T. Naqvi, the Chief Commissioner, called a press conference at which he explained that his administrative policy was that every citizen of Pakistan had perfect freedom of religious belief and that any future attempt to interfere with such freedom, would, not be tolerated.
Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan’s action was intensely and widely resented by the Muslim public in Karachi and the Punjab, and there were strong protests against it. The weekly ‘Star’, Karachi, in its issue of 24th May, 1952, published on its front page an article under the heading ‘Foreign hand? Who directed Karachi riots?’ hinting that the riots were the result of the machinations of a foreign power. Some Ahmadi gentlemen of Lahore, including Mr. Bashir Ahmad and. Mr. Siddiqi, brother-in-law of Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad, in their private talks gave expression to the view that the responsibility for the incident lay on the Prime Minister Khwaja Nazim-ud-Din. Mr. Zulqarnain Khan, S. P. (A), mentioned in his report on 28th May 1952 that persons arriving from Karachi, including Abdullah Butt of the U. K. Mission, had given out in Lahore that the disturbances had been manoeuvred by the Americans because Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan was pro-British and anti-American, and that the article in the ‘Star’ had been inspired by Abdullah Butt at the instance of the U. K. Mission. Commenting on these rumours on 1st June 1952, Mr. Anwar Ali, D. I. G., C. I. D., remarked that the Ahrar leader’s had for sometime past been giving out that the agitation against Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan which they were carrying on had the support of some high-ups in the Government and the Muslim League and that the Government’s omission to take firm and determined measures had been giving cause for belief that some members of the Government were sponsoring this chauvinistic movement. Mr. Qurban Ali Khan’s realistic approach to the problem was as under:—
“I do not think any Foreign Power would attach or has any need to attach so much importance to Pakistan as to consider it worth their while to run the risk of being caught meddling with its domestic affairs. Nor do I think any local politician has anything in particular to gain by fostering agitation against Sir Zafrullah Khan in person. They are all experienced enough to know that people capable of doing all this against Sir Zafrullah Khan today would be equally capable of doing something worse against them tomorrow. I do not think any politician, worth the name will inculcate such tactics amongst the masses. What may however be happening is just the fear of becoming unpopular with the Muslim masses by challenging the Ahrar on an issue when the popular support will not be with them. But it is at times like these that the need of a real leader in a country arises to lead the people and not just to be driven at the head of the herd all the time.
The recent order by the Punjab Government to all District Magistrates to exercise stricter control over the Ahrar-Ahmadi meetings may have the desired effect of crushing things down.
If this attempt also fails something more of the type of hitting on the head shall have to be forged and used.”
The Home Secretary hoped that the recent decision of Government which was being communicated to the District Magistrates would improve the situation but hinted that if it did not, something more drastic shall have to be done.
The Central Government took note of the happenings at Karachi, and the Intelligence Bureau by its letter No. 9/B/52 (25), dated the 22nd May 1952, to D. I. G., C. I. D., Punjab, Lahore, drew the attention of the latter to the trend of events which showed that feelings of animosity were being insidiously fanned against the Ahmadis by the Ahrar and that the lathi-charge on the crowd which had tried to create a disturbance at the annual meeting of the Ahmadis on l7th and 18th May had further exacerbated the Ahrar’s feelings. The letter proceeded to say that these developments were by no means satisfactory, that special measures were needed to curb the activities of persons who were fanning the flame and that such activities dearly fell within the purview of section 153-A of the Pakistan Penal Code. In reply the Chief Secretary to the Government of Punjab by his letter dated 4th July 1952, informed the Ministry of the Interior that the Provincial Government had by circular letter No. 6469-84/BDSB, dated 5th June 1952, instructed the District Magistrates to ban all public meetings organised by the Ahrar or the Ahmadis.
ALL PAKISTAN MUSLIM PARTIES CONVENTION IN KARACHI
After the speech of Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan on 18th May in Jehangir Park, Karachi, Maulana Lal Husain Akhtar convened a conference of All Pakistan Muslim Parties in the Theosophical Hall, Karachi. The invitations for this conference were issued over the signatures of Maulana Ehtisham-ul-Haq Thanvi, Maulana Abdul Haamid Badayuni, Maulana Jafar Husain Mujtahid, Maulana Muhammad Yusuf and Maulana Lal Husain Akhtar as decided upon in an alleged representative gathering of important Muslim parties. The conference was held at the house of the convener on 2nd June. The proceedings of that conference have not been produced, but it appears from papers produced by Maulana Ehtisham-ul-Haq that in that conference the following demands were formulated:—
(1) that the Ahmadis be declared a non-Muslim minority;(2) that Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan be removed from the office of Foreign Minister;(3) that Ahmadis be removed from all key posts; and(4) that in order to achieve the aforesaid objects an All Pakistan Muslim Parties Convention be called.
This conference was presided over by Maulana Sayyad Suleman Nadvi, under whose chairmanship a board was also constituted which was to make arrangements for the next meeting of the Convention. The resolutions passed at this conference were approved in a public meeting held in Karachi.
The members of the board were the following:—
(1) Sayyad Suleman Sahib Nadvi, Chairman, Board of Ta’limat-i-Islami;(2) Mufti Muhammad Shafi Sahib, Member, Board of Ta’limat-i-Islami;(3) Maulana Abdul Haamid Sahib Badayuni;(4) Allama Muhammad Yusuf Sahib Calceuttavi;(5) Allama Mufti Sahib Dad Sahib;(6) Allama Sultan Ahmad Sahib;(7) Allama Ahmad Nurani Sahib;(8) Maulana Lal Husain Akhtar Sahib;(9) Al-Haj Hashim Gazdar Sahib;(10) Maulana Jafar Husain Sahib Mujthid, Member, Board of Ta’limat-i-Islami ; and(11) Maulana Ehtisham-ul-Haq, Convener.
In a meeting of the board held at the house of Mr. Muhammad Hashim Gazdar on 13th July, it was decided to issue invitations for the Convention to the following parties:—
(1) Jami’at-ul-Ulama-i-Pakistan,(2) Jami’at-ul-Ulama-i-Islam,(3) Jama’at-i-Islami,(4) Tanzeem-i-Ahl-i-Sunnat-wal-Jama’at,(5) Jami’at-i-Ahl-i-Sunnat,(6) Jaim’at-i-Ahl-i-Hadith,(7) Motamar-i-Ahl-i-Hadith, Punjab,(8) Idara-i-Tahaffuz-i-Haquq-i-Shia, Punjab,(9) Safina-tul-Muslimeen,(10) Hizbollah, East Pakistan,(11) Majlis-i-Tahaffuz-i-Khatm-i-Nubuwwat,(12) Majlis-i-Ahrar,(13) Jami’at-ul-Falah,(14) Jami’at-ul-Arabiyya.
Representatives of the Jama’at-i-Islami to whom invitations were decided to be issued were Maulana Sayyed Abul Ala Maudoodi, Naeem Siddiqi, Chaudhri Ghulam Muhammad and Sultan Ahmad. The dates fixed for the Convention were 16th and l7th August but as will be pointed out later the Convention actually took place on 16th to 18th January 1953.
ALL MUSLIM PARTIES CONVENTION, LAHORE
Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan’s speech in Karachi accelerated the pace of events, and the Ahrar clutched at a long-awaited opportunity which they exploited to the utmost. In the issue of the ‘Zamindar’ of 3rd July, an advertisement appeared that a contention of all religious jama’ats, which would be attended by ulama, khatibs, pirs, sajjada-nashins and leaders and workers of different political parties, would be held in the Barkat Ali Muhammadan Hall on 13th July, to chalk out a preliminary programme of action for the protection of the doctrine of khatm-i-nubuwwat. An invitation for the meeting, Ex. D. E. 138, was issued by Ghulam Ghaus Hazarvi over the signatures of :—
(1) Maulana Ghulam Muhammad Tarannum, Sadr, Jami’at-ul-Ulama-i-Pakistan, Punjab, Lahore ;(2) Maulana Mufti Muhammad Ha-san, Sadr, Jami’at-ul Ulama-i-Islam, Punjab, Lahore ;(3) Maulana Ahmad Ali, Amir Anjuman-i-Khuddam-ud-Din, Lahore ;(4) Maulvi Muhammad Ali Jullundri, Nazim-i-A’la, Majlis-i-Ahrar, Punjab Multan ;(5) Maulana Sayyad Muhammad Daud Ghaznavi, Sadr, Jami’at-i-Ahl-i-Hadith, Punjab, Lahore ;(6) Maulana Sayyad Nur-ul-Hasan Bukhari, Nazim-i-A’la, Tanzeem-i-Ahl-i-Sunnat-wal-Jama’at, Pakistan; Lahore, and(7) Sayyad Muzaffar Ali Shamsi, Editor, Akhbar Shahid and former General Secretary, Idara-i-Tahaffuz-i-Haquq-i-Shia, Pakistan, Lahore.
Though only one of the signatories to this invitation, namely, Maulvi Muhammad Ali Jullundri, described himself as Nazim-i-A’la, Majlis-i-Ahrar, it is clear from the evidence of Maulana Akhtar Ali Khan that the da’ee committee which decided to issue the invitation, had a preponderant majority of the Ahrar, and Ghulam Ghaus Hazarvi who issued the invitation, appears to be the same person who was an active member of the Ahrar party and had been previously warned for his activities by the Governor of the Punjab. Neither the Ahrar nor the Majlis-i-Amal in their written statements have given details of the manner in which the da’ee committee was formed or who decided the names of the invitees to this convention ; but it appears from the pamphlet ‘The Majlis-i-Ahrar, Pakistan’ compiled by Mr. Anwar Ali, D. I. G., C. I. D., on information derived from C. I. D. records, that invitations were issued to some sixty religious divines and that the convention was attended, among others, by Maulana Ehtisham-ul-Haq Thanvi, Maulana Abdul Haamid Badayuni and Sayyad Suleman Nadvi from Karachi.
During the days that the convention was held, there was in force in Lahore an order under section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, prohibiting public meetings but in the decisions taken by the conference of District Magistrates, presided over by the Chief Secretary, on 5th July, it was decided to let the Convention take place and not to interfere with its proceeding. At this Convention the three demands, namely, that the Ahmadis be declared to be a minority, that Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan be removed from tae office of Foreign Minister and that the Ahmadis be removed from key posts in the State, were adopted and a Council of Action (Majlis-i-Amal) was formed of the following to decide upon the future programme of action :—
(1) Maulana Abul Hasanat Muhammad Ahmad of Jamiat-ul-Ulama-i-Pakistan—President ;(2) Maulana Amin Ahsan Islahi of Jama’at-i-Islami—Vice President;(3) Master Taj-ud-Din Ansari of Majlis-i-Ahrar ;(4) Sheikh Husam-ud-Din of Majlis-i-Ahrar ;(5) Maulana Abdul Haleem Qasimi of Jami-‘at-ul Ulama-i-Islam ;(6) Maulana Muhammad Tufail of Jami’at-ul-Ulama-i-Islam ;(7) Maulana Muhammad Bakhsh Muslim of Jami’at-ul-Ulama-i-Pakistan;(8) Maulana Ghulam Muhammad Tarannum of Hizbul Ahnaf ;(9) Maulana Ghulam Din of Hizbul Ahnaf ;(10) Maulana Daud Ghaznavi of Jami’at-i-Ahl-i-Hadith ;(11) Maulana Ata Ullah Haneef of Jami’at-i-Ahl-i-Hadith ;(12) Maulana Nasrullah Khan Aziz of Jama’at-i-Islami ;(13) Hafiz Kifayat Husain of Idara-i-Tahaffuz-i-Haquq-i-Shia ;(14) Muzaffar Ali Shamsi of Idara-i-Tahaffuz-i-Haquq-i-Shia ;(15) Maulvi Noor-ul-Hasan Bukhari of Tanzeem-i-Ahl-i-Sunnat-wal-Jama’at ;(16) Sahibzada Faiz-ul-Hasan of Anjuman Sajjada Nashinan-i-Panjab ;(17) Maulana Abdul Ghafar Hazarvi of Anjuman Sajjada Nashinan-i-Punjab ;(18) Allama Ala-ud-Din Siddiqi,—nominated ;(19) Maulana Akhtar Ali Khan,—nominated ; and(20) Maulana Murtaza Ahmad Khan Maikash—nominated.
The administrative position was considered by the authorities after the date of the Convention was announced but before it was actually held. Mr. Qurban Ali Khan in his note dated l4th July 1952, correctly read the motives of the Ahrar when he said :—
“That Ahrar are assisted by some one is accepted in all quarters. The Ahrar by themselves are not strong enough to have raised this demand but someone from amongst them or those who are behind them are clever enough to have foreseen that none of the so-called religious jama’ats would be foolish enough to lag behind on an issue over which every Musalman has the strongest feeling against the Ahmadis. That every single Muslim will rise on this issue cannot be denied. The cult of violence with which the Ahrar started the agitation and which compelled Government to step in, they know, is not being endorsed by the sensible section of the public. The Ahrar have realised this and I feel that they will not now advocate any step which is likely to pitch them against the law but they will do everything in their power to convert the rest of the jama’ats with them in their two most difficult demands against the Ahmadis. Their foremost endeavour would now be to face the Muslim League and its Government with this problem and to seek a policy from them. That a Government, no matter of which party, cannot possibly accept these recommendations is realised by most of the people. It will nevertheless be the strongest issue since the formation of Pakistan, on which the League will be challenged with the hope that if Government in power should give a verdict rejecting these demands the majority of Musalmans will go against them. There is not the slightest doubt of this happening if in the meantime Government does not devise ways and means to counteract the mischief which will now start in right earnest. What ways and means Government can find or employ it would be possible for them only to examine. No time should be lost. It is now a race and Government must be on its toes and let no grass grow under its feet.”
The Home Secretary thought that the Ahrar had succeeded to a very large extent in exploiting the sentiments of the people to avoid being isolated and thus finished for all times, but he felt that Government had succeeded in curbing them and that that was why they were making desperate efforts for seeking extraneous protection. He suggested that before any decisions were taken the Chief Minister should convene a meeting of I. G. P., D. I. G., C. I. D., and the Home Secretary, the Chief Secretary being away to Karachi on leave. Accordingly the subject was discussed at a meeting held on 16th July 1952 but there is no record of the decisions taken.
After the Convention was over, the speeches made on that occasion were examined with a view to considering whether any action against any speaker should be taken or not. Mr. Wali Ullah Khan, S. P. (B.), C. I. D., Punjab, expressed the opinion on 21st July 1952 that five of the speeches were actionable but he remarked that Bahawal Haq Qasimi and Allama Ala-ud-Din Siddiqi who had committed an offence under section 21 (ii) of the Public Safety Act should not be prosecuted because any such step would furnish an opportunity for further mud slinging in Court. Abdul Ghafar Hazarvi, he thought, was not of any substance and, therefore, his speech was to be treated with the contempt that it deserved. About Maulvi Muhammad Ali Jullundri, who had called the Government be-iman, he said, that the remark made by him was a solitary one and could be ignored. In the case of Abdus Sattar Khan Niazi his opinion was that he could be left out with the hope that he would be pulled up on some subsequent occasion. The D. I. G., C. I. D., sent up the case to the Home Secretary drawing his special attention to the speech of Abdus Sattar Khan Niazi and the Home Secretary forwarded it to the Chief Minister who initialled it on 25th July 1952.
NEWSPAPERS
The important papers in Lahore are the ‘Pakistan Times’ the ‘Civil & Military Gazette’, the ‘Nawa-i-Waqt’, the ‘Imroz’, the ‘Zamindar’, the ‘Ehsan’, the ‘Maghribi Pakistan ‘, the ‘Afaq’, the Jama’at-i-Islami paper the ‘Tasneem’, and the Ahrar paper the ‘Azad’. Of these, the first four did not engage themselves in the Ahmadi and non-Ahmadi controversy and the ‘Tasneem’ wrote about it only rarely. Of the remaining papers, for the first half of 1952 the ‘Maghribi Pakistan’ referred to this subject only thrice and the ‘Afaq’ not more than twice ; but the ‘Azad’ and the ‘Zamindar’ had thrown themselves wholeheartedly into the controversy and were consistently carrying on a campaign against the Ahmadis, their beliefs, their leaders and Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan. The ‘Afaq’ was practically Mr. Daultana’s paper, while the ‘Zamindar’, the ‘Ehsan’, and the ‘Maghribi Pakistan ‘ were all Government-patronised papers. The history and details of this patronage are in themselves an interesting subject to which we may refer here.
The Provincial Government, in consequence of the recommendations made by the Pakistan Advisory Board of Education in 1947, introduced an adult education system with the object of reducing illiteracy in the Province. The objects of this fund were :
(1) establishment of libraries in villages,(2) use of radios and films,(3) provision of suitable type of literature, and(4) literary centres run by whole-time and part-time teachers and social workers.
The system was in the charge of the Education Department and a sum of Rs. 2,25,000 in 1949-50, Rs. 10,00,000 in 1950-51, Rs. 6,00,000 in 1951-52 and a similar sum in 1952-53 was allocated to it.
On 18th May, 1951, Mir Nur Ahmad, the Director of Public Relations, submitted to the Chief Secretary a proposal for purchasing copies of suitable newspapers for institutions such as hospitals, jails, schools and colleges, and asked for the sanction of Rs. 50,000 expenditure for this purpose. In making the proposal he said :
“It will not be incorrect in case H. C. M. and H. M. E. agree, to sanction expenditure on this scheme against the grant for education because, apart from publicity, an important object of the scheme is to provide reading material as a help in the adult education campaign in the Punjab Jails, Education Departments, Adult Education Centres, etc. If the idea of debiting the expenditure to this head is approved, the amount will have to be placed at my disposal.”
He also added, but without giving any reasons, that further details of the scheme were to remain confidential. The proposal was supported by the Chief Secretary and forwarded to the Chief Minister for orders in consultation with the Education Minister but it was strongly opposed by the Education Department on the ground that newspapers could only be useful for the literate and not for those who had to be made literate. The officer noting on the case in the Education Department further thought that the proposed expenditure could not be rightly debited to the Adult Education Scheme. Despite this protest by the Education Department, however, the two Ministers decided on 26th May 1951 to sanction the amount and to place it at the disposal of the Director of Public Relations. From time to time the Director of Public Relations asked for, and received, from the Education Department further sums for 1951-52 and 1952-53, the total amount thus received being Rs. 2,03,000.
This money was spent in the following manner:
I. Rs. 50,000 received in June 1951—
|
Rs.
|
||
|
To ‘Afaq’
|
… … … …
|
42,000
|
|
To ‘Zamindar’
|
… … … …
|
4,000
|
|
To ‘Zamindar’ again
|
… … … …
|
4,000
|
|
Total
|
50,000
|
II. Rs. 50,000 received in December 1951—
|
Rs.
|
||
|
To ‘Ehsan’
|
… … … …
|
18,000
|
|
To ‘Afaq’
|
… … … …
|
18,000
|
|
To ‘Zamindar’
|
… … … …
|
5,000
|
|
To ‘Maghribi Pakistan’
|
… … … …
|
7,000
|
|
Total
|
48,000
|
|
|
Balance
|
2,000
|
III. Rs. 1,00,000 received in June 1952—
|
Rs.
|
||
|
To ‘Zamindar’
|
… … … …
|
10,000
|
|
To ‘Afaq’
|
… … … …
|
40,000
|
|
To ‘Ehsan’
|
… … … …
|
40,000
|
|
To ‘Maghribi Pakistan’
|
… … … …
|
4,000
|
|
To ‘Zamindar’
|
… … … …
|
7,000
|
|
To ‘Maghribi Pakistan’
|
… … … …
|
1,000
|
|
Total
|
1,02,000
|
IV. Rs. 3,000 received m December 1952—
|
Rs.
|
||
|
To ‘Maghribi Pakistan’
|
… … … …
|
3,000
|
It will thus appear that an aggregate amount of Rs. 1,00,000 was presented to the ‘Afaq’, of Rs. 58,000 to the ‘Ehsan’, of Rs. 15,000 to the ‘Maghribi Pakistan’ and of Rs. 30,000 to the ‘Zamindar’. The payments to these papers, two of which had a small circulation, was no less than a wind-fall, and out of sheer gratitude they could have had no scruples in adapting their policy if the Government so wished. The cuttings from these newspapers, however, show that they were all actively engaged in this controversy and went on fanning the agitation even during the days that they were receiving the payments. This activity of theirs was noticed by the Education Department, and Mr. Sana Ullah Khan, Officer on Special Duty in the Department of Public Instruction, had to note that these newspapers were doing more harm than good and that it was sheer waste of Government money to spend it on newspapers which were indulging in sectarian and political controversies. The case of the ‘Afaq’ is specially noticeable because Mir Nur Ahmad’s control of this paper having been. proved by documentary evidence, it was virtually his paper, and if the evidence of Professor Muhammad Sarwar, the editor of the paper, is to be believed, also Mr. Daultana’s paper. The initial payment to this paper was of Rs. 42,000 when it was about to convert or had just converted itself into a daily. Mir Nur Ahmad’s son, Mir Iqbal Ahmad, was the Advertising Manager of the paper and he continued on its staff in various capacities throughout and is now its Managing Director. A sum of Rs. 5,000 was presented to this paper by Mr. Daultana himself which had been collected by him from certain Muslim Leaguers in Lyallpur, and this amount eventually became the consideration for which later Mir Iqbal Ahmad purchased some shares in the newspaper. These substantial monetary presents to these papers, out of all proportion to their importance, became a scandal in the journalistic world in the hot weather of 1952 because, being the recipients of Government patronage, they earnestly engaged themselves in this unbecoming controversy and people began to suspect that Government itself was encouraging these newspapers to devote their energies towards promoting sectarian hatred. Though in its issue of 1st June 1952 the ‘Afaq’ had declared itself unequivocally against all sectarianism, in its issue for 4th July 1952, that is to say, just after the receipt of the first instalment of patronage, it announced that it would devote special attention to the Qadiani question and. start writing special articles to show that Qadianis were a danger to the solidarity of Pakistan. Accordingly the first article on the subject was written on 5th July 1952, and a slip attached to a copy of this issue shows that free copies of it were distributed to Friday congregations in mosques. An attempt was made in this article to show that the differences between the Qadianis and the Muslims were fundamental, that the Qadianis were not a sect of Islam, that with them belief in the nubuwwat of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was an essential part of the dogma and a belief to the contrary kufr, that they were an entirely separate community, having their own Government, their own courts, and their own police and magistrates and that their aim was to acquire control of all departments of Government. Having attempted to establish the Qadianis as a separate community, the article suggested that all Muslim parties should rally round this issue and chalk out a programme of action to have that community declared a non-Muslim minority. Special stress was laid in this article on the advice that in attempting to achieve the objective recourse should not be had to force, rowdyism, riots, assaults, abuses, blackening of faces or breaking up of assemblies because such acts would be detrimental to the cause and that all activities in this respect should be kept within constitutional limits.
In the month of July alone there were fourteen articles on this subject in the subsequent issues of the ‘Afaq’. The trend of all these articles was that the Qadianis, for the reasons given therein, were a separate community and that a campaign should be organised to have them declared a minority but that all activities in prosecution of this campaign must be carried on in a constitutional manner and without resort to force or breaches of the law.
The article of 5th July was followed by an article in its next issue under the heading ‘Section 144 and Khatm-i-Nubuwwat’ in which the Ahrar were advised to abstain from making violent speeches which were calculated to lead to breaches of the peace and from committing acts of lawlessness. In the issue of the same date, there were two more articles one of which contained reports of speeches made in different places demanding the declaration ot Ahmadis as a minority and the removal of Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan, and the other held out an assurance to the Ahrar that if they refrained from indulging in lawlessness and avoided causing provocation, there was no reason why the unfortunate estrangement that had come to exist between the Musalmans and the Government in this respect, should continue for a moment. The article also reproduced some provocative addresses of Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad.
In the article of 9th July under the heading ‘Stop Lawlessness’ people were advised to make the issue a common issue for all the Musalmans and not to disobey orders passed under section 144 or to commit other breaches of the law. In the same issue there appeared another article in which Allama Iqbal’a views on the 17-year-old Ahmadiya movement were reproduced.
The issue of the 10th July published a statement by Maulana Ahmad Ali welcoming the Government’s clarification of the reasons for the promulgation of orders under section 144 and of their application to public meetings in the mosques and suggesting that the demand relating to the declaration of Qadianis as a minority had nothing to do with the Punjab Government and that the demand should be pressed in a constitutional manner without resorting to breaches of the law. Another statement published in the same issue was by Maulana Abul Hasanat who welcomed the communique of the Punjab Government and declared that he would not permit any party to achieve its political objective by exploiting religion and that those who advocated breaches of the law would not have his co-operation. The Maulana condemned disorders, lawlessness and provocative speeches and stated that the demand relating to the declaration of the Qadianis as a minority could be Successfully pressed in a peaceful and constitutional manner. This issue also published a letter appreciating the newspaper’s services to the cause of khatm-i-nubuwwat and reiterating the view that the agitation should be carried on in a constitutional manner and not by breaking the law. The issue of 11th July published the views of Maulana Ghulam Murshid that the declaration of the Qadianis was a matter for the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan. The issue of 13th July contained reports of speeches delivered in forty mosques of Lahore on Friday demanding the declaration of Qadianis as a minority.
By this time the ulama who were to participate in the conference that was to be held on 13th July had arrived in Lahore and the ‘Afaq’ in its issue of 14th July referred to the view expressed by some of them that the conference was likely to resolve that the demands in respect of the Ahmadis were to be pressed in a constitutional manner.
The issue of 15th July published two significant articles in one of which it reported the proceedings of the All Muslim Parties Convention and pointed out that the Ahrar had dominated throughout the proceedings of the Convention, and that some of the fifteen resolutions which were passed by the Convention were calculated to serve the political interests of the Ahrar. The other article contained critical comments on some of the resolutions. It pointed out that the movement was likely to suffer by the folly and selfishness of some of its directors and that it appeared that some frustrated politicians and quondam opponents of Pakistan were trying to serve their own interests and behind the sacred cloaks of the religious divines were seeking to regain their lost political influence. It went on to remark that the exploitation of tahaffuz-i-khatm-i-nubuwwat movement for one’s personal or political ends was a crime and political hypocrisy and in this connection it referred to public statements of some of the ulama that they would not permit religion to be exploited for political ends. It supported the demands but pointed out that some of the resolutions were calculated to bring into importance a discredited political party and to produce disorder. Referring to the resolution condemning the orders promulgated under section 144 as an interference with religion and to that relating to the withdrawal of cases against the Ahrar leaders who were being prosecuted for defiance of such orders, it asserted that these resolutions were bound to bring the Ahrar into popularity. Another resolution disapproved was that condemning the lathi-charge in Gujrat, The resolution next severely commented upon was the yaum-i-mutaliba resolution according to which 18th July was to be observed as a ‘Day of Demands’. The article pointed out that there was no occasion for yaum-i-mutaliba because the demands were within the competency of the Constituent Assembly and that the method proposed had in it the possibility of a conflict between the Government and the sponsors of the movement.
The ‘Maghribi Pakistan’ in its issue of 10th July 1952 published an article ‘Khatm-i-Nubuwwat and the Mirzai Movement’ by Mubassir who attempted to prove that the Qadianis were kafirs who should be socially boycotted.
The ‘Azad’, which is an Ahrar paper edited by Master Taj-ud-Din Ansari, had since its very inception been consistently carrying on in its columns a vulgar, scurrilous and venomous campaign against the Ahmadis and their beliefs and leaders. Since the Punjab Government did nothing to restrain or discourage this paper in its activities, the Central Government by its letter No. 44/1/51-Poll-1, dated 24th May 1952, drew the attention of the Provincial Government to certain articles published in this paper, which were enclosed with that letter, and inquired whether the Provincial Government was contemplating to take any action against it. The Director of Public Relations ordered an examination of these and previous articles in the paper. The officer who scrutinised these articles reported that there were in them passages which were mischievous and amounted to a vilification of the Ahmadis. In his note dated the 22nd August 1952, the Director of Public Relations remarked that the propaganda in which this paper had been indulging against the Ahmadis amounted to a hymn of hatred and was actionable under section 4 (1) (d) of the Press (Emergency Powers) Act. He, however, recommended no action and suggested that the method of persuasion and warning should be further tried. The Home Secretary thought that this method had had no effect and that something more effective had to be thought of, but what this effective method was to be was not suggested, and though the case was seen by the Chief Minister on 28th August, no step against the paper was taken, and the letter from the Provincial Government, D. O. No. 788-PR-52, dated the 30th August 1952, to the Central Government merely informed the latter that a severe warning had been administered to the newspaper.
The ‘Mazdoor’ is an Urdu newspaper published from Multan under the editorship of Sayyad Abuzar Bukhari, the son of the prominent Ahrar leader Sayyad Ata Ullah Shah Bukhari. The main topic to which this paper devoted its attention was the anti-Ahmadiya movement, and in its issue of 13th June 1952 it published an article in the course of which it gave such a vulgar description in Arabic script of the head of the Ahmadiya community that decency does not permit us to explain it. If these words had been uttered in the presence of a member of the Ahmadiya community, we should not at all have been surprised if the result had been a broken skull. The words used reveal a shockingly depraved taste and constitute a most disrespectful ridicule of the language of the Qur’an and the language of the Holy Prophet. This article was examined by the Director of Public Relations and only a warning was decided to be given. Three days later, this paper in its issue of 16th June 1952 wrote another article abusing the Central Government, and though the paper was required to give a security of Rs. 3,000, the Chief Minister cancelled the order at the request of a deputation which waited on him.
THE DEPARTMENT OF ISLAMIAT
The decision to create a department of Islamiat was taken on 14th May 1951 at a meeting attended by the Chief Minister, the Chief Secretary, the Finance Secretary and the Director of Public Relations. A board of six ulama was set up and the Chief Secretary was appointed the head of the department. The Director of Public Relations became the controlling and disbursing officer while Maulvi Ibrahim Ali Chishti was appointed as Deputy Secretary on a salary of Rs. 650 per month. The amounts actually spent by the department were Rs. 49,815 in 1951-52 and Rs. 1,05,435 in 1952-53. Seventy-two persons were paid honoraria for writing articles in different periodicals and newspapers from September 1951 to February 1953. Out of these persons, Manlaua Abul Hasanat Muhammad Ahmad and Maulana Muhammad Bakhsh Muslim took a prominent part in the ariti-Ahmadiya agitation, the former being the President and the latter a member of the Punjab Majlis-i-Amal. The department employed eighteen persons as lecturers to deliver speeches in theology in schools, colleges and jails. Of these, the following eleven took a very active part in the movement:—
(1) Maulana Muhammad Bakhsh Muslim,(2) Maulvi Ghulam Din,(3) Maulana Abul Hasanat Muhammad Ahmad Qadri,(4) Sahibzada Faiz-ul-Hasan,(5) Allama Ala-ud-Din Siddiqi,(6) Maulana Ghulam Muhammad Tarannum,(7) Qazi Murid Ahmad,(8) Hafiz Kifayat Husain,(9) Professor Abdul Hamid,(10) Manlana Salim Ullah, and(11) Mufti Muhammad Hasan.
Seven of these gentlemen were arrested for their activities in connection with-the agitation. With the exception of Qazi Murid Ahmad, Professor Abdul Hamid and Mufti Muhammad Hasan., they were all members of the Majlis-i-Amal which directed the agitation. Qazi Murid Ahmad was the President of the District Council of Action, Sargodha, and Hafiz Kifayat Husain of the District Council of Action, Sargodha, and Hafiz Kifayat Husain of the District Council of Action, Lahore. Of the Board of Members, the following —
(1) Maulana Abul Hasanat Muhammad Ahmad Qadri,(2) Maulana Ghulam Muhammad Tarannum,(3) Maulana Muhammad Bakhsh Muslim and(4) Mufti Muhammad Hasan,
took an, important, part in the movement and the first two were arrested for their activities.
|
PART II
FROM THE LAHORE CONVENTION TO
ARREST OF ULAMA IN KARACHI AND PUNJAB (14TH JULY 1952 TO 27TH FEBRUARY 1963) |
SECTION 144 ORDERS RECALLED
The Sargodha cases for contravention of orders under section 144 were prosecuted vigorously and as we have already pointed out one of them resulted in conviction. The case pending at Gujranwala and the other which was pending at Sargodha were subsequently withdrawn and the persons who had been, convicted in the Sargodha case were ordered to be released.
There are two notes by the Home Secretary, one dated 17th July 1952, on page 7 of file No. 16(2)99, Volume I, and the other, dated 18th July 1952, on page 46 of file No. 16(2)93, Volume I, which show that the decision to withdraw the Gujranwala case must have been under the orders of the Chief Minister. The former note reads :
“As decided at the meeting held on the 15th July 1952, I sent the attached signal to D. M., Gujranwala, who saw me yesterday. I told him that in view of the fact that the two ringleaders of the Ahrar, namely, Master Taj-ud-Din and Sheikh Husam-ud-Din, had been convicted in the Sargodha case, Government have decided to withdraw the Gujranwala case. The case must have been withdrawn by him either yesterday on return to Gujranwala or today.”
The other note reads :
“The Gujranwala case was withdrawn yesterday. I sent for the Deputy Commissioner on the 15th immediately after our meeting with H. C. M. and communicated to him the decision of Government when he came to see me on the 16th.”
Though Mr. Daultana does not admit that the decision to withdraw the case was his, it seems to be perfectly clear from the two notes mentioned above that the decision to withdraw was taken at a meeting of officers in which he was present, and the despatch with which the decision to withdraw was communicated to the District Magistrate, coupled with the fact that a decision of such importance could not have been taken by any officer on his own responsibility, clearly shows that the decision to withdraw the case was, in fact, that of the Chief Minister himself. The file shows that on 15th July 1952 the Home Secretary suddenly sent a wireless message to the District Magistrate, Gujranwala, asking him to see the Home Secretary on the following day and that the Deputy Commissioner came and saw the Home Secretary on 16th July when he was communicated the decision of the Government to withdraw the case. The only inference from all this is that the case was withdrawn under the orders of the Chief Minister.
We have mentioned that Maulana Akhtar Ali Khan and Maulvi Ghulam Ghaus Sarhaddi, the new President of Majlis-i-Ahrar, had come to Mr. Anwar Ali on 5th July 1952 and attempted to assure him that if the persons who had been arrested for defying orders under section 144 were released and the orders under section 144 withdrawn, the Ahrar as a party would make a public statement declaring that no speeches would be made by them which were liable to disturb the peace and tranquillity of the Province. The offer was subsequently repeated to the Chief Minister who directed Mir Nur Ahmad, D. P. R., to contact the Ahrar leaders to ascertain from them their wishes. Mir Nur Ahmad informed the Chief Minister that the Ahrar leaders were anxious to avoid a conflict with the Government and to carry on their agitation in a constitutional manner. Accordingly some of the Ahrar leaders met the Chief Minister on 19th July and agreed to issue a public statement giving an assurance not to resort to lawlessness or violence or to commit any breach of the law. On his part the Chief Minister agreed that if such a statement were issued, he would sympathetically consider the question of lifting restrictions on their meetings under section 144 and releasing their leaders who had bean convicted. In accordance with these arrangements, a statement on behalf of Amir-i-Shari’at Sayyad Ata Ullah Shah Bukhari, Maulvi Muhammad Ali Jullundri, Nazim-i-A’la, Majlis-i-Ahrar, Sahibzada Faiz-ul-Hasan, member, Working Committee, Majlis-i-Ahrar, and Maulana Muhammad Hussain Ghazi, Salar-i-A’la, Juyush-i-Ahrar-i-Islam, was published in the ‘Afaq’ of 21st July 1952. This statement was to the effect that in their struggle to have the Ahmadis declared a non-Muslim minority and to have Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan removed from the office of Foreign Minister, the Ahrar had in the past done nothing illegal, that they did not intend to do anything in future which might give grounds for an apprehension of violence, disorder or breach of law, that they considered the Punjab Government as their own Government, that the responsibility with which that Government, had been entrusted to maintain law and order was the Ahrar’s own responsibility to discharge which they would fully co-operate with the Government, and that it was not only the civic but religious obligation of the Ahrar to defend the life, property, honour and freedom of all citizens of Pakistan irrespective of their religious beliefs. On publication of this statement, the Chief Minister issued the following statement in the ‘Civil & Military Gazette’ of 22nd July 1952 :
“I welcome the latest declaration of policy by leaders of the Majlis-i-Ahrar, Punjab and their assurance that they would give my Government full co-operation in the maintenance of law and order.
As they have rightly emphasised it is not only the national but also a religious duty of the Muslim majority in Pakistan to guarantee full protection for the life, property, honour and civil rights of every citizen of this country irrespective of his or her creed or caste.
For sometime past there have been restrictions in various districts of the Punjab on the holding of public meetings or demonstrations by Ahrar workers. The sole object of the orders imposing these restrictions was preservation of public peace and order in the Province. In view of the declaration made by Ahrar leaders it does not seem necessary to continue the restrictions as far as members of their organisation are concerned. Instructions are, therefore, being issued to the district officers concerned to withdraw or suitably modify their orders under section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code.”
Simultaneously a telegraphic message went from the Home Secretary to all District Magistrates informing them on 21st July 1952 that in view of the assurances given, by the Majlis-i-Ahrar-i-Pakistan to the Chief Minister and his acceptance of the assurances, orders under section 144, Criminal Procedure Code, prohibiting public meetings were to be withdrawn. And on 26th July the Home Secretary sent a wireless message to the District Magistrate and the Superintendent Jail, Mianwali, informing them that Government had remitted the unexpired sentence of Master Taj-ud-Din Ansari and that he should be released forthwith. On the same day a similar message was sent to the District Magistrate and. the Superintendent Jail, Jhang, directing the release of Sheikh Husam-ud-Din.
Just as the decisions taken in the conference of 5th July were a confession of helplessness to face and solve the issue whether Muslims were entitled publicly to speak in mosques on khatm-i-nubuwwat, the decision to withdraw orders under section 144 and pending cases arising from contraventions thereof and to release persons who had been found guilty of contravening those orders, had the effect of nullifying earlier decisions that the Ahrar had to be isolated and that eases against them which had been declared to be cognizable and non-bailable were to be vigorously pursued. The decisions of 5th July had restricted the District Magistrates’ powers to make arrests in or disperse meetings inside or outside the mosques and the decision of 2lst July amounted to an official recognition of the position that, provided the Ahrar did not assault the Ahmadis or rob their property or otherwise violate their honour, they were at full liberty to do whatever they liked to popularise the demands and to speak in whatever strain they liked against Ahmadis, their leaders and their beliefs. Hereafter there was no question of suppressing the spate of hatred that had been let loose against them or of doing anything to stop the gathering storm.
There is some difference in the evidence as to the date on which the undertaking by the Ahrar, which was published in the newspapers of 21st July, was given. According to Mr. Daultana, a deputation of the Ahrar led by Maulvi Muhammad Ali Jullundri met him in his office, probably on 18th July, in the presence of some officers. But from a question put by Mr. Yaqub Ali to Mir Nur Ahmad, it appears that the deputation waited on the Chief Minister on 19th July. An understanding between the Government and the members of the deputation having been arrived at, the question was taken up of drafting an appropriate statement. According to Mir Nur Ahmad and Mr. Ibrahim Ali Chishti, the draft of the terms in which the undertaking was to be published was considered in a meeting of the Ahrar leaders and themselves and was later published in the newspapers. Maulana Muhammad Bakhsh Muslim states that present in that conference were Maulana Abul Hasanat, Sayyad Ata Ullah Shah Bukhari, Sahibzada Faiz-ul-Hasan, Maulana Ghulam Muhammad Tarannum and Maulana Muhammad Bakhsh Muslim himself, and that the date of this conference was after the Multan firing, namely, on or after the 19th July. The conference was held at the premises of a workshop in Badami Bagh. As there is no record either of the leaders’ interview with the Chief Minister or of the subsequent conference and Mr. Daultana himself is not definite about, the date, we are inclined to accept the statement of Maulana Muhammad Bakhsh Muslim that this conference of the leaders with Mir Nur Ahmad and Maulvi Ibrahim Ali Chishti took place after the Multan firing and this is not only more likely but confirmed by a letter of the Punjab Government sent in reply to an inquiry by the Prime Minister about the incident. That being so, the announcement of the settlement with the Ahrar, coming as it did after the Kup incident, amounted to a public declaration that the Government was anxious to come to an understanding with the Ahrar at any cost.
THE KUP INCIDENT
At this stage it is necessary to give a brief account of the Kup incident itself. Contrary to the general belief that had come to be held by district officers that processions and public meetings, though banned by orders under section 144, were not to be dispersed, a Sub-Inspector of Police attached to Police Station Kup in Multan had seen the absurdity of such orders being made and constantly disobeyed. Accordingly, on 18th July this officer took it into his head to disperse a public meeting or procession in Multan by the use of force. This was taken as an affront by an impertinent officer and an insult to the honour of the Holy Prophet. Accordingly, on the following day an infuriated mob of about 5,000 gathered round the Kup Police Station and demanded the transfer of the impudent Sub-Inspector. The higher officers present attempted to pacify the crowd but without any result. The railing of the Police Station gave way to the weight of the crowd leaning against it and the mob entered the precincts of the Police Station itself. A squad of fifteen foot constables came out to lathi-charge the trespassing crowd but they were met with, a shower of brickbats and had to recede. Then somebody attempted to set fire to the building and the police opened fire, killing three and injuring thirteen of whom three died in the hospital.
Protest meetings against the Multan firing and expressing sympathy with the killed and the wounded were held in several places and eventually an inquiry into the incident was held by a Judge of the High Court who found that the firing was justified. Though the persons who were killed or wounded were members of an unlawful assembly and thus offenders under the law of the land, they were publicly described in several meetings as martyrs, and the Ahrar advertised a meeting at Multan for 29th August 1952 to celebrate their chehlum. The D. I. G., C. I. D., suggested that the meeting be banned but the Chief Minister disapproved of the proposal and agreed merely to the administration of a warning to the Ahrar. The proposal that after the administration of the warning a press note should be issued by Government, was also disapproved by him. Again when the Home Secretary inquired whether a general warning should be administered to the Ahrar leaders, the Chief Minister replied that Government need not bother about a general warning at that stage.
MUSLIM LEAGUE
By now the demands began publicly to be supported by Muslim Leaguers and several poster and handbills signed by members and office bearers of the League appeared in the districts of Lahore, Lyallpur, Jhang and Sheikhupura. Muslim Leaguers also began to preside over khatm-i-nubuwwat meetings organised by the Ahrar.
It also came to the notice of the President of the Punjab Provincial Muslim League that members of the League were presiding at the meetings of other political parties. He, therefore, thought it necessary to define the policy of the League and on 1st April, 1952, issued the following press statement :—
“It has come to my notice that at some places in the Province prominent members of the Muslim League organisation including, in some cases, even the Presidents of the District Muslim, Leagues have presided over Ahrar conferences. It must be made clear that to preside over the conferences of another organisation is a breach of discipline of the Muslim League. I am, therefore, to direct that no member of the Muslim League organisation shall in future preside over meetings which are sponsored or conducted by organisations other than the Muslim League. This of course does not include participation in functions which are of a purely social or non-political nature; but the definition of ‘political’ may be interpreted very strictly and not loosely. It is absolutely necessary that members of the Muslim League do not take part in any activity which is likely to create hostility or ill-feeling between the citizens of Pakistan or to revile and condemn particular sections or groups of the citizens of Pakistan”.
and on the basis of this statement a circular letter, dated 3rd April, 1952, was sent to all District and City Muslim Leagues, wherein the members of the Muslim League were prohibited from presiding over non-Muslim League meetings, excluding social and non-political meetings, and it was emphasised that members of the Muslim League should not take any part in activities which might create estrangement or enmity between different classes of Pakistan citizens or which were directed against any particular class or section of Pakistan subjects.
Despite this direction, however, Muslim League branches in districts and towns began to ally themselves with the movement that was rapidly spreading. It has already been pointed out that some persons were being prosecuted in Sargodha and Gujranwala for contravening orders under section 144 for taking part in public meetings in mosques organised by the Ahrar. On 17th July, 1952, the City Muslim League, Gujranwala, held a meeting and passed the following resolutions :—
1. That the doctrine of khatm-i-nubuwwat is a fundamental doctrine with Muslims.2. That the City Muslim League strongly disapprove the application of orders under section 144 to mosques and regards such orders not only unnecessary but a direct interference with the religious observances of the people and strongly demands of the Government to withdraw such orders.3. That the City Muslim League demands of the Government that all cases arising out of the contravention of section 144 orders be withdrawn and the persons arrested for such contravention released.4. That the City Muslim League should give legal assistance to those who have been arrested for gathering in mosques in contravention of orders under section 144.
Three days later, i.e., on 20th July, 1952, the City Muslim League, Sargodha, also passed the following resolutions :—
(1) that the City Muslim League unanimously supports the demands for the declaration of Ahmadis as a non-Muslim minority ;(2) that the City Muslim League requests the Provincial Muslim League and the All-Pakistan Muslim League to take the issue of the declaration of Ahmadis as a non-Muslim minority in their own hands in order to save the nation from further disintegration ; and(3) that in view of the importance, unanimity and the delicate nature of the demands and public feeling in the country, the Central and the Provincial Leagues should take some practical steps in the matter.
The City Muslim League, Kamoke, also passed a resolution to the effect that since the ulama, of the Punjab had unanimously declared the Ahmadis to be outside the pale of Islam, the Ahmadis had become ineligible for being members of the Muslim League, that members of the Muslim League who were Ahmadis should be rusticated from the League and that no Ahmadi should in future be eligible for membership of the League.
In a public statement published in the ‘Afaq’ of 18th July Mr. Daultana. the President of the Punjab Muslim League appealed to the members of the League to help the League in the solution of the religious and political problems which had arisen over the issue of khatm-i-nubuwwat. He advised them to remain calm and patient in order to enable the Working Committee and the Council of the Provincial League to deal with questions on which these two organisations alone could give a correct lead to the people in the forthcoming meeting of the Provincial League which was to be held on 26th and 27th July.
At a meeting of the Working Committee of the Punjab Provincial Muslim League held on 28th June, 1952, it was decided to hold the next session of the League at Lahore on 26th and 27th July, 1952. A provisional agenda was fixed for the purpose on 1st July 1952, but it did not include the issue of khatm-i-nubuwwat. The agenda was issued to all Councillors who were requested to submit by 15th July such resolutions as they wished to be moved. Accordingly the following resolutions were received by the Joint Secretary of the League :—
1. Resolution, dated 14th July, 1952, moved by Qazi Murid Ahmad, M.L.A., Councillor, Punjab Muslim League, and seconded by Sahibzada Mahmud Shah of Gujrat, Councillor, Punjab Muslim League:
That this meeting of the Punjab Muslim League Council demands of the Government of Pakistan that Mirzais be declared a separate non-Muslim minority and directs the Muslim League Assembly Party that at an early date it should have a resolution passed in the Punjab Legislative Assembly calling upon the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan to declare the Mirzais a separate non-Muslim minority.
2. Resolution, dated 14th July, 1952, moved by Sahibzada Sayyad Mahmud Shah of Gujrat, Councillor, Punjab Muslim. League, and seconded by Qazi Murid Ahmad, Councillor, Punjab Muslim League:
That this meeting of the Punjab Provincial Muslim League suspects Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan’s loyalty to the State and believes that Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan has exploited the office of Foreign Minister to propagate the doctrine of Mirzaeeat and in filling up public posts with Mirzais, that the failure to have the Kashmir issue solved is due not only to Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan’s inability but also to his and his Jama’at’s traditional loyalty to Great Britain and that the interests of Pakistan, Islamic countries and Kashmir demand that Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan be removed from his office as early as possible.
3. Resolution, dated 15th July, 1952, moved by Muhammad Islam-ud-Din, M.L.A., Vehari, District Multan :
That the Mirzais who do not believe in the finality of the Holy Prophet of Islam and on the contrary consider that those who believe in such finality are Kafirs be declared to be a non-Muslim minority and that this demand flows from religious, democratic and constitutional principles.
That the Punjab Provincial Muslim League should impress upon the Central Government the importance of the doctrine of khatm-i-nubuwwat and require that Government to declare persons having a different belief as a minority.
4. Resolution, dated 12th June, 1952, moved by Maulana Sayyad Ahmad Saeed Kazmi, member, Provincial Muslim League Council, Multan, and seconded by Khwaja Abdul Hakim Siddiqi, President, City Muslim League, Multan, and further supported by Sufi Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Ludhianvi, Honorary Office Secretary, District Muslim League, Multan, Councillor, Provincial Muslim League :
That since the Qadianis are unanimously considered to be outside the pale of Islam, they should be declared to be a non-Muslim minority and that such declaration should not be delayed by Government.
That since Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan, who is a Qadiani, is not a representative of the Musalmans, the Punjab Provincial Muslim League Council should demand from the Government of Pakistan that he should be removed from the office and some reliable Musalman appointed in his place.
5. Resolution, dated 14th July, 1952, moved by Muhammad Ibrahim Qureshi, General Secretary, City Muslim League, Jhang, Councillor, Punjab Muslim League :
That the Council should declare that on the strength of their own showings and writings the Ahmadis should be declared by the Council to be a separate non-Muslim minority but that they should be treated as generously as possible.
That the Council should take adequate steps to preserve the doctrine of the finality of nubuwwat of the Holy Prophet of Islam and should not in future appoint any members of the Jama’ at-i-Ahmadiya to any key post.
That the Muslim League should take the question of preservation of the doctrine of khatm-i-nubuwwat in its own hands so that no zilli or buruzishould in future dare propound any doctrine to the contrary and thus endanger the integrity of the State.
The next meeting of the Working Committee was held on 25th July under the chairmanship of Mr. Daultana, President of the Punjab Provincial Muslim League. At this meeting it was announced by the Chairman that the resolutions which had been received by 15th July 1952 had been examined by him and other office bearers and that they had come to the conclusion that only eight resolutions were to be moved in the Council. This was approved by the committee and in the list of approved resolutions there was at No. 3 a resolution called khatm-i-nubuwwat to be moved by Sayyad Mustafa Shah Khalid Gilani.
The second session of the Council began at 8 a.m. on 27th July, and in it the following resolution was passed by a majority of 284 to 8 :—
“The Council of the Punjab Muslim League is fully conscious of the truth that khatm-i-nubuwwat is one of those fundamental articles of the Islamic faith which have knit together Muslims of the world into a spiritual brotherhood and provided a strong basis for the unity and solidarity of the Muslim nation in Pakistan. This truth carries with it the obvious and natural implication that non-subscribers to the doctrine of khatm-i-nubuwwat have a fundamental difference with what Islam stands for in the domain of religious belief.
On the basis of this position, about which there is or can be no dispute, a proposal, which pertains to the domain of political action and constitutional legislation, has been put forward, namely, that the Ahmadis who have a fundamental difference of attitude on a question of faith, should be classed as a non-Muslim minority in the Constitution of Pakistan. In the opinion of the Council the proposal reflects to a certain extent the reaction of Muslims to the strong separatist tendencies which the Ahmadis have themselves at times shown not only in religious matters, but also in the sphere of civic and social life.
The proposal, however, involves grave and important issues of a constitutional and legal nature which will affect the privileges and obligations of citizens of Pakistan and will determine the nature of the constitutional set-up which is to be proposed for Pakistan. Such matters naturally require deep and careful consideration in a spirit of calm unprejudiced deliberation unaffected by emotionalism or agitation. The Council of the Punjab Muslim League is, therefore, of the opinion that the constitutional issue involved may, with the fullest confidence, be left to the mature judgment of the leadership of the Pakistan Muslim League & the Members of the Pakistan Constituent Assembly. In the meantime every member of the Muslim League organisation must endeavour to create an atmosphere of calmness and serenity in which alone deliberate decisions affecting fundamental constitutional policy can be taken.
At the same tame this Council affirms its unwavering adherence to the principle that it is not only a democratic but also a religious duty of Muslims of Pakistan to protect as their own the life, property, honour and all civic rights of every citizen of this State, irrespective of his or her caste or creed. This Council expects the Muslim League Ministry in the Punjab to uphold the principle in all circumstances”.
At a subsequent meeting of the Working Committee held on 22nd August, 1932, it was resolved that no member or office bearer of the Muslim League should preside over the meetings of Majlis-i-Amal of All Muslim Parties Convention.
Mr. Daultana now busied himself in explaining the stand taken by the Provincial Muslim League in its resolution of 27th July. Speaking in Hazuri Bagh on 30th August, 1952, he said :
“To-day Pakistan is the only country in the world which seeks to claim Islamic Government. The whole world is watching us in this experiment and if we failed in fulfilling this responsibility, the world would have an opportunity to say that there is no room for an Islamic form of Government in the world. In the matter of khatm-i-nubuwwat, I have the same belief which a Musalman should have. According to me all those who do not believe the Holy Prophet to be the last of the prophets are outside the pale of Islam. I go further and say that to raise any argument on the doctrine of khatm-i-nubuwwat itself amounts to kufr because an argument is possible only where the matter admits of some doubt. The belief in khatm-i-nubuwwat is a part of our faith and it is above all argument and logic. The Mirzais are themselves responsible for the hatred that has been created against them because of their separatist tendencies. They are separate from us in every department of life and have confined their personal, political and social activities to their own class. The Qadiani officers have been guilty of partiality towards men of their own community as several allotments were made by them merely on the ground of the allottee being a Mirzai. This was an abuse of their official position.
The remedy for this state of affairs does not lie in emotional speeches and public meetings. So far as the Punjab is concerned, I shall take strong action against anyone who is found guilty of partiality on sectarian grounds and will have every such complaint fully investigated. I appeal to you in the name of the teachings of Islam and in the good name of the nation to protect the life, property and honour of every person who calls himself a Pakistan citizen. So long as I am the Chief Minister I shall not tolerate in my Province the shedding of innocent blood and shall spare no pains in protecting the honour of every citizen, and I shall discharge this religious, moral and official duty at every cost. The question of declaring the Mirzais as a minority is a constitutional question. Our Constitution has not so far been framed and the Constituent Assembly has not taken any decision in regard to the distinction to be observed between the majority community and the minorities. The question should, therefore, be left to the Constituent Assembly. But assuming for the sake of argument that the Mirzais are declared a minority, what would be the position if they cease to call themselves as Mirzais. The object in declaring a group or a community as a minority is that not only the rights of that group or minority should be determined but that such rights should be protected and they should be given concessions in public services and representation in Legislative Assemblies. If the Mirzais are declared a minority we shall be bound to give them all those concessions and rights which we do not wish to give them now. This is a very complicated question which requires deep and serious consideration. It is not a question which can be settled by holding public meetings, raising riots or throwing stones or by any other rash step. I ask all those who are holding public meetings in connection with the khatm-i-nubuwwat movement, where is the need for such meetings if everyone of us believes in khatm-i-nubuwwat? These unnecessary meetings sometimes create a doubt in my mind about the bona fides of those who are organising them”.
In the course of his speech at Rawalpindi reported in the ‘Civil & Military Gazette’ of 13th September, 1952, he said :
“I want lo make the country a true Islamic republic, in which every-one, irrespective of his political opinions should have equal rights and everything should be settled by exemplary justice; where people are well off economically and. morally, where people are sincere, sober and earnest in achieving the common good of the country.
* * * * * * *I firmly believe in the finality of the Prophet Muhammad and any person who does not believe so is not a Muslim. But this does not mean that a person who does not believe so should have no right to live in the country.
All those people who live in Pakistan and are loyal to Pakistan, be they Hindus, Christians or of any other sect or religion, come under the protection of the Government of the country and also of the people. To protect each one of the countrymen is the foremost duty of a Muslim as also of the Government; so long as I am at the helm of affairs I will see that no harm is done to any loyal Pakistani purely because of his different faith, caste, or creed.
The question of declaring the Ahmadis a minority is not a religious but a constitutional issue, which should be treated as such and discussed dispassionately and coolly. I appeal to the Ahrar and other religious organisations to create a calm atmosphere for the consideration of such a question”.
In his speech at Nizamabad on 25th October, 1952, he deprecated sectarianism and said that people who were creating disunity among the Musalmans were destroying not only the unity of Islam but the integrity of Pakistan. He advised the public to abstain from joining the disruptionist activities of the communalists.
The point stressed in these speeches was that a person who did not believe in the doctrine of khatm-i-nubuwwat was not a Musalman, that the demands in respect of the Ahmadis flowed from this theological position, that the demands in their nature were constitutional and political which could only be tackled by the Central authorities, constitutional or Muslim League, that the Province was not concerned with the demands and that the Ahrar should make no fuss over this matter in the Punjab.
SUBSEQUENT EVENTS
All preventive orders having been recalled, the cases arising out of their contravention withdrawn and the sentences imposed for such contravention remitted, and the existence of the demands having been officially recognised, the Ahrar and their associates were left free to adopt any method they considered to be constitutional to press the demands and to carry on propaganda in their support. Taking advantage of the opportunity offered, they intensified their campaign and increased the vigour and extent of their propaganda. According to the Secret Intelligence Abstract which is an official document and used to be submitted for information to the Chief Minister, as many as 390 public meetings of which 167 were arranged exclusively by the Ahrar, were held all over the Province till the proclamation of Martial Law on 6th March. Sayyad Muzaffar Ali Shamsi said Sheikh Husam-ud-Din, Sahibzada Faiz-ul-Hasan, Master Taj-ud-Din Ansari and Muhammad Ali Jullundri who are all prominent members of Majlis-i-Ahrar, literally converted themselves into peripatetic missionaries of the movement, as if their differences with the Ahmadis were their sole concern in life. At the meetings all conceivable arguments were reiterated against Ahmadiyyat and abuses hurled on the Ahmadis and their leaders. The vocal campaign was supplemented by cease-lees posters, leaflets, handbills, pamphlets, newspaper articles and processions. On 24th July, 1952, Mr. Anwar Ali, D. I. G., C. I. D, brought to the notice of Government some mock funerals of Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan, which were being taken out in several places in the Province, proposing action under section 23 of the Punjab Public Safety Act, but the Home Secretary remarked that that Act was not to be used in such cases and suggested instead that the Chief Minister should talk to the Ahrar leaders and ask them to abide by the assurance which they had recently given. The proposal was put up through the Chief Secretary before the Chief Minister who initialled it on 30th July.
The students of the M. B. High School, Wazirabad, carried in procession a charpoy with a dog tied on it representing Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan.
Another procession, which had marched through the streets of Kasur on 25th June, 1952, after Friday prayers and which was reported by the Additional Superintendent of Police, Kasur, in his diary dated 26th July, 1952, also came to the notice of the Chief Minister. In that procession, Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan had been grossly abused in slogans such as ‘Zafrullah kanjar’, ‘Zafrullah dog’, and ‘Zafrullah swine’, and at a later stage the processionists had procured a she-ass and written on it ‘Begum Zafrullah’. A man wearing a top hat and a garland of shoes round his neck with the name Mirza Ghulam Ahmad written on him had seated himself on the she-ass. On receiving report of this incident, Mr. Qurban Ali Khan remarked that the incident was the natural outcome of the agitation that was going on in defiance of law, that one lawlessness was producing another lawlessness and that unless some preventive method was discovered it would end in a revolution, and that this was a lesson of history which could be delayed but could not be belied. The case was seen by the Chief Minister but no notice of the incident was taken.
Several other incidents of lawlessness were also reported during this period. These, which are all mentioned in the official documents were as follows :—
(1) the rifling of an Ahmadi shop and throwing of stones at an Ahmadi mosque in Lyallpur on 20th July, 1952;(2) assault on an Ahmadi on 5th August, 1952, in Misri Shah, Lahore;(3) an Ahmadi non-Ahmadi clash in Chak 497, Jhang ;(4) assault on Mt. Tale’ Bibi on 2nd September, 1952, in the course of an altercation arising because of her being an Ahmadi;(5) assault on Dr. Muhammad Husain Khan, an Ahmadi, in Mandi Jaranwala. on 18th September, 1952, by a person who was prevented by the doctor from reading objectionable verses from a pamphlet against Ahmadiyyat ;(6) hartal and blackening of faces of men objecting to observe hartal, besieging of, and throwing brickbats at, the Dyal Singh College and the throwing of stones at the Ta’lim-ul-Islam College, breaking its main gate, on 16th February, 1953, when Khwaja Nazim-ud-Din came to Lahore;(7) rioting outside the Muslim League office on 27th July resulting in injuries to 46 policemen and damage to cars ; and(8) attempt to set fire to an Ahmadi mosque in Muhalla Arazi Yaqub, Sialkot.
NEWSPAPERS
Ceaseless propaganda continued to be carried on in the press throughout this period. The ‘Zamindar’, which was one of the four papers patronised by Government and which in certain transactions with Government had received a large sum of money, continuously went on writing in support of the demands and against Ahmadiyyat. The ‘Azad’, an Ahrar paper, did the same; in fact, the differences with the Ahmadis was the main topic in the columns of this newspaper.
THE ‘AZAD‘
An article of this paper published in the issue of 9th September, 1952, was examined and a prosecution of the editor was considered to be worthwhile, but the Home Secretary, the Chief Secretary and the Chief Minister thought that another warning may be administered and the result thereof watched.
The issue of this paper for 11th September, 1952; called the ‘Mutaliba Number’, was exclusively devoted to denunciation of the Ahmadis. One important article in it was the poem ‘Multan puchhta hai’ (Multan asks) which eulogised men who had been killed in the Kup firing. This article was examined by the Director of Public Relations on 12th September, 1952, and by the Legal Remembrancer on 17th September, 1952, and though they were both agreed that the publication was actionable, nothing was done in the matter.
The paper also published on its front page a cartoon, which the officer who examined it interprets as follows :—
“On the title page the paper has published a multicoloured cartoon showing John Bull as a snake-charmer, who is producing snakes from the basket of Ahmadism. One big snake arises from that basket and is shown to have overwhelmed Qadian (represented by a high minaret). From there it wriggles into a hole and reappears at Rabwah in the shape of Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud, who is shown to be blowing out three big snakes from his mouth. One of those three snakes is shown biting the late Quaid-i-Millat at Rawalpindi; the other one is shown to be sabotaging an aeroplane (implying the Jungshahi air disaster); and the third one, depicted in the shape of Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan, is shown to be threatening to bite the Prime Minister of Pakistan” .
The attention of the Provincial Government was drawn to this cartoon by the Central Government by letter No. 28/43/52-Poll (1), dated 11th October, 1952. The letter stated that it was presumed that the Provincial Government had noticed this cartoon and would take suitable action which would be communicated to the Central Government. In reply, by letter No. 3754-PB-52/985, dated 23rd October, 1952, the Director of Public Relations merely informed the Central Government that the Provincial Government had directed the District Magistrate to send for the Printer-Publisher of the paper and to give him a warning that if he did not desist from publishing matter of this kind, Government would have to suppress the newspaper.
In its issue for 12th November, 1952, this paper published a leader with an enigmatic heading in the form of an interrogation mark, in which it grossly abused the present head of the Ahmadiya community and charged the Government with encouraging infidelity and apostasy. The exact words used by the paper in this respect were : —
“Akhir kab-tak ek zani wa sharabi, ghunde aur bad-ma’ash, muftari wa kazib aur Dajjal ko is mulk men hamare kan nabi, Masih-i-mau’ud aurAhmad wa Muhammad ke nam se pukare jate sunte rahenge aur kab-tak ummat ki muqaddas wa mutahhar maon ko ek nang-i-insaniyat aurat ke liye apni qabron men be-chain hona parega, aur kab-tak ambiya’, aulia ki tauhin-o-tazlil aur aqaid-o-sha’air-i-din ki ruswai ka tamasha-i-be-hamiyati jari rahe ga. Akhir yeh zindagi be-hayai-o-be-ghairati aur daiyusi ki zindagi nahin to aur kiya hai. Qaum aj mujassam taur par ek sawaliya nishan ban kar khudawandan-i-hukumat aur qaumi zimmadaron ka munh tak rahi hai. Lihaza un-ka farz hai keh woh un-ke jane pahchane sawal ka jald az jald koi mufassal wa mudallal aur do-tok jawab den warnah samajh len keh yeh khamoshi yeh be-itinai-o-be-niyazi, yeh mudahanat-o-taghaful, yeh kufr-o-irtidad parwari aur ghaddar-nawazi ka socha samjha hua sharamnak rawiya ziyada der tak barqarar na reh sakega” .
(TRANSLATION)
“After all, for how long will our ears continue hearing an adulterer, drunkard, vagabond, knave. slanderer, liar and Dajjal being called, in this country, a prophet, promised Messiah, Ahmad and Muhammad and how long will sacred and pure mothers of the nation continue to remain restless in their graves for a woman who is a disgrace to humanity ? How long will this disgraceful exhibition of insult and degradation of prophets and saints and debasement of religious beliefs and observances continue ? If this sort of life is not a life of dishonour and shamelessness, what else is it ? Today, the nation is looking expectantly, like a sign of interrogation personified, towards men at the helm of the State who are answerable to the nation. It is, therefore, incumbent on them to give a detailed, reasonable and decisive answer to the well-understood question, otherwise they should bear in mind that their considered, and shameless attitude of silence, disregard, carelessness, hypocrisy and negligence and encouragement of disbelief, apostasy and treachery will not last long” .
By its letter, dated 21st November, 1952, the Central Government drew the attention of the Provincial Government to this article and also sent for disposal a complaint in the form of a resolution by the Ahmadiya community of Montgomery respecting it which had been received by the Central Government. The article was considered to be actionable under section 153-A, P.P.C. and section 21 of the Punjab Public Safety Act,, but Mr. Anwar Ali, D. I, G., C. I. D., took the curious view that the Central Government had given no guidance in the matter and that the Provincial Government for some time past had been deploring this attitude on the part of the Central Government. In view of the indifference of the Central Government, he thought, the Provincial Government should not initiate any proceedings and said that he himself would talk to the Editor, Master Taj-ud-Din Ansari, about it. The Home Secretary agreed with this view and the Chief Minister initialled the case.
Again on 10th December, 1952, the Ministry of the Interior, by its D. O.No. 44/9/52-Poll (1), to Home Secretary, Punjab Government, drew the attention of the Punjab Government to the activities of this paper. The letter referred to Home Secretary’s previous letter, D. O. No. 273-ST (HS)/52, dated the 30th October, 1952, and to Mr. Nur Ahmad’s letter in reply to that Ministry’s letter No, 28/43/52-Poll (1), dated the 11th October, 1952, and pointed out that despite several warning which the Provincial Government said had been given to this newspaper, it had continued to indulge in publishing matter which definitely outraged the religious susceptibilities of a class of people in, Pakistan and which was designed to create enmity between different classes of people, and conveying the Central Government’s view that since warnings in the past had had no effect, the Provincial Government should not hesitate to take the only other alternative, namely, to prosecute the paper. The Provincial Government was requested to intimate the action taken to the Ministry at an early date. No action was taken on this letter and the Ministry of the Interior had again to remind the Home Secretary by letter No. 44/9/52-Poll (1), dated 27th December, 1952. This letter referred to that Ministry’s earlier letter of 10th December, 1952 and stated that since the date of that letter another objectionable poem ‘Dard-mandan-i-Qaum’ had appeared in the issue of the paper of 21st December., 1952, which attracted the mischief of not only the Press (Emergency Powers) Act and the Punjab Public Safety Act but also of the substantive criminal law of the land. The letter again requested the Provincial Government to inform the Central Government at an early date of the action taken on, this article. This letter was seen by the Chief Secretary as well as the Director of Public Relations, but no further notice of it seems to have been taken.
THE ‘AFAQ’
The issue of ‘Afaq’ of 19th July under the heading ‘Qadianiyon ke imam ki ek nihayat afsosnak taqrir’ reproduced an address by the head of the Ahmadiya community which had been published in the ‘Alfazl’ of 11th January, 1952, and adversely commented upon it, while the issue of 20th July published reports of the celebration of Yaum-i-Mutalilba in different places in the Province.
The issue of this paper for 30th July devoted a leader to the discussion of Muslim League’s resolution on khatm-i-nubuwwat. The article pointed out that one of the demands made of the Provincial Muslim League was that the Mirzais should be declared to be outside the pale of Islam and that the correctness of this demand had been admitted by the Muslim League because in his speech Mr. Daultana had unequivocally declared that, in the unanimous opinion of the Muslim League, Mirzais who did not believe in the doctrine of ‘khatm-i-nubuwwat’ were not Musalmans. The article appreciated this declaration and asked if any other responsible leader had ever made such an unequivocal declaration and proceeded to compliment the Punjab Muslim, League and its leader for it. The article explained that while the Muslim League had expressed itself in favour of the demands, it had not taken a decision on the subject because the question, being a constitutional one, related not only to the Punjab but to the whole of Pakistan, and that it was for this reason that the settlement of the issue had been left for the All-Pakistan Muslim League and the Constituent Assembly. The article hoped that the Pakistan Muslim League and the Constituent Assembly would not now hesitate to declare the Qadianis a minority, and drew pointed attention to that part of the resolution which had impressed on Musalmans their religions duty of protecting the life, property and honour of all citizens of Pakistan.
Another article appeared in the issue of 19th July, 1952, which attempted to make the point that the alarming and menacing situation, prevailing in the country was the result of addresses and speeches delivered by Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad and aggressive designs of the Ahmadis.
The issue of 6th August published a selection of objectionable extracts from the ‘Alfazl’ containing statements by the present leader of the Ahmadiya community, while that of 1st September reproduced Mr. Daultana’s speech in Hazuri Bagh.
In the issue dated 28th February there appeared a letter from a contributor, Akbar Muradpuri, in which some questions together with their answers from Ahmadiya writings were published in order to show that Qadianis were a separate ummat.
THE ‘EHSAN’
The ‘Ehsan’ of 21st July published an appeal by the Majlis-i-Amal of All Muslim Parties Convention advising the people to remain peaceful despite provocation by the Mirzais and requesting the imams of mosques to advise their congregations on next Friday to abstain from creating any disorder. The appeal pointed out that the demands relating to the declaration of the Ahmadis as a minority and for the removal of Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan were constitutional demands which should be pressed in an atmosphere free from breaches of the law.
The issue of 3rd August published a report of resolutions passed in different mosques on Friday the 1st August supporting the stand taken by the All Muslim Parties Convention and expressing the determination to keep the movement peaceful and urging an acceptance of the demands. The speeches made in the mosques also appreciated the resolution of the Punjab Muslim League in which the Mirzais were held to be non-Muslims but expressed dissatisfaction with that part of the resolution in which the demand to declare the Mirzais as a minority was not accepted. The article also published the alarming news that a letter threatening to kill Maulana Abul Hasanat, Maulana Maudoodi, Sayyad Ata Ullah Shah Bukhari., Maulana Ahmad Ali and Maulana Muslim had been received.
The issue of 8th August, 1952, contained an article on ‘Qadiani Nubuwwat’ by Sayyad Faqir Husain Bukhari, M, A., B. T., Professor, Islamia College, criticising Ahmadiya beliefs and promising another outstanding article on the subject in the next issue.
The issue of 10th August contained a leading article in violent denunciation of the Ahmadiya Jama’at and Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan, in which it was sought to prove that the Qadianis were a real danger to Pakistan and that they were not members of the Muslim community, it also contained news that Khwaja Nazim-ud-Din had promised to announce in his Pakistan Day speech on 14th August the acceptance of the demands against the Mirzais and the people were impatiently waiting for this historical announcement.
The issue of 18th August contained a comment on the Prime Minister’s speech on the Pakistan Day, and expressed disappointment on his omission to make any reference to the question of Mirzaeeat which had become a real internal danger in Pakistan. It also appreciated the communique issued by the Government of Pakistan declaring that no Central or Provincial Minister was to preach sectarian doctrines to his subordinates, and deprecated the disorders, processions and public meetings that were being held against the Mirzais and suggested that the issue should be placed in a constitutional manner before the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan and in the form of a resolution before the Council of All Pakistan Muslim League that was about to meet at Dacca.
The issue of 31st January, 1953, published a review on a book ‘Qadiani Fitna’ written by one Atiq-ur-Rahman Chishti. It was alleged in the comments on that book that Mirzaeeat had been deliberately implanted by the British, that it was devastating Islam and that the book exposed false doctrines of a murtadd sect and depicted a disgraceful picture of the character of the false prophet of that sect. Similarly the issue of 5th February published a one-column review on Professor Ilyas Burney’s book ‘Qadiani Mazhab’ which was in fact an original comment on Qadiani doctrines.
THE ‘MAGHRIBI PAKISTAN’
In its issue of 3rd August, 1952, this paper criticised the foreign policy of the Pakistan Government which it described as the personal policy of Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan and alleged that Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan had failed in the Kashmir dispute. In the comments under ‘Sang-o-Khisht’, the paper taunted Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan by making to him the suggestion that instead of seeking police protection on his next visit to Lahore, he should ask ‘Hazrat Sahib’ (the head of the Ahmadiya community) to pray for his safety. The issue of 10th August again made sarcastic remarks about the reported resignation of Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan, stating that he had presumably resigned after consulting the ‘Paighambarzada’ (sarcastic reference to the head of the Ahmadiya community), because during his ministership whatever he did he always did after consulting the head of his community. In this very issue was published a statement by All Muslim Parties Convention claiming that the efforts of the convention were bearing fruit and appealing for support by extensive propaganda in the form of tabligh conferences, deputations and collection of funds. The issue also contained a news item announcing a public meeting under the auspices of the Majlis-i-Amal and the names of the speakers and appealing to the people to come in large numbers to attend that meeting.
The issue of 15th August, 1952, published Maulana Shabir Ahmad Usmani’s opinion that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad for his claim to prophethood was a murtadd.
The issue of I8th August commented on the Pakistan Government’s communique of 14th August and alleged that Government had misunderstood the demands of the Musalmans in respect of the Ahmadis. It stated that Muslims had no fear of Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan’s efforts to convert his subordinates to the Qadiani religion but that the demand for his removal was based on the grounds (1) that he was a Mirzai, (2) that he was entirely in the hands of the Khalifa of Qadian, (3) that he could not be loyal to Pakistan, and (4) that he had no associations with the Muslims.
The issue of 1st September contained a report of Mr. Daultana’s speech in Hazuri Bagh on 30th August, in which, among other matters, he had spoken on the doctrine of khatm-i-nubuwwat, expressing his belief in that doctrine and his further belief that anyone who did not accept the Holy Prophet of Islam as the last of the prophets could not be called a Muslim.
The issue of 27th September published a poem in which the poet advised Muslims to forge a united front against kufr and the enemy to fight for the noble cause of khatm-i-nubuwwat.
The issue of 29th September contained an account of the interview which some members of the Majlis-i-Amal had had with the Chief Minister of the Punjab, in the course of which under the leadership of Maulana Abul Hasanat they had presented a written representation complaining of the sale of land for Rabwah, indiscriminate allotments to Mirzais, their proselytising activities, their provocative literature and the use by them of Islamic technical terms which had come to be exclusively reserved for particular sacred personalities in Islam.
Mr. Daultana has claimed that from about the third week of July the ‘Afaq’, the ‘Ehsan’ and the ‘Maghribi Pakistan,’ each of which had received a large amount of money from Government, had blacked out the anti-Ahmadiya agitation, but from what we have presently said it will be quite clear that each of these papers continued to write on the subject throughout the period. When Dr. Ishtiaq Husain Qureshi, Minister for Information and Broadcasting, came to Lahore in the later half of July, 1952, it was complained to him that the Punjab Government was itself encouraging the anti-Ahmadiya agitation, and Mr. Hamid Nizami, editor of the ‘Nawa-i-Waqt’, openly charged Mir Nur Ahmad, Director, Public Relations Department, with complicity in this conspiracy. According to Mr. Nizami, Dr. Qureshi, when he came to Lahore in July or August 1952, invited the editors of some local newspapers to a private tea at which some officials, including Mir Nur Ahmad, and the editors of all important dailies of Lahore were present. In this party the subject of anti-Ahmadiya agitation happened to be discussed, and Dr. Qureshi remarked that the campaign which was being carried on in the press against Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan was detrimental to the interests of the country and was likely to lead to serious consequences. Guests present at the party expressed their own opinions in the matter. Mr. Nizami kept quiet and Dr. Qureshi asked him why he was not expressing his opinion. Mr. Nizami replied that it was futile for him to give his opinion because the campaign was being carried on by newspapers which were being subsidised by Government. On being required by the Doctor to explain what he meant, Mr. Nizami said that the entire agitation had been inspired by Government and that it could be stopped immediately if the Government so liked because the papers which were engaged in the campaign could not afford to disobey the directions of Government. Dr. Qureshi said that he had heard similar rumours before but that he had not been supplied with any concrete facts, Mr. Nizami then pointed to Mir Nur Ahmad and said that he was the arch criminal in the matter because it was he who was having all articles on the movement written. Dr. Qureshi asked Mr. Nizami if he could prove the allegation. Mr. Nizami replied that if Mir Nur Ahmad denied the allegation, he would be willing to prove it, Mir Nur Ahmad heard all this but kept quiet. Questioned by Dr. Qureshi whether he would repeat this allegation before the Prime Minister, Mr. Nizami said that he would. About a month later, Mr. Nizami went down to Karachi and met the Prime Minister who asked him if he could give a list of the articles which had been inspired by Mir Nur Ahmad. Mr. Nizami said that he would do so on his next visit to Karachi. When Mr. Nizami next visited Karachi about a month afterwards, he took with him the file of articles which, according to him, had been inspired by Mir Nur Ahmad, and handed it over to Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad Gurmani, requesting him to show it to the Prime Minister. On a later occasion, when Mr. Nizami was sent for by the Home Secretary, he repeated this allegation before him. A day or two later he did the same before Mr. Qurban Ali Khan and warned him that if things continued as they were, the Province would be ruined. The same complaint was made by Mr. Nizami before the Home Secretary when the latter called a meeting of the editors of newspapers on 27th or 28th February. Mr. Nizami also repeated his allegations before the Governor.
Mr. Nizami had a talk on the subject with Mr. Daultana in September 1952. Mr. Daultana remarked that Mir Nur Ahmad was ruining the Government and that he intended to remove him within a few days, but Mr. Nizami replied that all this was a lie and that he did not believe Mr. Daultana because what Mir Nur Ahmad was doing, was at the instance of Mr. Daultana himself.
Mr. Nizami’s evidence is fully corroborated by the evidence of Dr. Qureshi. The Doctor says that he came to Lahore in the later half of July 1952 in connection with a meeting of the Credentials Committee of the Constituent Assembly for the purpose of hearing an election petition. As Minister for Information and Broadcasting, he always made it a point to meet the editors of newspapers in an informal and off-the-record meeting. He also had quite a number of persons coming and visiting him. One such visitor told Dr. Qureshi that the Directorate of Public Relations had been supplying newspapers with articles which were calculated, to fan the agitation against the Ahmadis. The visitor also offered to get for Dr. Qureshi from the office of some newspaper an article in the handwriting of Mr. Chishti, an officer employed in the Department of Public Relations, which would prove that Government had been supplying articles to newspapers. Dr. Qureshi was morally convinced of the truth of the information, but thought that it would not be dignified on his part to utilise his informant for the purpose of what would amount to stealing papers from the records of a newspaper. Some time after this, Mir Nur Ahmad came to see Dr. Qureshi. Dr. Qureshi told Mir Nur Ahmad that the Department of Islamiat which was working under him, had been supplying articles to newspapers relating to anti-Ahmadiya agitation, and confronted him with the fact that the ‘Afaq’ which was for all practical purposes under the Directorate of Public Relations, had been pressing in its columns the demand that Ahmadis should be declared a minority. Mir Nur Ahmad tried to parry the question, but Dr. Qureshi pressed him and Mir Nur Ahmad then admitted that efforts had been made by him to “canalize” the agitation into certain channels. Dr. Qureshi told Mir Nur Ahmad that this was not canalising but fanning the, agitation. As this was a sufficiently serious matter, Dr. Qureshi thought of mentioning it to Mr. Daultana. The latter asked Dr. Qureshi to tea on 19th July. Dr. Qureshi apprised Mr. Daultana of the complaint that he had received and told him that if the Provincial Government had decided upon a line of action, which was a departure from the previous policy in publicity, it was only fair that Mr. Daultana should have discussed the matter with the Doctor when a few days before they both were at Nathiagali. Mr. Daultana said that what had been done by Mir Nur Ahmad to canalise the agitation, had been done without his knowledge. Dr. Qureshi adds that he considered it rather strange that Mr. Daultana did not know that the Directorate of Public Relations was fanning the agitation, because cuttings of newspapers on this important question must have been placed before him and he must have known that papers which were almost directly under the control of Government, were also engaged in the controversy and had adopted a certain line of action. He was, therefore, surprised when Mr. Daultana told him that this line of action had been taken by the Directorate of Public Relations without his knowledge. Dr. Qureshi also confirms Mr. Nizami’s evidence about the incident that happened at the tea party. He deposes that Mr. Nizami alleged at that party that Mir Nur Ahmad was responsible for carrying on this campaign in the newspapers and that Mir Nur Ahmad said nothing to contradict the allegation.
When Dr. Qureshi returned to Karachi, he mentioned the incident to the Prime Minister and expressed his opinion that agitation in the Punjab was being fanned by the Directorate of Public Relations. He also mentioned the talk that he had with Mr. Daultana and expressed his surprise that a department of a Provincial Government should adopt a certain policy in such an important matter without the orders of the Central Government. The incident was also mentioned by Dr. Qureshi to the members of the Cabinet.
This evidence is confirmed by the evidence of Khwaja Nazim-ud-Din. He says that the first time that Mr. Daultana discussed the Qadiani question with him was on 4th August and that in the course of that discussion he pointed out to Mr. Daultana that according to the report he had received from the Information Minister, Mir Nur Ahmad had been supplying material to the various papers in support of the anti-Qadiani movement, Khwaja Nazim-ud-Din pointed out to Mr. Daultana that while all the opposition papers, namely, the ‘Pakistan Times’, the ‘Imroz’, the ‘Nawa-i-Waqt’ and the ‘Civil & Military Gazette’, were silent on this issue, the papers that were controlled by Government and Mr. Daultana himself were fanning the agitation, the worst culprit in this respect being the ‘Zamindar’ which could certainly be controlled by Mr. Daultana if he liked. Mr. Daultana said that the Urdu papers depended for their existence on their circulation and as that was a popular theme and meant increase in their publication, it was very difficult to stop them. He further said that the object of his publicity department was to regulate and control by advice the tempo and virulence of the campaign that was going on in the newspapers. Khwaja Nazim-ud-Din impressed upon Mr. Daultana that the best method of tackling the situation was to prevent the papers from fanning the agitation and that Mr. Daultana could easily do so as these papers depended upon him for their patronage.
Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad Gurmani deposes that on one occasion Dr. Qureshi mentioned to the members of the Cabinet that he had received complaints that the various articles appearing in the Punjab Press were being supplied through agencies which were either controlled or patronised by Government. The witness has also produced a file of newspapers containing several articles in support of the anti-Ahmadiya agitation, which, he says, was handed over to him by Mr. Nizami at Karachi.
Mr. Daultana denies his having ever admitted before Khwaja Nazim-ud-Din that the publicity department of the Punjab Government had been attempting to control the tempo of the writings in newspapers by supplying articles to them. Mr. Nur Ahmad does not specifically deny that he used the word ‘canalise’ in his conversation with Dr. Qureshi, though he denies that he ever contributed or directed any one in his department to contribute any article to the press on the subject of anti-Ahmadiya movement. For reasons which we will record in full while formulating our conclusions, we have no doubt whatsoever that Mir Nur Ahmad did attempt to canalise the movement and that Mr. Daultana could not have been unaware of this policy.
The tempo of the agitation now began rapidly to rise and it assumed alarming proportions. Government became the target of the attack, and indirect and veiled references to its corruption, inefficiency and indifference to the condition of the masses began to be made. By his D. O. letter No. 14682-BDSB., dated the 21st October 1952, the Home Secretary to the Government of Punjab sent the following account of the existing situation to the Deputy Secretary to the Ministry of the Interior :—
“A note on the developments of the Ahrar-Ahmadi agitation in the Punjab since the 1st of August J 952, in continuation of the previous note prepared by Malik Habib Ullah on the 30th of July 1952.
“The firing incident at Multan on the 20th of July last gave a fillip to the Ahrar agitators and their supporters to intensify their agitation against the Ahmadis on the khatm-i-nubuwwat issue and their public meetings grew in frequency and number all over the Province. When the other parties, such as the Jama’at-i-Islami, the Islam League and the Shias observed that the Ahrar were stealing a march on them in winning over the public opinion in their favour on the khatm-i-nubuwwat question, they joined them in their denunciations against the Ahmadis in right earnest in the beginning of August last. The Jama’at-i-Islami added a ninth demand to their eight demands that the Mirzais should be declared a separate minority community and Sir Zafrullah Khan should be removed from his office. The workers of the Islam League also started stressing in the course of their speeches that the Mirzais should be declared a separate minority and Sir Zafrullah Khan should be removed from his office. The Shia leaders also stressed in the course of their meetings that they agreed with the Ahrar in their demands that the Mirzais should be declared a separate community and Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan should be removed from his office.
“2. The khatibs of all important mosques in cities and towns made it a routine to repeat the usual demands against the Ahmadis in the course of their Friday sermons that the Mirzais should be declared a separate community, Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan should be removed from his office, Rabwah should be declared a town open to all Muslims and its land should be distributed among refugees. There was no important mosque in which these demands were not repeated on Friday gatherings.
“3. Maulana Abdul Hasanat Muhammad Ahmad Qadri, Sheikh Husam-ud-Din, Master Taj-ud-Din, Muzaffar Ali Shamsi and Maulana Murtaza Ahmad Khan Maikash waited on me Honourable Prime Minister at Karachi on the 16th of August and apprised him of their demands concerning the Ahmadis. On their return they held a public meeting at Multan on the 19th of August and another at Lahore on the 23rd of August and disclosed that the Prime Minister told them that the agitation against the Ahmadis was only confined to the Punjab, and the other Provinces were free from it. The All Muslim Parties Council of Action accordingly decided to collect more funds and spread their anti-Ahmadi propaganda in the North-West Frontier Province, Sind and East Bengal with the object of overwhelming the Central Government to accede to their demands. In pursuance of this decision Sayyad Ata Ullah Shah Bukhari and Qazi Ehsan Ahmad Shujabadi toured in the North-West Frontier Province in the month of August and made a series of speeches against the Ahmadis. The result of all this heated agitation was that the Ahmadis started losing their nerve and found themselves in a somewhat difficult position. Their social and commercial boycott was also urged by the Ahrar workers and mullas in the course of their speeches and sermons. In fact, the agitation started by the Ahrar passed into the hands of the mullas and the latter found the khatm-i-nubuwwatissue a good subject for sermonising in their Friday gatherings in mosques.
“4. When the Ahrar agitation against the Ahmadis was at its height in the first fortnight of August last, secret information came to hand that some Ahmadis were forsaking their sect for fear of life and property as a result of pressure brought to bear upon them due to the Ahrar agitation and according to reports received from the districts of this Province 115 Ahmadis seemed to have forsaken their sect and reverted to Sunnism and 11 Ahmadis left their homes for Rabwah or other places during the months of July and August 1952. The number of forcible conversions of Ahmadis decreased by the end of August.
“5. According to a report submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Gujranwala, two male teachers and four female teachresses who were Ahmadis and were serving in the Municipal Board High and Middle Schools at Wazirabad were given a notice by the Wazirabad Municipality on 27th July 1952, that their services had been terminated. This was the result of the Ahrar agitation. The Deputy Commissioner of the Gujranwala district, however, suspended this resolution of the Wazirabad Municipal Committee on 4th March 1952.
“6. As a result of the Ahrar agitation against the Ahmadis a number of new bodies called ‘Majlis-i-Tahaffuz-i-Khatm-i-Nubuwwat’, ‘Majlis-i-Khuddam-i-Rasul’ and ‘All Muslim Parties Convention’ were formed at all important cities and towns to push the agitation against the Ahmadis on the khatm-i-nubuwwat issue. The object of all such bodies was side by side to collect subscriptions to finance the movement. Maulana Akhtar Ali of the ‘Zamindar’ appealed to the audience on the occasion of the last Idu’z-Zuha at Karamabad, his home, to collect one crore of rupees to make the khatm-i-nubuwwat movement a success. The All Muslim Parties Council of Action of Lahore which was set up in July last to fight the khatm-i-nubuwwat issue had a balance of Rs. 24,211-2-0 in its name in the Industrial Co-operative Bank of Lahore in September last.
“7. The Ahrar and their supporters collected a large number of skins of the animals which were slaughtered on the last Idu’z-Zuha worth Rs. 46,402 for financing their agitation against the Ahmadis from the whole of the Province. By means of other contributions they collected roughly Rs.51,107 during the last six months for carrying on the anti-Ahmadi agitation.
“8. The Ahrar and their supporters were entertaining great hopes that their agitation would bear fruit and the Honourable Prime Minister of Pakistan would proclaim in his speech on the 14th of August that their demands against the Ahmadis had been accepted but they and their followers were all greatly disappointed when the Honourable Prime Minister announced in his broadcast of the 14th of August that sectionalism and sectarianism were to be avoided in the interests of the solidarity of the Pakistan State. The Ahrar leaders and their supporters were further disappointed when the Honourable Chief Minister of the Punjab clearly stated in his speech he delivered at Lahore on the 30th of August and in another speech he delivered at Rawalpindi on the 11th of September that there was no justification for declaring the Ahmadis a separate community and that sectionalism and sectarianism led to disruption and should be suppressed.
“9. Mr. Justice Kayani’s findings on the Multan firing further disheartened the Ahrar workers and their supporters and had a very healthy effect on the general masses as well as the services.
“10. The present position is that the agitation led by the Ahrar against the Ahmadis has lost its previous force and charm among the public and the mullas who were their chief exponents are feeling rather despaired. The Ahrar are, however, at present holding a series of conferences all over the Province to keep their agitation alive and collect as much money as they can to enable them to move about and have a good time. Some of the Ahrar speakers were reported to have said in the course of their speeches that the Mirzais were murtadds and were ‘wajibu’l-qatl’ (fit to be killed) according to the tenets of Islam.
“11. Mufti Zia-ul-Hasan, a notorious Ahrar worker of Montgomery, who is a cousin of Habib-ur-Rahman of Ludhiana, filed a complaint in the A.D.M.’s Court on 30th March 1952 at Montgomery against Mirza Mahmud Ahmad, the head of the Ahmadiya sect, Roshan Din Tanvir, the editor of the daily ‘Alfazl’ and Masood Ahmad, the printer and publisher of the ‘Alfazl’, for having published in the ‘Alfazl’ of the 15th of July 1952, an article headed ‘Khooni Mulla ke akhri din,’ under sections 302/115/505, P.P.C. The case is proceeding in Court. Six prosecution witnesses have been examined so far and the last hearing of the case came off on the 8th of October 1952.
“12. The Ahrar and their supporters published a large number of pamphlets and posters during the last two months to prove that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was a liar and a false prophet. In the same way, the Ahmadis published a large number of posters and pamphlets to prove that they believed in the Holy Prophet’s ‘finality of prophethood’ and that the Ahrar were the enemies of Pakistan.
“13. In the two public meetings held respectively at Lahore and Lyallpur under the auspices of the Jinnah Awami Muslim League on the 11th and 13th of September, some of the speakers found fault with the Ahmadiya sect and Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan’s unsuccessful policy as Foreign Minister and urged his removal from his office but they did not clearly favour the declaration of the Mirzais as a separate community.
“14. According to a recent secret report the active members of the All Muslim Parties Council of Action of Lahore were not unanimous on their future line of action. The group that favours taking direct action against the Government to compel it to accede to their demands consists of Sheikh Husam-ud-Din of the All Pakistan Majlis-i-Ahrar, Nasarullah Khan Aziz and Amin Ahsan Islahi of the Jama’at-i-Islami, Maulana Daud Ghaznavi of the Ahl-i-Hadith and Abdul Haleem Qasimi of the Jami’at-ul-Ulama-i-Islam. The other group that is in favour of carrying on the agitation in a constitutional and peaceful way consists of Master Taj-ud-Din Ansari of the All Pakistan Majlis-i-Ahrar, Maulana Abul Hasanat Muhammad Ahmad Qadri, Ghulam Muhammad Tarannum of the Jami’at-ul-Ulama-i-Pakistan, Maulana Muhammad Arshad Panahvi of Hizb-ul-Ahnaf, Hafiz Kifayat Husain and Muzaffar Ali Shamsi of the Shia party and Maulana Akhtar Ali, proprietor of the ‘Zamindar’. Sheikh Husam-ud-Din discussed this question with Master Taj-ud-Din on the 28th of August and informed him of the views of the members of his group. He told Master Taj-ud-Din that the members of the Jama’at-i-Islami, the Jami’at-ul-Ulama-i-Islam and the Anjuman-i-Ahl-i-Hadith did not approve of the present policy of the All Muslim Parties Council of Action and protested that if the All Muslim Parties Council of Action was to pursue a weak-kneed policy they would have nothing to do with it. Master Taj-ud-Din replied that if propaganda against the Ahmadis was extended to the other Provinces of Pakistan, their demands against the Ahmadis would be accepted by the Central Government. Master Taj-ud-Din also told Sheikh Husam-ud-Din that Maulana Abul Hasanat Muhammad Ahmad Qadri did not favour any direct action and possessed much influence and his views were to be respected. Master Taj-ud-Din told Sheikh Husam-ud-Din that they should not be befooled by the dictates of the Jamat-i-Islami as its policy was to create difficulties for the Government of the time. Sheikh Husam-ud-Din was of opinion that processions should be taken out and arrests courted in order to force a decision on the Government’s part. It was finally agreed that the new programme should be put up before the Council of Action for consideration. Master Taj-ud-Din commands the confidence of the majority of the members of the All Muslim Parties Council of Action. It may be added at this place that Sheikh Husam-ud-Din is a firebrand and represents a group in the Pakistan Majlis-i-Ahrar which favours secession from the Muslim League and open opposition. The activities of the elements which are in favour of direct action will be closely watched as their chief object appears to be to bring into disrepute the political party in power and thus add to their own prestige at its cost. There can be no objection to constitutional activity of any kind however futile and absurd it may be but no Government, would permit the defiance of authority and a threat of direct action. According to the present policy legal action is not being taken against those Ahrar speakers and mullas who make nasty and provocative speeches inside mosques.
The general impression at present is that the Ahrar agitation has lost its edge but its protagonists are trying to keep it alive by means of holding meetings and repeating their hackneyed arguments and demands. Maulana Akhtar Ali Khan, proprietor of the ‘Zamindar’, Master Taj-ud-Din and Sheikh Husam-ud-Din are now playing with a scheme to collect rupees one crore by means of selling small printed receipts purchasable for one rupee each for financing the khatm-i-nubuwwat agitation. The proverb that ‘money makes the mare go’ holds good in the case of the Ahrar agitation and so long as the leaders of this agitation continue to collect money from the people their agitation will not end.
“16. As directed by the All Muslim Parties Council of Action of Lahore ‘Yaum-i-Ihtijaj’ (Protest Day) was observed all over the Punjab on Friday, the 3rd of October, 1952, and the khatibs of important mosques repeated in the course of their Friday sermons that Mirzais should be declared a minority community, Zafrullah Khan should be removed from his present office and should not be given any other important office, Rabwah should be declared a town open to all Muslims, the land of Rabwah should be distributed among refugees, Mirzais should be removed from high offices and the objectionable Mirzai literature should be forfeited. Similar demands were repeated in the public meetings which were held under the auspices of the All Muslim Parties Convention of Lahore on the 3rd of October.
“17. The ‘Azad’, an Ahrar organ, and the ‘Zamindar’ of Lahore are, continuing to write vilifying articles against the Ahmadis and their sect.”
On 22nd October Mr. Anwar Ali, D.I.G., C.I.D., summed up the position as follows :—
“The main features of the agitation are as follows :—
“(1) M. Akhtar All Khan is materially supporting the agitation. At his instance it has been decided to print ‘notes’ worth a crore which will be sold to the public and a fund built up for anti-Ahmadi agitation.
“(2) The tone of the speeches generally is marked by obscene, abusive and indecent references against the Ahmadis.
“(3) Social boycott and victimisation by other means have also been advocated. At Kabirwala the servants of the local Naib-Tehsildar were prevented from making their day-to-day purchases. At Wazirabad the Municipality at the instigation of the Ahrar, dismissed two female school teachers who were Ahmadis. The D. C. is taking steps to get the resolution cancelled.
“(4) A number of Ahmadis as a result of the odium aroused against their community have been forced to send their families to Rabwah and quite a number have abandoned the Ahmadi faith. It is not known to what extent the decisions were voluntary and to what extent dictated by expediency.
“(5) Ignorant and illiterate mullas in the districts have taken the cue and have begun to attack the Ahmadis even in remote places of the Province. The movement is not constitutional and objectionable methods are being used for its advancement.
“(6) A number of Ahmadi women and children have secured permanent settlement permits from the Indian Deputy High Commissioner and will leave Pakistan for good. These women and children want to join the Ahmadis who stayed behind at Qadian in spite of the post-partition riots. The Indian Government readily issued permanent settlement permits.
“(7) Anti-Government elements such as the Jama’at-i-Islami (the Jama’at has increased its eight demands to nine, the ninth being the declaration of the Ahmadis as a minority), the Islam League (it is particularly active at Rawalpindi), and individual opponents of the Government such as M. Abdus Sattar Niazi, have thrown their weight on the side of the agitators.
This is very important to note. (Sd.) QURBAN ALI KHAN
—23/10“(8) The significant feature is that after attacking the Ahmadis, most of the speakers run down the Government and accuse it of inefficiency, corruption, food situation, etc. This inclines one to the view that the anti-Ahmadi agitation is used as a device for mobilising public opinion with a view to ultimately arousing contempt and hatred against Government.These tendencies will spread and bring disaster in their wake. The whole of our machinery will go to pieces.
(Sd.) QURBAN ALI KHAN“(9) At Rawalpindi much mischief was done because a secret letter in which a particular commanding officer had criticised the Ahmadis was filched from the office and published openly. One of the clerks (incidentally he belongs to the office of the D. D. M. I.) in the course of his statement made wild allegations against Ahmadi officers.“(10) Although according to the latest information the Ahrar leaders feel a bit tired of their agitation, there has been no reduction in the number of meetings addressed in the mofussil.
“2. My opinion is that the Ahrar agitation has dangerous potentialities. It has diverted the attention of the simple and ignorant masses from the essential issues which face Pakistan. It is essentially destructive and has emphasised sectarian differences at a time when all ranks should have drawn closer to each other”.
Mr. Qurban Ali Khan, Inspector-General, made some important comments on this note which will be found on the margin and forwarded it to the Governor with the remark that if the agitation were allowed to go on in that fashion, the Government would one day be faced with serious trouble and that though it was easy to control the trouble now, it might become a difficult problem later. The Governor saw this note and signed it but no further notice of it seems to have been taken.
Mr. Anwar Ali again reviewed the situation while commenting on the Lahore Daily Diary dated 15th December 1952 and pointed out that the situation described in that diary was typical of what was going on all over the country. He said:
“The Lahore Daily Diary dated 16th December 1952 has probably been seen by Government already. It is typical of what is going on all over the country. Anti-Government propaganda has been intensified of late and the food situation is being vigorously exploited. Government is being ruthlessly abused, maligned and defamed- The confidence of the public is being sedulously destroyed and confusion and panic are spreading. In all circles, business, service, etc., fierce criticism is being levelled against Government. In railway trains, private gatherings and at social functions there is one topic which arouses the deepest interest and that is anti-Government talk. Members of the League and Government servants are no exception and indulge liberally in such talks. People who return from Karachi, bring a grim picture, and say that Secretariat officers and other high-ups seem to have lost faith in the future and talk as if a collapse is imminent. The position is desperate and if the nation is to be saved from chaos and anarchy, effective measures should be taken without delay. it is true that some of the problems which face the country are stupendous but nevertheless an effort must be made. The situation is not as hopeless as some people are apt to believe.
* * * * * * * *(3) Faith in the future—If a patient knows that his disease is curable and that everything is being done to rid him of his disease effectively and quickly, he acquires courage and puts up a better resistance. If on the other hand the patient know that his disease is not curable and that steps are not being taken for his proper treatment, he dies an earlier death. The anti-Government propaganda carried out by the opponents of the Government and other destructive elements has destroyed faith in the future. Quite a large proportion of the people are becoming pessimistic and feel that the situation is too far gone and cannot be successfully retrieved. Publicity could easily be organised and faith in the future built up.
* * * * * * * *(6) Mullaism—There is no doubt that most of the mullas rise from a class which is without education and has an extremely narrow outlook. The mullas have been built up by politicians themselves and instead of behaving as their supporters have turned on the very forces which created them. They are out to seek power for themselves and are the enemies of progress. An intelligent and educated class of mullas should be created and in the meantime the leaders should, when making speeches, not make promises in the religious fields which they know they cannot honour.”
* * * * * * * *
MORE SPEECHES: POLICY RECONSIDERED
It is necessary to examine at this stage some cases because these were disposed of together by an order passed at a conference of officers on 24th December 1952. These are the Gulu Shah Fair case [File No. 16 (19) 145], the Lyallpur and Samundri cases [File No. 16 (2) 127], the Rawalpindi case [File No. 16 (2) 129] and the Shujabad case [File No. 16 (2) 130].
There is held every year at village Koreke within the jurisdiction of Police Station Satrah in the district of Sialkot a cattle fair called Gulu Shah Fair. In. 1952, the fair was held from 3rd to 10th October 1952 where a large number of men with their cattle had assembled. The Ahrar embraced this opportunity to call a meeting of All Muslim Parties Convention and to pour out their usual stuff to the people thus assembled. Some of the leaders spoke on 3rd and others on 7th October. The subject of the speeches was of course Ahmadiyyat and since these were calculated to spread sectarian hatred and were prima facie actionable, they were ordered by the Superintendent of Police to be examined by Mr. Abdus Said, Prosecuting Deputy Superintendent of Police. After careful examination of each speech, Mr. Abdus Said gave his opinion as follows :—
(1) That the speech made by Maulvi Karamat Ali on 7th of October 1952, in which he said Mirza Ghulam Ahmad had described the Musalmans as sons of prostitutes and their women as bitches and those who did not believe in him as sons of prostitutes, was actionable under section 21 (3) of the Punjab Public Safety Act as it was likely to further activities prejudicial to the public safety and the maintenance of public order on the part of the Musalmans who are non-Ahmadis.
(2) That the speech of Maulana Bashir Ahmad, Sadr, Majlis-i-Ahrar, Pasrur, made on the same occasion, in which he had referred to an alleged incident in which one Dr. Ehsan Ali had committed rape on Salma Begum, sister of the wife of Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad, and had by an order of Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad been punished with ten strokes of shoes, and in the course of which speech he had asked whether it would be proper if somebody else were punished with ten strokes of shoes for committing rape with a woman of the family of another person, and described the Mirzais as murtadds who were liable to be killed according to shara’ was punishable under clauses (1) and (3) of section 21 of the Punjab Public Safety Act.
(3) That the speech made by Qazi Manzur Ahmad on the same occasion on 3rd October 1952, in which he had reproduced with some distortion certain sayings of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, including the saying that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad had conceived from God and that those Musalman men who did not believe in him were swine and those Musalman women who did not accept his claim bitches, and in which the speaker had further alleged that Khwaja Nazim-ud-Din was responsible for the prevailing famine and he was a supporter of Mirzais was actionable under clauses (I), (2) and (3) of section 21 of the Punjab Public Safety Act.
Mr. Abdus Sami, Public Prosecutor, agreed with this opinion. Armed with this legal opinion, the S. P. referred the matter to the District Magistrate, requesting him to obtain the approval of the Provincial Government for prosecution in accordance with the instructions contained in paragraphs 2 and 7 of the decisions taken at the conference of officers held under the chairmanship of the Chief Secretary on 5th July 1952. Mr. Ghulam Sarwar Khan, the District Magistrate, forwarded this reference to Government through the Commissioner, by his letter, dated the 18th November 1952. The case was examined by Mr. Nazir Ahmad, S. P. (B), who by his note, dated 18th November 1952, suggested that instead of instituting cases against them, Bashir Ahmad and Manzur Ahmad should be arrested under section 3 of the Punjab Public Safety Act. Mr. Anwar Ali, D.I.G., C.I.D.. examined the records of these two individuals and on 22nd November 1952 submitted the case to the Home Secretary expressing the opinion that no opportunity should be lost to prosecute disruptionists who were trying to undermine the stability of the Slate and that if people realised that action would be taken in respect of speeches which offended against the law, greater restraint would be shown. On this the Home Secretary noted on 21st November 1952 that the Chief Minister intended to discuss the whole situation relating to the anti-Ahmadiya agitation with officers on his return from Karachi and that this case could also be discussed in that meeting. He remarked, however, that many another objectionable speech in this connection had come to his notice regarding which it was considered that the best course would be to leave it alone.
At Lyallpur the khatm-i-nubuwwat conference was held under the auspices of the All Muslim Parties Convention on 26th and 27th September 1952 and another public meeting under the same auspices at Samundri on 28th September 1952. Among the speakers at Lyallpur were Mirza Ghulam Nabi Janbaz, Master Taj-ud-Din Ansari, Sahibzada Faiz-ul-Hasan, Sheikh Husam-ud-Din, Taj Muhammad of Lyallpur, Muzaffar Ali Shamsi and Maulana Daud Ghaznavi. In the course of his speech Sahibzada Faiz-ul-Hasan was reported to have remarked that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was a man of cheap morals and deserved to be prosecuted under the Goonda Act for having attacked the modesty of Hazrat Bibi Fatima. He also described Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan as a goonda. He further said that Mr. Muzaffar Ahmad, who was an Ahmadi and a son-in-law of Mirza Mahmud Ahmad could not be appointed as Finance Secretary to Government, Punjab. Sheikh Husam-ud-Din described Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan as khabis and stated that there were few chances of Pakistan’s betterment so long as he was the Foreign Minister. Sayyad Ata Ullah Shah Bukhari said something about Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth which had better be left unmentioned. He attributed the air crash near the Lahore Cantonment and the Jangshahi air crash which resulted in the death of Generals Iftikhar Khan and Sher Khan to Mirzais. The speakers at the Samundri conference were Sayyad Muzaffar Ali Shamsi, Master Taj-ud-Din Ansari, Sheikh Husam-ud-Din, Sayyad Ata Ullah Shah Bukhari, Ghulam Nabi Janbaz and Ghazi Muhammad Hussain of Chak No. 423, Sayyad Ata Ullah Shah Bukhari in his speech alleged that Hakim Ghulam Murtaza, the father of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, had contributed fifty horsemen to Sardar Nau Nihal Singh to fight against the Muslim King, Bahadur Shah, in the battle of Bala Kot.
While commenting on these speeches Mr. Anwar Ali, D. I. G., C. I. D., remarked on 28th October 1952 that the reference to Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth was objectionable, that the allegation that the Mirzais had anything to do with the Jangshahi or the Lahore Cantonment air crash was false because one of the persons killed in the former, General Sher Khan, was himself a Mirzai, that the speeches of the Ahrar leaders were not only venomous but indecent and offensive, that there was no decrease in the number of conferences and hatred continued to be preached and that he did not see why for such mischievous speeches some kind of ban should not be imposed on Sayyad Ata Ullah Shah Bukhari. He added that the intelligentsia were getting tired of such speeches which were corrupting the whole nation. The Home Secretary on 29th October expressed the view that time had come when Government should review the whole position because the tone and tenor of the speeches delivered by the Ahrar leaders was marked by their mischievous and highly objectionable nature. He recommended that the Chief Minister should call a meeting of officers when he was free from the forthcoming Muslim League Conference at Lyallpur and that till then no action should be taken. On 31st November, the Secretary to the Chief Minister noted on the file that the Chief Minister desired that this case should be put up to him after his return from Lyallpur.
The public meeting at Rawalpindi under the auspices of the All Muslim Parties Convention was held from 14th to 16th November 1952, the prominent speakers being Master Taj-ud-Din Ansari, Sheikh Husam-ud-Din, Sayyad Ata Ullah Shah Bukhari, Ehsan Ahmad Shujabadi and Muhammad Ali Jullundri.
Master Taj-ud-Din Ansari in his speech accused Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan of anti-State and anti-Islam activities and alleged that he would have to face a trial in Court on these charges. He said that Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan was a British agent and a murtadd, that he was not sincere to Khwaja Nazim-ud-Din and that Mirzais should be socially and economically boycotted. Ehsan Ahmad Shujabadi described the movement as a struggle between wafadars and ghaddars and between sadaqat and kufr and gave expression to the view that violence could be used for protection of Islam though not for its propagation. Hafiz Muhammad Said said that Khwaja Nazim-ud-Din was a hato (derisive term for a Kashmiri) like him and owed his position to pro-British activities and that he was responsible for the lives of 2½ lac victims of famine in Bengal. He also described Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan as a kafir. He further alleged that drinking, dishonesty, immorality and corruption were on the increase in Pakistan and that Ministers were travelling without ticket. He warned the authorities that if the unanimous demands of the Musalmans were not accepted they shall have to accompany Mirza Ghulam Ahmad on the Doomsday as surely as pharaoh shall have to ride a pig. Sheikh Husam-ud-Din alleged that the Mirzais had helped the British during the 1857 Mutiny with arms and horsemen and that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s forefathers had joined the Sikh forces against Shah Ismail Shahid at Bala Kot. Sayyad Ata Ullah Shah Bukhari said that the Mirzais intended to re-unite India and Pakistan. Muhammad Ali Jullundri alleged that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and all his followers were zindiqs about whom the Holy Prophet had ordained that if any one killed them he was equal to 100 martyrs in spirituality. He suggested that the epithet kazzab should be used with the name of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and alleged that 722 Muslims had become Mirzais in the Railway Department when Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan was Railway Member to the Government of India and that Mr. Ijaz Ahmad, Import and Export Officer, Karachi, and Mr. Farooqi, Chief Secretary, Sind Government, were propagating Mirzaeeat in the course of their official duties.
When the case came up to Mr. Nazir Ahmad, S. P. (B), he, on 24th November 1952, wrote that a case against Muhammad Ali Jullundri had been pending investigation under section 21 of the Punjab Public Safety Act for the Speech made by him in the district of Montgomery and that he was inquiring from S. P., Montgomery, what had happened to that case because it did not help the administration to register a case against a bad political speaker and not to send it to Court for a long time. He also remarked that it was time that Muhammad Ali Jullundri, who was one of the worst speakers among the Ahrar, were prosecuted or detained under the Punjab Public Safety Act. On 25th November 1952, Mr. Anwar Ali, D. I. G., C. I. D., submitted the case to Government for information and noted that the Chief Minister had directed that on his return from Karachi he would discuss how to deal with militant sectarian speakers.
The Khatm-i-Nubuwwat conference at Shujabad in the district of Multan was held on 19th and 20th November 1952, the important speakers on that occasion being Maulvi Muhammad Ali Jullundri, Mirza Ghulam Nabi Janbaz, Sheikh Husam-ud-Din, Maulvi Ghulam Ghaus Sarhaddi, Qazi Ehsan Ahmad Shujabadi and Sayyad Ata Ullah Shah Bukhari. Maulvi Ghulam Ghaus in his speech remarked that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad used to get his legs kneaded by women one of whom was named Bhano, that he was fond of looking at naked women and that his son (Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad) had admitted that he used to take liquor. Maulvi Muhammad Ali Jullundri described Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as ‘ullu ka patha’ and said that the mother of Khwaja Nazim-ud-Din could consider herself to be fortunate in having her son as the Prime Minister but the country was unfortunate because the Prime Minister could not understand things. Sayyad Ata Ullah Shah Bukhari again made some reference to Queen Victoria.
The case came up to Mr. Anwar Ali who recorded the following note on it on 8th December 1952:—
“I brought to Government’s notice, once before, a speech which Sayyad Ata Ullah Shah Bukhari made at Lyallpur in which he made indecent and rude remarks against Queen Victoria. At Shujabad, once again, he has made foul and obscene references to Queen Victoria.
2. Muhammad Ali Jullundri went to the extent of describing the founder of the Ahmadiya faith as ‘ullu ka patha’. Can we blame the Ahmadis if they resent such remarks and flare up ? If they take offence and do anything, the Ahrar will further intensify Ahmadiya baiting. One incident will lead to more bitterness and the vicious cycle will never end.
3. Government may agree to warnings being issued once again to the Ahrar leaders particularly Sayyad Ata Ullah Shah Bukhari and Muhammad Ali Jullundri. Government should not tolerate such vile speeches, for the public is being corrupted. The proper course should be to prosecute both these leaders but as the Central Government declines to define its attitude towards the Ahrar and the Punjab Government cannot act unilaterally, I suggest that a warning by H. S. or C. S. should be administered.
4. I am becoming more and more convinced that the Ahrar are not working to help Pakistan and Islam. Their object is to prepare the ground for the next elections when they will emerge as an anti-League party or as a distinctive group within the League.”
The Home Secretary marked the case for information to the Chief Minister saying that a meeting of officers to review and consider the whole question had already been fixed. When the file was received by Mr. Anwar Ali, he required S. P. (A) and S. P. (B) to speak to him with a view to drawing up a list of points which were to be placed in the meeting of officers that was to come off in the next few days. In compliance with this, Mr. Nazir Ahmad, S. P. (B), wrote the following note:—
“In addition to this file and the file placed below to which are attached two placards concerning the boycott of the Mirzais and keeping separate utensils for Mirzais the following files are added:—
(1) The file containing the speech of Bashir Ahmad, Manzur Ahmad and Karamat Ali of the Sialkot district in which Bashir Ahmad said that a sister-in-law of Mirza Mahmud Ahmad was raped by Dr. Ehsan Ali and he was only awarded ten strokes of shoes and that if Daultana helped the Ahmadis he would be confronted with shoes. The other speakers abused Mirza Ghulam Ahmad publicly.
(2) The file containing the speeches of Iftikhar-ul-Hasan of Lyallpur. In his speech he made on the 8th of August he said that they had no faith in the officers of the ‘ghaddar’ Government like Mumtaz Muhammad Daultana, Sir Zafrullah Khan and Khwaja Nazim-ud-Din. In his speech he made on the 29th of August Maulvi Iftikhar-ul-Hasan remarked that Najaf Khan was responsible for Shams-ul-Haq’s murder and the murder of the late Khan Liaquat Ali Khan and that of the late Sahibzada Itzaz-ud-Din Ahmad Khan. Iftikhar-ul-Hasan was administered a warning by the Deputy Commissioner of Lyallpur at the Home Secretary’s suggestion.
(3) The file containing the speech of Maulvi Abdul Khanan of the Campbellpur district in which he said that the Mirzais were fit to be murdered and Khwaja Nazim-ud-Din was a kafir, a murtadd, a fool and an ignorant person. This Maulvi was also warned through the Deputy Commissioner, Campbellpur.
(4) The file containing the speech of Khan Abdus Sattar Khan Niazi, M. L. A., he made at Jhang on 20th September 1952, in which he not only criticised the Ahmadis but also remarked that police constables and Government clerks were finding it difficult to make both ends meet on account of their low salaries and further said that Daultana was a dacoit and was robbing the nation. Government finally decided not to take any action against Abdus Sattar Khan Niazi.
(5) The file containing the proceedings of a public meeting held by the All Muslim Parties Convention at Rawalpindi from the 14th to the 16th of November 1952. In this meeting Master Taj-ud-Din and Muhammad Ali Jullundri made violent speeches and Muhammad Ali Jullundri remarked that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and all his followers were zindiqs and that anybody who killed a false claimant to prophethood was equal to 100 martyrs in spirituality.
2. The Ahrar speakers need to be discouraged from speaking disparagingly against Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan and the founder of the Ahmadiya sect in public meetings. They usually refer in their speeches to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as a Dajjal, a liar and a womaniser and to Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan as a traitor and an enemy of Pakistan.
3. The Ahrar speakers try to impress upon the people that it was a great disgrace of the Holy Prophet if some people like the Ahmadis considered Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as a prophet. In this way the common man’s sentiments are played upon and he is incited to acts of violence against the Ahmadis.
4. The Ahrar speakers are now concentrating upon the social and commercial boycott of the Ahmadis by ostracising them as non-Muslims and encouraging shopkeepers to show boards on their shops that separate utensils are maintained by them for the Ahmadis.
5. The Ahrar speakers are also trying to incite Muslims not to allow the Ahmadis to bury their dead Ahmadis in their graveyards.
6. The Ahrar speakers have been trying to press upon the people that the Prime Minister of Pakistan and the Chief Minister of the Punjab are supporting the Ahmadis and that is why they have not acceded to their demands of declaring the Ahmadis as a separate community and turning out Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan from the Pakistan Cabinet.
7. The Ahrar speakers have been trying to emphasise in their speeches that the Mirzais should not be allowed to hold key posts in the Pakistan Army or other services. In this way they have been trying to foster communalism between the Ahmadis and other Muslims in the service.
8. The Ahrar speakers have been openly preaching that Mirza Mahmud Ahmad of Rabwah and his followers are not loyal to the Pakistan State and they are anxious to re-unite Pakistan with India as Qadian, where the founder of their sect is buried, is in India and they are anxious to go back to Qadian.
9. The Ahrar speakers have also been preaching time and again that it was due to the treachery of Mirza Mahmud Ahmad and Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan that the Gurdaspur district was annexed to India and not to Pakistan.
10. The Ahrar speakers have also been preaching that the Kashmir question had not been solved due to Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan’s insincerity and the strained relations between Pakistan and Afghanistan were also due to his presence in the Pakistan Cabinet.
11. The Ahrar speakers have also been broadcasting in their speeches that Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan was an agent of the British and the Ahmadiya sect was encouraged and developed by the British Government because its founder was against ‘Jihad’.
The daily ‘Zamindar’ and the ‘Azad’ which is an organ of the Ahrar almost daily publish articles in their papers which are scandalous and vilifying to the Ahmadis, the founder of their sect and Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan.
12. The result of all this agitation on the part of the Ahrar is that the relations between the Muslims and the Ahmadis have become more strained and the generality of the people have begun to think that those who are at the helm of affairs in this country have no regard for the feelings of the people and support the Ahmadis. In this way the State has Suffered and the Ahrar leaders have gained in their stature in the public eye. Another result of this agitation has been that the whole class of mullas has become turbulent in their daily utterances and Friday sermons. Instead of confining their sermons on religion they now are invariably indulging in politics, particularly in their Friday sermons,”
The meeting was held on 24th December 1952 in the Chief Minister’s room in which Mr. Qurban Ali Khan, Inspector-General of Police, Home Secretary and Mr. Anwar Ali, D.I.G., C. I. D., took part. The only decision taken was that where a speech offended against a provision of law, legal action should be taken and that it was not necessary to take any further action. In compliance with this order a letter was written to S. P., Sialkot, pointing out to him that as Manzur Ahmad, Karamat Ali and Bashir Ahmad, whose prosecution had been recommended by him and the District Magistrate for speeches at the Gulu Shah Fair were petty persons, it would not be useful to prosecute them on this occasion.
A conference under the auspices of All Muslim Parties Convention was again going to be held in Sialkot on 9th and 10th February 1953. Though the conference was advertised by one Allama Muhammad Yaqub Khan, the Ahrar were at the back of the whole show. On 6th November 1952, Mr. Ghulam Sarwar Khan, Deputy Commissioner, Sialkot, wrote to the Commissioner saying that though Government instructions contained in D. O. letter No. 8469-84-BDSB, dated the 5th June 1952, were clear on the point that section 144, Criminal Procedure Code, should be promulgated, it had been subsequently decided in a conference of officers held under the chairmanship of the Chief Secretary in his office on Saturday, the 5th July 1952, that the Convention called for the 13th July 1952 in Lahore was not to be interfered with and that he took this decision to mean that no interference with such meetings was called for by the district authorities. He pointed out that such conferences were held at Gujranwala and Lahore and no action was taken and inquired whether the same policy was intended to be followed in the district of Sialkot. A copy of this letter was forwarded demi-officially to the Chief Secretary to Government, Punjab, which was placed before the Home Secretary on 9th November 1952. The Commissioner forwarded the Deputy Commissioner’s reference to the Chief Secretary on 9th November 1952, with the opinion that the action proposed to be taken by the D. C., Sialkot, in not interfering with the conference appeared to be right. The Home Secretary noted that Government had no desire of issuing orders contrary to what the District Magistrate intended to do and that, in view of the last sentence of the District Magistrate’s letter, no action was necessary.
ACTIVITIES OF THE ULAMA AND THEIR INTERVIEWS WITH THE PRIME MINISTER AND THE CHIEF MINISTER
The first person to draw the attention of the Prime Minister, Khwaja Nazim-ud-Din, to the seriousness of the Qadiani movement was Qazi Ehsan Ahmad Shujabadi. Opposition of Qadianiyyat appears to be this man’s sole interest in life and he carries wherever he goes a large wooden box full of Ahmadiya and anti-Ahmadiya literature. Every calamity, catastrophe or other unfortunate event that falls to Pakistan or to anyone else, including such events as the assassination of the Quaid-i-Millat and the air crashes, not to speak of more important political events, is always ascribed by Shujabadi to the machinations of the Ahmadis. In March 1950 Shujabadi succeeded in persuading another divine of Karachi, Maulana Ehtisham-ul-Haq Thanvi, to go to Khwaja Nazim-ud-Din and to apprise him of the great discontent and indignation that prevailed against the Ahmadis in the country. They both went to Khwaja Nazim-ud-Din and saw him on 3rd March 1950, Shujabadi carrying his wooden box with him. He brought out from this box some Qadiani literature perusal of which horrified Khwaja Nazim-ud-Din.
It has been already mentioned that the demands against the Ahmadis were formulated by the ulama some time in June 1952 in Karachi and on 13th July 1952 in Lahore when a Majlis-i-Amal was constituted to devise measures to secure acceptance of the demands. One of the methods adopted by the members of Majlis-i-Amal was to wait upon Khwaja Nazim-ud-Din, the Prime Minister, and to convince him of the justice of the demands. The first interview with the Prime Minister was by Maulana Akhtar Ali Khan sometime in July, 1952, when he happened to be in Karachi in connection with, a press conference. The Maulana mentioned, the demands to the Prime Minister and watched his reaction. The Maulana has produced a memorandum, Ex. D. E. 16, and claims that this contains exactly what the Prime Minister said to him :—
“Mujhe mulk ke jazabat aur ihsasat ka pura ilm hai. Main janta hun keh Musalman kiya ckahte hain lekin main unhen kahunga keh hukumat unke jazabat ka pura pura ihtram karti hai, lekin unke mutalibat ko pura karne ke raste men kuchh a’ini dushwarian hain. Un dushwarion, ko dur karne men kuchh waqt lage-ga. Isliye Musalmanon ko tawaqquf aur itminan se kam lena chahiye, Aman aur qanun ko barqarar rakhne men hukumat se, ta’awun karna chahiye. Ham jo bhi faisala karen-ge woh Musalmanon ko qabil-i-qabul ho ga. Ap-ne kaha keh ye faisala ulama-i-karam ki ‘ain marzi ke mutabiq hoga. Meri hukumat 14 August ko bunyadi Hikmat-i-amli ka i’lan kar-degi. Mujhe ummid hai keh yeh wazahat mulk ki rai a’ma ko mutma’in kar-degi.”
(TRANSLATION)
“I am fully alive to the feelings and sentiments of the country. I know what the Musalmans want. I wish to tell them that the Government fully respects their sentiments, but there are certain constitutional difficulties in the way of acceptance of their demands. It will take some time to remove those difficulties. The Musalmans should, therefore, wait and be calm. They should co-operate with the Government in maintaining law and order. Whatever we decide, shall be acceptable to the Musalmans. He said, ‘That decision will be exactly in accord with the wishes of the ulama also. My Government will announce its basic policy on the 14th of August. I hope that this clarification will satisfy the public opinion’.”
Khwaja Nazim-ud-Din’s account of what transpired at this interview is different. He has stated that all that he said to Maulana Akhtar Ali Khan was that he would deal with this question in his speech on the Pakistan Day on 14th August.
On return from Karachi Maulana Akhtar Ali Khan published in bold headlines in the ‘Zamindar’ of 4th August that the policy of the Central Government regarding the Qadianis would be announced by the Prime Minister in his speech on the Pakistan Day and that the announcement would be in accordance with the shari’at and the wishes of the ulama. The Maulana wrongly stated in this news item that he had led a deputation of khatm-i-nubuwwat movement in his interview with the Prime Minister, the fact being that the Maulana had gone to Karachi as a member of some press conference and had seen Khwaja Nazim-ud-Din in that connection together with some other members of that conference, and the subject of Ahmadis happened to be mentioned only incidentally.
A deputation of Master Taj-ud-Din Ansari, Maulana Abul Hasanat Muhammad Ahmad, Maulana Murtaza Ahmad Khan Maikash, Sheikh Husam-ud-Din, Maulana Ehtisham-ul-Haq Thanvi and Maulana Abdul Haamid Badayuni met the Prime Minister in Karachi on 13th August and presented to him a written memorandum, stating the grievances against the Ahmadis and the following demands in respect of them :—
(1) that the Ahmadis be declared a minority ;(2) that Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan he removed from the office of Foreign Minister ; and(3) that the Ahmadis be removed from key posts in the State.
Khwaja Nazim-ud-Din said that he was just then busy in some engagements for the following day, which was the Pakistan Day, and that he did not have enough time to discuss the matter. He suggested that the deputationists could come to him after he was free from his engagements for the Pakistan Day. In his broadcast on the Pakistan Day the Prime Minister did not say one word about the Ahmadis or the demands against them. On the contrary, that speech contained a veiled reference to, and denunciation of false rumours in newspapers and to internal disruptive elements which, if not checked, were likely to disintegrate the country.
On the same day, however, the Central Government issued the following cryptic communique :—
“The Government of Pakistan have decided that no member of any Provincial or Federal Council of Ministers should use his official position in propagating any sectarian creed among those persons who come in contact with him. Every Governor is being asked to communicate this decision to all the Ministers concerned, and it is hoped that no Minister will in future depart from this rule.
“The Government of Pakistan have received frequent complaints that certain officials of the Central and Provincial Governments belonging to a particular sect abuse their official position in propagating their sectarian creed among their subordinates and other persons who come in contact with them in their official capacity. The Government take a serious view of this matter and have accordingly decided to stop this undesirable activity at once and to prohibit in future the propagation of any sectarian creed in this objectionable manner.
“The Government Service Conduct Rules are being amended in this behalf.
“The Government wish to make it known that drastic action will be taken against any person who offends against this rule, irrespective of the sect to which he may belong. The Provincial and State Governments in Pakistan have also been asked to take similar action.”
Since this communique was generally understood to be directed against Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan and other Ahmadi officers, Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan immediately issued the following press statement:—
“I, as a Muslim, am a passionate believer — in accordance with the teaching of Islam as set out in the Holy Qur’an and illustrated in the life of the Holy Prophet — in the freedom of conscience. In my view the exercise of official pressure or influence is just as much interference with freedom of conscience as direct persecution or coercion. On the other hand it is a duty inculcated by Islam upon every Muslim that he should, both by example and precept, illustrate the teachings of Islam in his life. It is a duty which the Muslims during their period of decline have sadly neglected with consequences affecting their individual and national lives which are only too glaring.
“My own beliefs have never been a matter of secrecy for those who have known me, whether personally or by repute, though recently persistent attempts have been made in certain quarters to distort them and to misrepresent them. As I have said above I consider it dishonest and wholly opposed to the teachings of Islam that a person should use his official position or authority, whether directly or indirectly, to impose his own religious views upon others or to force or persuade any person by use of such influence or authority to abjure what he believes in. This is widely taught and accepted in the community to which I have the honour to belong and I would be most surprised and deeply pained, if I found that any person belonging to that community acted in contravention of this wholesome principle.
“It is true that our views and doctrines are propagated as widely as our very limited resources permit. This is done in discharge of the obligation resting upon all right-thinking people to endeavour earnestly and continuously to propagate by word and conduct what they sincerely believe to be the truth so that righteousness and beneficence may be widely spread and established. To have recourse to anything which would savour of pressure or coercion or the employment of unfair means would defeat the very object itself. The person in respect of whom any such method is employed is bound to react adversely and to feel that he is not being invited freely and cheerfully to study, ponder and reflect over fundamental truths but is being sought to be dragooned into outward profession of acceptance of creed which his conscience rejects.
“There is another aspect of the matter. Members of a community which is itself the subject of misrepresentation and even persecution at the hands of a certain section of those who claim to be the overwhelming majority cannot afford to have recourse to such methods. While they are denounced and held up to ridicule and hatred for what they do not profess and have not done they cannot hope to escape punishment and severe condemnation if they in their turn would begin to adopt and use methods which are contrary not only to Islam but to good sense itself and would defeat the very purpose in view.
“I welcome the announcement made on behalf of the Government which I hope will be taken to heart by all sections of the people of Pakistan and would help to restore an atmosphere of calmness, serenity, reflection and wide tolerance in all matters pertaining to faith and conscience.
“Faith and belief are the sublimest subjects with which the human mind may be concerned and by which it may be swayed. In this sphere the moat scrupulous caution is necessary lest in the eyes of God any of us should become guilty of seeking to make a man declare that he believes in something which his conscience does not accept or that he has ceased to believe in something which his heart and conscience are passionately devoted to. Any person who indulges in any such activity, whether he is a Minister, an official or an individual in private life, is seeking to manufacture hypocrites and not sincere believers.”
The same members of Majlis-i-Amal who had met Khwaja Nazim-ud-Din on 13th August again waited on him on 16th August. Sardar Abdur Rab Nishtar, Mr. Gurmani and Mr. Fazl-ur-Rahman were also present in this meeting. The outcome of the interview was distinctly disappointing for the deputationists. Khwaja Nazim-ud-Din said that the question whether Ahmadis should be declared a non-Muslim minority was for the Constituent Assembly and that he was not willing to make any move in that direction. Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan, he said, had been appointed by the Quaid-i-Azam himself and therefore he would not remove him. As regards the removal of Ahmadi officers from key posts, he pointed out that the deputationists will have to make out a case on the merits. And the grievances in the matter of Rabwah, he concluded, could be represented to the Provincial Government.
Maulana Abul Hasanat Sayyad Muhammad Ahmad Qadri, Maulana Murtaza Ahmad Khan Maikash, Sheikh Husam-ud-Din and Maulana Daud Ghaznavi met the Chief Minister of the Punjab on 29th September 1952 and placed before him their grievances against the Ahmadis, including the grant of land for an exclusively Ahmadiya colony at Rabwah, improper allotments, and what the deputationists considered an ammunition scandal. The Chief Minister promised to look into the matter.
ALL PAKISTAN MUSLIM PARTIES CONVENTION
We have already mentioned that after Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan’s speech in Jehangir Park, Karachi, in May 1952, a meeting of ulama belonging to different schools was held in Karachi on 2nd Jane, in which the demands against the Ahmadis were formulated and a board of ulama appointed. A meeting of this Board was held on 15th August which was attended on special invitation by Sheikh Husam-ud-Din, Maulana Abul Hasanat Sayyad Muhammad Ahmad, Master Taj-ud-Din Ansari and Maulana Murtaza Ahmad Khan Maikash who were members of a deputation which had come from the Punjab. The Board decided to call an All Pakistan Muslim Parties Convention for 15th, 16th and 17th September. It appears that no steps were taken to call the Convention in September and some of the members of the Board began to show signs of impatience. A meeting of the Board was held on 15th December 1952, which was attended on special invitation by Sheikh Husam-ud-Din, Sayyad Muzaffar Ali Shamsi and Sayyad Munawwar Ali Shah, but there is no record of the decisions taken.
On 23rd December 1952 Maulana Daud Ghaznavi addressed a letter to Maulana Ehtisham-ul-Haq complaining of the delay in calling the Convention and impressing upon him the necessity of doing so as early as possible. He stated in that letter that if there were some financial difficulties in making the arrangements, the Punjab Majlis-i-Amal was willing to undertake the entire financial responsibility. Maulana Muhammad Shafi also wrote to Maulana Ehtisham-ul-Haq on 22nd October 1952 in the same strain as Maulana Daud Ghaznavi and suggested that the Convention should be called for a date during the days that the ulama would be in Karachi in connection with an ulama conference which was meeting to consider the proposals of the Basic Principles Committee. Consequently invitations were issued on 11th December 1952 by the convener Maulana Ehtisham-ul-Haq for a meeting of the All Pakistan Muslim Parties Convention on 16th, 17th and 18th January 1952.
There is some difference between the versions of the Majlis-i-Amal and the Ahrar on the one side and the Jama’at-i-Islami and Maulana Abul Ala Maudoodi on the other as to what happened during the deliberations of this Convention. According to the written statement of Majlis-i-Amal, a meeting of the Convention was held after Friday prayers on 16th January 1953 which was attended by the leading ulama of Pakistan and in which the question of Ahmadiyyat was discussed and a Subjects Committee formed. The written statement mentions the names of the following ulama who attended it: —
(1) Maulana Abul Ala Maudoodi, President, Jama’at-i-Islami, Lahore.(2) Haji Muhammad Amin, Amir-i-Jama’at-i-Najia.(3) Khalifa Haji Tarangzai from Peshawar.(4) Hazrat Pir Sarsina Sharif, Amir, Hizbullah, Dacca, Bengal.(5) Maulana Raghib Ahsan, M.A., Dacca.(6) Maulana Aziz-ur-Rahman, Nazim, Hizbullah, Dacca,(7) Maulana Athar Ali, Dacca.(8) Maulana Sakhawat-ul-Ambiyya, Dacca.(9) Maulana Muhammad Yusuf Banoori, Sadar Mudarris, Dar-ul-Uloom, Tando Allah Yar.(10) Maulana Shams-ul-Haq, Wazir-i-Mu’arif, Kalat.(11) Maulana Ibrahim Mir Sialkoti.(12) Maulana Ahmad Ali, Sadr, Jami’at-ul-Ulama-i-Islam, Sheranwala Gate, Lahore.(13) Maulana Muhammad Hasan, Jami’ Ashrafia, Nila Gumbad, Lahore.(14) Maulana Muhammad Idris, Sadr Mudarris, Jami’ Ashrafia, Nila Gumbad, Lahore.(15) Maulana Zafar Ahmad Usmani, Secretary, Ta’limat-i-Islami Board, Karachi.(16) Maulana Sayyad Suleman Nadvi, President, Ta’limat-i-Islami Board, Karachi.(17) Maulana Muhammad Shafi, Mufti-i-Deoband, Member, Ta’limat-i-Islami Board, Karachi.(18) Maulana Sultan Ahmad, Amir-i-Jama’at-i-Islami, Karachi and Sind.(19) Maulana Mufti Sahib Dad Khan, Arabic Teacher, Sind Madrisa, Karachi.(20) Maulana Abdul Haamid Badayuni, President, Jami’at-ul-Ulama-i-Karachi and Sind.(21) Maulana Muhammad Yusuf Calcuttvi, President, Jami’at-i-Ahl-i-Hadith, Karachi.(22) Maulana Muhammad Ismail, Nazim-i-Jami’at-i-Ahl-i-Hadith.(23) Maulana Sayyad Daud Ghaznavi, M. L. A., President, Jami’at-i-Ahl-i-Hadith., Maghribi Pakistan.(24) Maulvi Muhammad Ali Jullundri, General Secretary, Majlis-i-Ahrar, Punjab, Multan.(25) Maulana Sayyad Ata Ullah Shah Bukhari, Amir-i-Shari’at.(26) Maulana Mateen, Nazim, Jami’at-ul-Ulama-i-Islam, Karachi.(27) Maulana Ehtisham-ul-Haq, Convener, All Muslim Parties Convention, Karachi.(28) Maulana Abul Hasanat Sayyad Muhammad Ahmad Qadri, President, Jami’at-ul-Ulama-i-Pakistan and President of Majlis-i-Amal.
After the maghrib prayers on 17th January 1953, a meeting of the Subjects Committee was held and on the 18th January the second meeting of the Convention came off, in which the following resolutions were passed:—
(1) That since, in view of the attitude of Khwaja Nazim-ml-Din, Prime Minister of Pakistan, there is no hope of the demands in respect of the Mirzais being accepted, the All Muslim Parties Convention comes to the conclusion that in the circumstances rast iqdam has become inevitable to secure acceptance of the demands.
(2) That since the Government is not prepared to declare the Mirzais a non-Muslim minority, it has become necessary to adopt means to exclude the Mirzai sect from Millat-i-Islamia and one of these means is completely to boycott this sect.
(3) That since the demand for the removal of Sir Zafrullah Khan, the Mirzai foreign Minister, has not yet been conceded, the Convention demands the resignation of Khwaja Nazim-ud-Din, so that the Muslims of Pakistan should be able to follow and preserve their religious beliefs and Islamic traditions.
(4) That in order to give a practical shape to the demands mentioned above, the Convention proposes that it should make leading Musalmans and the representatives of different religious parties members of the General Council.
(5) That the General Council should elect fifteen of its members as members of the Council of Action.
(6) That the General Council elects the following eight as members of the Council of Action:—
(1) Maulana Sayyad Abul Hasanat Muhammad Ahmad Qadri;(2) Amir-i-Shari’at Sayyad Ata Ullah Shah Bukhari;(3) Maulana Abul Ala Maudoodi;(4) Maulana Abdul Haamid Badayuni;(5) Hafiz Kifayat Husain;(6) Maulana Ehtisham-ul-Haq Thanvi;(7) Abu Saleh Muhammad Jafar, Pir of Sarsina Sharif, East Pakistan; and(8) Maulana Muhammad Yusuf Calcuttvi;and authorises these members to co-opt the remaining seven members.
(7) The Council of Action is authorised to chalk out a programme of action to have the demands accepted.
(8) The Council of Action is directed that before adopting any practical programme it should organise a representative deputation to wait on the Central Government and to apprise it of the final decision of the people. This deputation will have the authority to give further time to the Cabinet for a final reply.
After the maghrib prayers the same day, a meeting of the eight members of the Council of Action was held and the following seven members were co-opted :—
(1) Pir Ghulam Majaddid Sarhaddi;
(2) Maulana Nur-ul-Hasan;
(3) Master Taj-ud-Din Ansari;
(4) Maulana Akhtar Ali Khan;
(5) Maulana Ismail Gujranwalvi;
(6) Sahibzada Faiz-ul-Hasan; and
(7) Haji Muhammad Amin Sarhaddi.
In the same meeting, the Majlis-i-Amal organised a deputation to wait on Khwaja Nazim-ud-Din. Accordingly, a deputation led by Maulana Abdul Haamid Badayuni and consisting of (1) Pir Sahib of Sarsina Sharif, (2) Sayyad Muzaffar Ali Shamsi, Secretary, Idarah-i-Tahaffuz-i-Huquq-I-Shia, Lahore, and (3) Master Taj-ud-Din Ansari, President, Majlis-i-Ahrar, met Khwaja Nazim-ud-Din on 22nd January 1953. Khwaja Sahib expressed sympathy with the demands but showed his inability to accept them.
The written statement of the Majlis-i-Ahrar is to the same effect, except that, according to it, the deputation was organised on 16th January which met Khwaja Nazim-ud-Din on 21st January. This written statement further alleges that a meeting of the eight elected members was fixed for the evening of 18th January and that during the day, at a dinner arranged by a friend of Mufti Muhammad Shafi, Maulana Abul Ala Maudoodi informed the other members that he would not be able to attend the evening session, because he had to complete the amendments to the proposed constitutional proposals and on the next morning he had to go to Lahore. He suggested that the elected members could meet in the evening and co-opt the remaining seven members. Another point on which the written statement of the Ahrar differs is that Master Taj-ud-Din Ansari was substituted not for Maulana Muhammad Yusuf Calcuttvi but for Maulana Athar Ali of Bengal.
The version of Jama’at-i-Islami is as follows :—
In January 1953, a convention represented by thirty-three leading ulama of all shades of opinion was held in Karachi to consider constitutional recommendations of the Basic Principles Committee. Immediately after this convention an All Pakistan Muslim Parties Convention was called to consider the situation arising out of the Tahaffuz-i-Khatm-i-Nubuwwat movement. Maulana Abul Ala Maudoodi also took part in this Convention and proposed in the Subjects Committee that as the ulamahad included the Qadiani problem among the amendments suggested by them to the Basic Principles Committee’s Report, no separate action on that score was now called for. After a long discussion this proposal of the Maulana was accepted. Unfortunately, however, it was not allowed to be moved in the open session on account of a technical ruling given by the Chairman of the meeting. Failing in this effort, the Maulana moved that a Central Majlis-i-Amal be formed and that this body should be made the sole authority for laying down a programme to have the Qadiani problem solved constitutionally and that no other organisation or individual should be allowed to deal with that problem. Unfortunately again, the personnel of the Majlis-i-Amal was not completed and thus the proposed Majlis did not formally come into existence. In the opinion of the Jama’at, therefore, all the activities of the member organisations of the Convention from the 17th January to 26th February 1953 were without constitutional sanction and, ultra vires. The deputation, which waited on the Prime Minister of Pakistan on the 22nd January and delivered the direct action ultimatum, was similarly unauthorised and, in any case, it did not represent the Convention correctly. The one-month notice which this deputation gave to the Prime Minister was without any authorisation from any constitutional body. The Jama’at through its Amir, Maulana Abul Ala Maudoodi, strongly criticised these unconstitutional steps and demanded of the Majlis-i-Amal of the Punjab on the 13th of February 1953 that a meeting of the Central Majlis-i-Amal be called immediately and all other activities in the matter stopped. This was done first through Malik Nasarullah Khan Aziz and again through him and Mian Tufail Muhammad, General Secretary of the Jama’at. On the 19th February 1953, the Secretary of the Jama’at issued directions to the members not to sign the forms which were being circulated by the Majlis-i-Amal for enrolment of volunteers for direct action. He also made it clear that unless the Central Majlis-i-Amal sanctioned any programme, no one belonging to the Jama’at should take part in these activities. In fact, two members were expelled from the Jama’at for violating these instructions. On the 26th February, the first meeting of the Central Majlis-i-Amal took place in Karachi in which the Maulana through his representative, Maulana Sultan Ahmad, Amir-i-Jama’at-i-Islami, Karachi and Sind, made it clear that, as the direct action programme had been decided upon in an unconstitutional manner, all activities in connection with it should be stopped and only the orders of the Central Majlis-i-Amal in this respect be acted upon. Maulana Sultan Ahmad was authorised to dissociate Jama’at-i-Islami from the Central Majlis-i-Amal if Maulana’s proposal was not agreed to. It is an irony of fate that instead of somebody listening to reason, the Central Majlis-i-Amal itself was dissolved and an entirely new direct action committee formed which started direct action on the next day. The Jama’at-i-Islami as such was not a member of this new or any other direct action committee, nor was any individual belonging to the Jama’at allowed to enrol himself as a direct-action worker. The Maulana made it quite obvious to everybody by his orders and by his action in expelling two of the members of the Jama’at for an alleged disobedience of his order that the Jama’at did not believe in or support the direct action in any manner and had completely dissociated itself from such activities.
According to the written statement of Maulana Abul Ala Maudoodi, the Ahrar started agitation over the Qadiani question in May 1952. The view of the Jama’at-i-Islami at that time was that the demand for the declaration of Qadianis as a minority was right but that since the constitution was in the making it was not right for the Musalmans to divert their attention to any unconstitutional agitation and that all efforts should be concentrated on having a truly Islamic constitution passed and to have the question of Qadianis settled in the making of the constitution itself. This view of the Jama’at was expressed in the Majlis-i-Shura’s resolution of 8th July 1952. The Ahrar convened in July 1952 a convention of all religious parties and an invitation for it was also received by the Jama’at-i-Islami which deputed Maulana Amin Ahsan Islahi and Malik Nasarullah Khan Aziz to join that convention and to present the view of the Jama’at. At the convention a Majlis-i-Amal was formed and two seats on it were offered to the Jama’at-i-Islami but the Jama’at did not accept them. Maulana Abul Ala Maudoodi was one of the thirty-three ulama who had gathered in Karachi in January 1953 to consider the Basic Principles Committee’s Report. One of the amendments to that Report was that the Qadianis should be included among the minorities for whom separate seats were to be reserved by separate election. In the middle of January was held an All Muslim Parties Convention in Karachi the object of which was to consider the question of Tahaffuz-i-Khatm-i-Nubuwwat. The proposal to form a Central Majlis-i-Amal was moved by Maulana Abul Ala Maudoodi himself but no meeting of the Majlis-i-Amal was held till 26th February. The seven members were not duly co-opted and, therefore, all the proceedings taken by the member parties of the Convention from 17th January to the 27th February were invalid, including the formation of the deputation which waited on the Prime Minister on the 23rd January, the delivery of the one-month notice to him, the subsequent announcement of direct action and the steps actually taken in the Punjab in connection with the direct action. The Maulana protested against these irregularities at a meeting of the Punjab Majlis-i-Amal held on 13th February at Lahore by means of written objections sent by him through Malik Nasarullah Khan Aziz and demanded that a meeting of the Central Majlis-i-Amal be called and all proceedings suspended in the meanwhile. On this, it was decided that a meeting of the Central Majlis-i-Amal should be called for 17th February but no meeting was held and the Maulana again objected in writing before the Majlis-i-Amal through Mian Tufail Muhammad and Malik Nasarullah Khan Aziz. The meeting of the Central Majlis-i-Amal was then held on 26th February. At this meeting, Maulana Sutlan Ahmad, Amir-i-Jama’at-i-Islami, Karachi and Sind, was present on behalf of the Jama’at and he was asked by the Maulana to communicate his written objections to the irregularities and to recall the programme of direct action. Maulana Sultan Ahmad was further directed that if the Central Majlis-i-Amal did not agree, he should dissociate the Jama’at from the proceedings. But at Karachi, the Central Majlis-i-Amal itself was abolished and was replaced by a direct action committee which announced direct action on the following day. No member of the Jama’at-i-Islami was a member of this direct action committee. The Jama’at in a resolution of the Majlis-i-Shura, which was held on the 4th/5th March, dissociated itself from the direct action. The rest of the written statement of the Maulana is the same as that of the Jama’at.
Thus there is an issue between the Majlis-i-Amal, Punjab, and the Ahrar on the one side and the Jama’at-i-Islami and Maulana Abul Ala Maudoodi on the other whether Jama’at-i-Islami was a party to the direct action resolution and to the subsequent action taken in pursuance of that resolution. We have at the present stage merely stated the points of difference between the two contending parties and when we come to deal with the question of responsibility we shall discuss the whole evidence on this part of the case in order to determine the question of the extent to which the Jama’at-i-Islami is responsible for the disturbances which came as a sequel to the direct action resolution and programme.
MORE INTERVIEWS WITH THE PRIME MINISTER AND CHIEF MINISTER
Khwaja Nazim-ud-Din came to Lahore on 16th February 1953, and a deputation consisting of Maulana Akhtar Ali Khan, Maulana Abul Hasanat Sayyed Muhammad Ahmad Qadri, Sayyed Mazaffar Ali Shamsi, Master Taj-ud-Din Ansari and Hafiz Khadim Husain met him in order to inquire what attitude he intended to adopt in regard to the demands. Khwaja Nazim-ud-Din replied that he had difficulties of which the deputationists had no knowledge and hinted that the demands could not be accepted. He, however, told them that if they wanted to have further discussion, they could come down to Karachi.
On 20th February another deputation comprising Maulana Muhammad Bakhsh Muslim, Sufi Ghulam Muhammad Tarannum, Sayyad Muzaffar Ali Shamsi and Hafiz Kifayat Husain met the Chief Minister of the Punjab to remind him of their grievances against the Ahmadis, which could be redressed by the Provincial Government. The Chief Minister replied that he was looking into the matter.
Another deputation of the ulama met Khwaja Nazim-ud-Din in Karachi on 21st February 1953. The deputation consisted of Maulana Suleman Nadvi, Maulana Ehtisham-ul-Haq Thanvi, Mufti Muhammad Shafi, Maulana Akhtar Ali Khan and Maulana Abdul Haamid Badayuni. The deputationists told Khwaja Sahib that one month’s ultimatum had expired but no reply to the demands had yet been given by him. Sirdar Abdur Rab Nishtar also was present at this interview. In the course of the talk Maulana Ehtisham-ul-Haq wrote something on a slip of paper and passed it on to others who nodded approvingly except Maulana Abdul Haamid Badayuni.
On the following day Khwaja Nazim-ud-Din received a telephone call from Maulana Abdul Haamid Badayuni who said that some ulama from the Punjab were coming for an interview with Khwaja Nazim-ud-Din and that the ulama who had waited on him on the previous day should not be called at the interview with the Punjab ulama. Sometime later the same day, Maulana Abdul Haamid Badayuni came to Khwaja Nazim-ud-Din accompanied by Master Taj-ud-Din Ansari, Maulana Abul Hasanat Sayyad Muhammad Ahmad Qadri and Sayyad Muzaffar Ali Shamsi. Sirdar Abdur Rab Nishtar was again present at the interview. Maulana Akhtar Ali Khan had left for Bahawalpur and he was telephoned to come down to Karachi but he said that he had to return to Lahore and could come to Karachi only if the Governor-General’s Viking was sent to him. At this interview the demands were repeated but the deputationists were told more distinctly that the demands could neither be accepted nor moved by Khwaja Nazim-ud-Din in the Constituent Assembly.
DIRECT ACTION DECIDED UPON
A meeting of the Central Majlis-i-Amal was held in Karachi on 26th February 1953. Present at that meeting were :—
(1) Master Taj-ud-Din Ansari,(2) Sahibzada Faiz-ul-Hasan,(3) Maulana Sultan Ahmad, Amir-i-Jama’at-i-Islami, Sind and Karachi,(4) Sayyad Nur-ul-Hasan Bukhari,(5) Maulana Abul Hasanat Sayyad Muhammad Ahmad Qadri,(6) Maulana Muhammad Abdul Haamid Badayuni,(7) Maulana Ehtisham-ul-Haq Thanvi,(8) Sayyad Ata Ullah Shah Bukhari,(9) Maulana Muhammad Yusuf Calcuttvi. and(10) Sayyad Mazaffar Ali Shamsi.
The meeting was presided over by Maulana Abul Hasanat. A resolution, was passed at the meeting to the effect that since the notice decided in the Convention of 18th January to be given to the Central Government had been duly handed over to that Government by a deputation of Majlis-i-Amal and the period of the notice had expired on 22nd February and four more day had passed, the form of peaceful rast iqdam had to be determined. The form of rast iqdam decided upon was that five volunteers, bearing placards with the demands written on them, were to go to the residence of the Prime Minister through by roads, not by a thoroughfare, that if the volunteers were stopped by the sentry, they were to say that they had come to place the demands before the Prime Minister and to request ham to accept them and that they would return only if the Prime Minister declared that he accepted the demands. If these volunteers were arrested, the Council of Action would send another batch of five volunteers, and this was to continue in a peaceful manner until the demands were accepted. The residence of the Governor-General also was to be similarly picketed to avoid the impression that the movement was directed against the Prime Minister because he was a Bengali. Maulana Abul Hasanat Sayyad Muhammad Ahmad was appointed as the dictator of the sacred movement and he was permitted to nominate a successor if he was arrested. It was also resolved that in the public meeting that was going to be held that very evening in Aram Bagh, the public were to be advised to carry on their usual business and not to accompany the volunteers.
PREPARATIONS TO MEET THE THREAT OF DIRECT ACTION
In the Punjab information began to pour in that the threat of direct action was materialising and that a movement of full-fledged civil disobedience was soon going to be launched. On 16th February or thereabout the C. I. D. Punjab received the following information from the Intelligence Bureau, Karachi :—
“Intelligence Bureau
Government of Pakistan.
Karachi, Feb. 14th, 1953.CIRCULAR MEMORANDUM
“A source report which appears to have some substance in it shows that the sponsors of the khatm-i-nubuwwat agitation are planning to start a full-fledged agitation in Punjab and Karachi from February 22nd, 1953 in connection with their five-point demand for (1) removal of Hon’ble Chaudhri Muhammad Zafrullah Khan from the post of Foreign Minister-ship, (2) declaration of Qadianis as a minority, (3) taking away the land which has been given to the Qadianis in Rabwah and utilising it for the rehabilitation of refugees, (4) removal of Qadianis from key posts and their replacement by Musalmans, and (5) framing the constitution of Pakistan on purely Islamic lines.
“2. The first person who will offer himself for arrest in connection with this agitation in Punjab will possibly be Sahibzada Pir Faiz-ul-Hasan who has about 30,000 murids. It is said that all his murids will follow suit.
“3. At Karachi plans for the launching of the agitation will be completed by one Muhammad Johar, Naib Nazim-i-Ala of the Jama’at Khatm-i-Nubuwwat instead of Lal Husain Akhtar who is reported to have fallen from grace on account of having spent about Rs. 24,000 during the past year without achieving much success. Muhammad Johar is, however, finding it difficult to launch the operations on account of paucity of volunteers. His main job during the next few days will be to raise as many volunteers as possible for offering themselves for arrest. Yesterday he sent one Niaz Ahmad to harangue to the Juma Congregation in the Memon Mosque at Boulton Market but the latter could not succeed in doing so. Some residents of Khudabad and Qaidabad colonies are reported to have volunteered but their total number has not yet been ascertained. In connection with the raising of volunteers a meeting is being planned to be held within the next few days in Jahangirabad which is near Usmania colony.
“4. The directive appears to have been given by Muhammad Ali Jullundri and volunteers have been called upon to get set on the mid-night between 21st and 22nd February 1953.
“5. The source report mentioned above concerns the operations which are being planned in Karachi. It is not known as to what plans are being made in other places in Pakistan and therefore it is requested that the C. I. Ds. of all Provinces may kindly make immediate enquiries for taking necessary action“.
The following top secret most immediate cypher telegram was received from Foreign Karachi by Punjab on 19th February 1953:—
“Headlines, articles and comments in ‘Zamindar’ and ‘Azad’ Lahore continue to whip up anti-Ahmadi agitation strongly. Some recent instances are the editorial and anti-Ahmadi articles in ‘Zamindar’ of 16th and 17th February respectively and series of anti-Ahmadi articles and poems in ‘Azad’ of 4th, 8th and 11th February. Provincial Government’s attention has been drawn to earlier objectionable articles published in Azad from time to time.
“2. We have now seen a report that anti-Ahmadi elements intend to give a fillip to the agitation in the Punjab by courting arrest from 22nd February. Central Government would be glad to have Provincial Government’s comments on this report and also trust that necessary measures would be undertaken to check the press from fanning the agitation“.
On receipt of this telegram the position was discussed m a meeting of the Chief Minister, the Home Secretary and Mr. Anwar Ali who by now had succeeded Mr. Qurban Ali Khan as Inspector-General of Police. The result of the meeting was thus recorded by Mr. Anwar Ali on 20th February 1953:—
“This case was discussed this morning by H. S. and myself with H.C.M. The changes which H.C.M. suggested have been incorporated in the draft. Will C. S. kindly sign so that it can issue at once ?
“2. Day after tomorrow being Sunday, action on the draft in Karachi may be delayed and I, therefore, suggest that a cypher telegram should be sent in reply to the telegram which came on 10th February 1953.
Draft is added.
“3. H. C. M. has suggested that further action on the following lines should be taken:
(i) The ugly incidents which have taken place in the Province within the last month or two and which have been mentioned in the letter to the Government of Pakistan, should be suitably publicised. H. C. M. desires that H. S. should send for the editors of ‘Afaq’, ‘Maghribi Pakistan’ and ‘Ehsan’ and give them a suitable lead. He also desires that the editor of ‘Civil and Military Gazette’ should be spoken to by D. P. R. and advised to write articles about the situation in a more objective manner so that the public will show leas apathy to these articles.
(ii) The workers of the All Parties Muslim Convention who have taken a leading part in sponsoring the agitation should be sent for by H. S. and told that the agitation has no longer remained peaceful and that incidents have taken place which have created genuine fear and alarm in the minds of the public.
They should also be told that in case there is any breach of peace or law the Provincial Government will hold the sponsors of the agitation directly responsible for it.
(iii) The D. P. R. should be instructed by C. S. to send for Maulanas Abul Hasanat, Tarammm and Muhammad Bakhsh Muslim and advise them to refrain from making speeches which amount to incitement to violation of law and order. Maulana Akhtar Ali should be called by D. P. R. separately and also suitably spoken to.
“4. H. S. has seen this note and is taking action accordingly. C. S. may kindly instruct D. P. R.”
The following telegram was sent by the Chief Secretary on 21st February in reply to the cypher telegram that had been received from Karachi on 19th February :—
“THREATENED AGITATION IS LIKELY TO BE STARTED AT KARACHI BUT THERE MAY BE REPERCUSSIONS IN THIS AND OTHER PROVINCES ALSO (.) PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT IS IN TOUCH WITH SITUATION (.) DETAILED LETTER SEEKING GUIDANCE ISSUED TODAY”.
This was, with the Chief Minister’s approval, accompanied by the following letter:—
“No. 2249-BDSB,
Punjab Civil Secretariat, Lahore.
February 21, 1953My dear Ahmad,
Please refer to Ghias-ud-Din Ahmad’s D. O. letter No. 14682-BDSB, dated 21st October, 1952, to Hameed-ud Din Ahmad on the subject of the Ahmadi-Ahrar agitation.
“2. For some time the tempo of the agitation slowed up but recently efforts are being made once again with considerable vehemence to whip up popular interest. A large number of conferences and meetings have been arranged throughout the Province and fiery speeches made. The support of mullas has been enlisted and much venom is being poured against the Ahmadis. At Gujranwala printed leaflets were broadcast demanding that Ahmadis should be treated as untouchables and separate utensils provided for them at food and drink shops. It was also advocated for sometime in the Gujranwala district that the Ahmadis would not be permitted to be buried in Muslim graveyards. It was only as a result of the interference of the police that incidents on this account were averted. Ahmadis, who felt considerably alarmed over this development, made an application to the District Magistrate for allotment of land to be used as a separate graveyard. At Sargodha on 1st February 1953 the burial of an Ahmadi in the Muslim graveyard was obstructed and the situation was saved only as a result of the arrival of the police. Social boycott of the Ahmadis is being openly preached. At Montgomery, a speaker said that the shops of the Ahmadis would be picketed and they would not be allowed to draw water from public wells. The tone of the agitation, has definitely descended to a lower plane. A campaign for the enlistment of volunteers has been started throughout the Province and Sahibzada Faiz-ul-Hasan appointed as the first dictator. The volunteers are required to sign a pledge which binds them to lay their life, if necessary, for the honour of the Prophet. Some volunteers are said to have given the pledge with their blood. At Lahore, about 150 persons are said to have been enlisted. In other parts of the Province, the number of volunteers so far enrolled is estimated to be about 500. The target for the Province is 50,000. Master Taj-ud-Din Ansari (President, All Pakistan Majlis-i-Ahrar), Syed Muzaffar Ali Shamsi, (Secretary, Idara-i-Tahaffuz-i-Haquq-Shian) and Sahibzada Faiz-ul-Hasan have become particularly aggressive.
“3. The All Muslim Parties Convention which was constituted by the Ahrar last July met at Karachi from the 16th to the 18th January and passed the usual resolutions. Since their return to the Punjab the delegates have shown greater truculence. They are apparently fortified by the support which was given to the demand for the declaration of the Ahmadis as a minority community by the conference of the ulama held in Karachi. They affirm that the Honourable Prime Minister, whom they interviewed, was not sympathetic and that, therefore, they gave him an ultimatum threatening to start ‘direct action’ on the 23rd February. They give out that at Karachi public is on their side and that in the event of an agitation being started they will rally mass support. They also accuse members of the Central Government for having held out promises which have not been kept. A new feature of the agitation since the return of the delegates from Karachi is that a campaign of vilification has been started against the Honourable Prime Minister of Pakistan. In the earlier stages of the agitation, the removal of Sir Zafrullah Khan was demanded but some of the speakers have now been advocating that the Honourable Prime Minister should quit his office.
“4. It is said that ‘direct action’ will start at Karachi and that volunteers shall be despatched from the Punjab and other Provinces for the purpose. The ‘direct action’ will take the form of picketing of Ahmadi shops. It has also been threatened that if orders under section 144, Cr. P. C. are promulgated they shall be defied. The demands are as follows :—
(i) Sir Zafrullah Khan should be removed from the office of Foreign Minister;(ii) Ahmadis should be declared as a non-Muslim minority;(iii) Ahmadis holding key posts in Government should be relieved of their posts.“5. The agitation has the support of the Jama’at-i-Islami, the Ahl-i-Sunnat-wal-Jama’at, the Ahl-i-Hadith and the Shias. The Pirs of Golra Sharif (Rawalpindi District), Syal Sharif (Sargodha District), Alipur Sayyadan (Sialkot District), Pir Shaukat Husain (Sajjada Nashin, Darbar Pir Sahib, Multan) and some others have blessed the agitation. Funds are being collected and ‘one rupee notes’ have been printed and are being sold. Riff-raff elements have also thrown their weight on the side of the agitators. The Bahawalpur branch of the Azad Pakistan Party has given a sum of Rs.1,000 to the agitators.
“6. When the news of the visit of the Honourable Prime Minister to Lahore on the 16th became known, a public meeting was held and it was said that hartal should be observed on the date of the arrival of H. P. M. and black flags exhibited on housetops. The speakers were careful to emphasise that violence should not be resorted to but they were at pains to excite and inflame public feeling. Some of the speakers, in the course of their speeches, said that policemen who are called upon to make arrests in the event of civil disobedience being launched should think of doomsday when they would have to answer for their acts which militate against their religious obligations. On the 16th morning, bands of school-boys and street urchins were sent around and shopkeepers asked to close. Several persons who would have liked to keep their shops open, were intimidated and they meekly succumbed to the exhortations of the bands of boys and others parading around the streets. The Ahmadis very wisely closed their shops on their own. A number of schools were also closed. Two incidents took place resulting in violence and bloodshed—one outside the Dyal Singh College and the other at the Ta’lim-ul-Islam. (an Ahmadiya institution) College. Brickbats were exchanged when the students of the colleges concerned refused to walk out and injuries were received. A mock funeral of Sir Zafrullah Khan was also taken out and a number of small processions paraded the streets. Law-abiding citizens did not like the demonstrations but for fear of being dubbed as Ahmadis refrained from expressing their disapproval openly.
“7. The dead line has been fixed for the 23rd when, it is said, ‘direct action’ will start at Karachi. The Ahrar leaders have worked up mass fury to such an extent that they might find it difficult to retrace their steps. They have been making demagogical and jingoistical speeches and only in order to save their face they will have to do something dramatic on the 23rd.
“8. Meetings are held in Lahore almost every night at which speeches are made with the purpose of exciting popular feeling against the Ahmadis. On the 16th the faces of some shopkeepers who refused to close their shops were blackened. A car was also slightly damaged by the demonstrators near the Dyal Singh College. On the 18th in the N. W. R. Workshop an Ahmadi, who had been worried and taunted for many days, became enraged and struck a non-Ahmadi with a crow-bar rendering him unconscious. He has since absconded and his whereabouts are not known. A depot holder in Lahore refused to sell wheat to an Ahmadi woman and ultimately relented when the woman gave an undertaking that she would take part in any agitation which might be organised against the Ahmadis. A student of the Primary School in Sant Nagar was surrounded by his classmates and slapped. Shouts of ‘Mirzai kutta’ were raised by them.
“9. The agitation is not confined to this Province alone. Nor do the demands on which it is ostensibly based fall within the purview of the Provincial Government. This Government, therefore, feel very handicapped in dealing with the situation effectively and think that it will considerably strengthen their hands if the Central Government could enunciate the firm policy that they want to adopt with reference to these demands. Whatever this policy may be, on its enunciation no one will be left in any doubt as to the stand the Pakistan Government desires to take. The Provincial Government feel that they are strong enough to implement that policy within the Province.
Yours sincerely
(Sd.) H. A. MAJID”
G. AHMAD, Esquire, P. S. P.,
Secretary to the Government of Pakistan,
Ministry of the Interior, Karachi.”
On the same day Mr. Anwar Ali, I. G. P., wrote the following note to the Chief Secretary:—
“Government may like to see the record of the speech made by Maulvi Muhammad Ali Jullundri at a meeting held at Lahore on 16th February 1953. One thing is very significant and that is that in a loquacious moment he admitted that he and his party were opposed to the partition. He said further that the reasons why they held that view should become apparent to the people and that, in any case, if that awakening had not taken place it would do so within a year or two. He also condemned the Government vigorously, his main target being the H. P. M. The speakers also maligned at this meeting the Chief Ministers of the Punjab and N. W. F. P. The H.P.M. is being branded as a Mirzai. In another meeting Ata Ullah Shah Bukhari described him as “budhulazina ahmaqoon” (fool of fools). Contempt is a characteristic of the speeches.
“2. At a time when food is short, unemployment rampant, business depressed and Kashmir popularly held to be lost, anyone who attempts to spread confusion is no friend of Pakistan. It is my view that the Ahrar and the other ulama who are backing them have been singularly successful in diverting the public attention from the serious problems which confront the country. This confusion will weaken the determination of the people to fight the problems and to remedy them. We have evidence to show that the Ahrar took money from the Bahawalpur branch of the Azad Pakistan Party. They are sabotaging Pakistan. Government should gird its loins and face the menace. Sympathy of the intelligent public is being lost and the foreigners have begun to question the ability of the Government to face the crisis created by the ulama. The representative of the ‘London Times’ gave the impression to an officer of the Punjab Government that the Central Government was too weak to deal effectively with the existing problems. The British Deputy High Commissioner in Lahore told me last night that he had been receiving reports that the situation in the country was very threatening and that a general flare-up was imminent. H. S. Suhrawardy, Malik Khizar Hayat Khan and the Nawab of Mamdot have met the British D. H. C. We have apprised the Central Government of the seriousness of the situation and let us hope that a firm line will be taken.
“3. Maulvi Muhammad Ali Jullundri has been delivering objectionable speeches before also and orders were issued that he should be prosecuted under section 124-A for a speech which he made at Montgomery. I am trying to find out what progress has been made in that case”.
As direct action could now be expected to assume at any time a practical shape, Mr. Anwar Ali instructed all Superintendents of Police and Group Officers of C. I. D. to be alert and to watch the situation carefully. These officers were also requested to gather information about the enrolment of volunteers. The figures received later showed that more than 55 thousand volunteers had been enrolled in the Province.
Realising that the situation was becoming serious and that some measures to meet the apprehended danger to law and order had immediately to be taken, the Prime Minister decided to hold a meeting of the Central Cabinet. Representatives of the Punjab and the North-West Frontier Province also were directed to attend this meeting. Accordingly the meeting was held on the evening of 26th February and was attended by Khwaja Shahab-ud-Din, the Governor, and Khan Abdul Qaiyum Khan, the Chief Minister, from the North-West Frontier Province and Mr. Muhammad Husain Chatha, the Revenue Minister, Mr. Ghias-ud-Din Ahmad, the Home Secretary and Mr. Anwar Ali, the Inspector-General of Police, from the Punjab. Mr. I. I. Chundrigar, the Governor, and Mr. Mumtaz Muhammad Khan Daultana, the Chief Minister, of the Punjab who both had been invited to the meeting had some other engagements in Lahore and could not, therefore, go to Karachi. They, however, gave full instructions to the Punjab Minister and the officers who flew to Karachi. The matters that had to be discussed at the meeting were the three demands which had been communicated to the Prime Minister on 22nd January and the threat to law and order arising out of the direct action programme which was being finalised by the Central Majlis-i-Amal. The Punjab representatives had been instructed to communicate to the Central Government that in the opinion of the Punjab Government the demands were unreasonable and were to be resisted with firmness. The session of the Cabinet continued till 9 p.m. but no decision could be taken. At about 2 o’clock the following morning another meeting of the Cabinet was called on receipt of information that on that morning the houses of the Governor-General and the Prime Minister were to be picketed by volunteers. This meeting, which was also attended by the Governor of Sind, the Governor and Chief Minister of North-West Frontier Province, the Chief Commissioner and I. G. P., Karachi, the Secretary of the Interior, and the Deputy Chief of Staff, took the following decisions:—
(1) to arrest all prominent leaders of the agitation including Maulana Akhtar Ali Khan of the ‘Zamindar’,(2) to ban the ‘Azad’, the ‘Zamindar’ and the ‘Alfazl’,(3) to warn Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad not to move out of Rabwah or to do anything which might cause excitement or provocation, and(4) to stop the movement of volunteers to Karachi by taking action at the station of embarkation.
Armed with these decisions Mr. Chatha, the Revenue Minister, Mr. Ghias-ud-Din Ahmad, the Home Secretary and Mr. Anwar Ali, the I. G. P., returned to Lahore the same day.
PRELIMINARY MEASURES
Since its very constitution the Majlis-i-Amal, Punjab, had commenced making preparations for large-scale operations if a clash with Authority became necessary, and the whole paraphernalia for civil disobedience—volunteers, funds, bases of operation, committees of action, lists of dictators, a population charged with hatred of Government and Ahmadis and a complete absence of any ideological resistance—was ready when the ultimatum of direct action was given to the Prime Minister on 22nd January 1953. The decision to launch direct action was actually taken in Karachi by the ulama on the night of 26th January, and in the small hours of the following morning the Central Government found itself compelled to pick up the gauntlet.
On their return to Lahore on 27th February, the Punjab representatives communicated to their Government the decisions taken at Karachi. Mr. Anwar Ali, Inspector-General of Police, drew up his own proposals to implement the decisions taken and the policy laid down by the Central Government. These proposals which were discussed and approved in a meeting attended by the Chief Minister, the Minister for Revenue, the Home Secretary, the Inspector-General of Police, A. D. I. G. (C. I. D.) and Superintendent of Police (A), C. I. D., were :
“(i) All active Ahrar workers and other individuals who have been responsible for espousing the ‘direct action’ movement (vide list attached) should be arrested to-night throughout the Province.
(ii) The arrests should be made under section 3 of the P. P. S. A, initially by D.M.s/S.P.s (other than Lahore) on their own initiative. At Lahore the orders of detention should be issued under the authority of the Punjab Government. Orders for further detention of the individuals in outlying districts will be sent in due course by Government.
(iii) The following newspapers should be banned :—
(a) The ‘Zamindar’;(b) The ‘Azad’;(c) The ‘Alfazl’.(iv) Khwaja Nazir Ahmad, who controls the policy of the ‘C. & M. G.’ should be sent for by H. S. and told that he should see that the arrests are not made a matter for jubilation and that utmost restraint is exercised in the next month, or two.
(v) Khalifa Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud should be warned personally by D. M., Jhang, and told that he should advise members of his community, particularly his secretariat staff, to avoid causing provocation.
(vi) Information about volunteers who leave Lahore should be sent to the Sind as well as to the Karachi Police so that arrangements for their arrests en route can be made.
(vii) H. S. should hold a Press Conference on the 28th and explain the Government point of view and appeal to the newspapers to emphasise the need for patience and restraint.
(viii) A circular letter should be issued to all District Magistrates and Superintendents of Police giving the background of the action taken by the Central and Provincial Governments. These officers should also be asked to enlist the help of the sane elements in making the public appreciate the importance of maintaining law and order” .
The following wireless signal was immediately sent by the Home Secretary to the District Magistrates and Superintendents of Police of Rawalpindi, Gujranwala, Sialkot, Lyallpur, Montgomery, Multan, Sargodha and Sheikhupura districts:—
“In view of the worsening of the anti-Ahmadi agitation please arrest the following under section 3 Public Safety Act for a period of fourteen days(.) Orders for further detention will be issued by Government and sent in due course(.) Action should be taken on night between 27th & 28th February by either of you whoever is at headquarters and compliance report sent(.) Letter follows(.) For S. Ps. only(.) Until further orders you should signal daily sitreps to D. I. G., C. I. D(.) The sitreps should be brief and shall contain all important available information and general reactions to the action taken by Government particularly if there is any active attempt to organise and send volunteers to Lahore or Karachi or to launch civil disobedience locally or to collect funds in this connection(.)
By another wireless signal the District Magistrates and Superintendents of Police of Gujrat, Jhelum, Campbellpur, Jhang, D. G. Khan, Mianwali and Muzaffargarh districts were informed that certain members of the Ahrar organisation as we’ll as some non-Ahraris had been ordered to be arrested in connection with the anti-Ahmadi agitation in other districts and that these officers should remain vigilant and immediately report to Government if any-thing of importance happened or was expected in their districts.
By a most immediate top priority secret O. T. P. cypher telegram dated 27th February 1953, the Central Government communicated their views on the demands to the Punjab Government. Defining their attitude, they said :—
“2. (i) The Ahmadis or indeed any section of people cannot be declared a minority community against their wishes. It is not part of functions of Government to coerce any group into becoming a minority community.
(ii) Ahmadis cannot be removed from key posts under Government only on the ground that they are Ahmadis. Nor can demand for the removal of Honourable Minister for Foreign Affairs be entertained on the ground that he is an Ahmadi. There is a constitutional machinery provided for the removal of any Minister from office. So long as he continues to enjoy confidence of his colleagues and elected representatives of people in the Central Legislature he cannot be removed from office. No Minister can be removed from office merely because a section of people demands under threat of direct action that this be done. No Government servant whether Muslim or non-Muslim can be removed from any post under Government because of the religion he professes.
(iii) The demand for the removal of Ahmadis from key positions in the Government arises apparently from an apprehension that they might misuse their positions to propagate their particular religious creed. To remove this apprehension, Government have already issued strict instructions prohibiting the propagation of any sectarian creed by any Minister or any officer of Government.
3. Central Government do not (repeat not) propose to make an official declaration on the lines of paragraph 2 above unless the situation demands that such a declaration should be made. But Provincial Governments are requested to organise intensive publicity on these lines immediately and to give proper guidance to the press.
4. A press communique is being issued today following the arrest of prominent leaders of agitation in Karachi. It is necessary to isolate the Ahrar from other comparatively lukewarm sponsors of agitation and to concentrate attack on Ahrar for the present. The line taken in communique in respect of Ahrar should be reinforced by full publicity of their past misdeeds and present disruptionist activities”.
The press communique issued by the Central Government explained that the anti-Ahmadiya agitation had been organised by the Ahrar who, as was apparent from their past, had, before the Partition, worked in close cooperation with the Congress and other bodies which were arrayed against the Quaid-i-Azam in his struggle for the freedom of Muslims, that this party had not yet reconciled themselves to the establishment of Pakistan, that their object was to create dissensions among Muslims and to undermine public confidence in the stability of Pakistan, that the agitation was clearly designed to destroy Muslim solidarity by fomenting internecine dissensions under the cloak of religion, that the sponsors of the agitation had decided to embark upon direct action and planned disturbances on a large scale with a view to forcing the Government to yield to their dictation, that no Government worthy of the name could allow itself to be coerced by direct action on the part of any section of the community, that Government was resolved to maintain law and order with all the resources at its command, and that if public peace were disturbed, the law will have its course and those responsible for flouting it will have to bear the consequences. The communique also appealed to all sections of the people not to countenance any unlawful activities and to see that nothing was done that might in any way prejudice the safety or stability of Pakistan.
A copy of this communique was circulated by the Chief Secretary on 28th February 1953 to all District Magistrates and Commissioners of Divisions in the Punjab informing them that Government had ordered the arrest of the ringleaders of the Ahrar party and some other persons who were taking an active part in the agitation, that the publication of the ‘Azad’ and the ‘Alfazl’, the party organs of the Ahrar and the Ahmadiya community respectively, had been banned, and that District Magistrates were to keep a vigilant eye on the situation in their districts. The accompanying letter also directed the District Magistrates to acquaint the public with the Government’s stand-point on the basis of the Central Government’s communique and to put special emphasis on the fact that the agitation had been created and fomented by the Ahrar for their own ends and that the action taken by Government was mainly directed against them. The letter also conveyed to the district authorities the Provincial Government’s desire that no ‘further arrests’ were to be made unless local circumstances made it absolutely necessary and it was felt that there was no time for prior consultation with the Provincial Government. As it was feared that the agitators might start sending volunteers to Lahore or to Karachi to offer themselves for arrest, the District Magistrates were directed to take the following steps immediately:—
“(a) You should enlist the help of the saner elements in your district to influence public opinion and thought on the right lines. It should be impressed upon them that whereas the Government do not in any way want to interfere with or curb the legitimate rights—religious or secular—of the citizens, they will not give any quarter to those whose intention is to jeopardise the public peace or embarrass Government.
(b) You should also warn the leading members of the Ahmadiya community in your district that they should scrupulously desist from saying or writing anything which may tend to aggravate the situation or provoke the followers of the other sects. They should particularly be asked to refrain from expressing any jubilation over the action which has been taken by Government, as it may create an erroneous impression of partisanship against the Government.
(c) The Superintendents of Police are being asked to send daily situation reports to the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, C. I. D. In addition to these situation reports, if anything of importance or unusual nature in this connection comes to your notice, you should immediately inform the Home Secretary either on the Police Wireless or on the telephone.
(d) Until the situation sufficiently calms down, you should, as far as possible, remain at your headquarters.”
On 1st March 1953, the Home Secretary addressed the following letter to all Superintendents of Police excluding Senior Superintendent of Police, Lahore, all Deputy Commissioners excluding District Magistrate, Lahore, Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Lahore Range, Commissioners of Divisions excluding Lahore Division, and all Deputy Inspectors-General of Ranges excluding Lahore, for information:—
“The Ahrar agitation is now taking the shape that volunteers are being sent from the outlying districts to Lahore for the so-called ‘direct action’ (.) Government’s intention is that the agitation should, not be allowed to spread from the outlying districts to Lahore and that local action should be taken to suppress it at the source (.) You should, therefore, take firm action to ensure that volunteers do not come to Lahore(.) Government leave it to your discretion to take what steps you consider necessary including the promulgation of prohibition under section 144, Cr. P. C. (.) Mass arrests of volunteers should be avoided. (.) As already instructed you should enlist the support of saner elements of your district in influencing the public opinion in favour of Government’s action(.)”
Copies of this letter were also sent to D. M. and S. S. P., Lahore, for “similar compliance” and to D. I. G., Lahore, “for information” .
On the same day a wireless message No. 2563-82/BDSB, from D. I. G., C. I. D. to all S. Ps. and Range D. I. Gs. was sent containing, inter alia, the following direction : —
“No volunteers to be permitted to proceed to Karachi and if possible to Lahore as well”.
On 2nd March 1953, Malik Habib Ullah, A. D. I. G., C. I. D., addressed the following direction regarding volunteers : —
“As directed by the Inspector-General of Police, I informed the Superintendents of Police, Gujranwala, Rawalpindi, Sargodha, Lyallpur, Montgomery and Multan, on telephone that persuasive methods should be employed to desist volunteers from going to Karachi, but in case persuasion failed, they need not be arrested. ……………… It is proposed that batches of volunteers coming to Lahore from the outlying districts should, wherever possible, be intercepted a long way out of Lahore and dealt with on the spot. If this procedure succeeds, a good deal of pressure could be relieved from the public meetings and processions in Lahore proper. For the last two days a considerable number of volunteers have been, pouring into Lahore from Rawalpindi, Gujrat, Sialkot, Gujranwala, Sargodha, Lyallpur and Montgomery districts. Similar arrangements to isolate volunteers will be made at the Railway Station Lahore. It might not be possible to intercept volunteers travelling by train on any of the intervening stations”.
On 4th March 1953, the Home Secretary, in continuation of D. I. G., C. I. D’s. signal 2563-82/BDSB, dated 1st March 1953, to all S. Ps. and Range D. I. Gs. sent the following directions to all D. Ms., S. Ps. and Range D. I. Gs. about volunteers :—
“Persuasion should be adopted in the first instance to dissuade batches of volunteers from proceeding to Lahore or Karachi. If persuasive methods fail, then appropriate preventive action should be taken”.
ACCOUNT OF DISTURBANCES.
The members of the Action Committee were arrested in Karachi on 27th February. On instruction’s received over the telephone in Lahore from the leaders of the movement who were in Karachi, some batches of volunteers had already left Lahore for Karachi. The one that left on 27th February under the leadership of Ghazi Ilm-ud-Din was intercepted and detrained by the Punjab Police at Railway Station Lodhran, while the other two, one of which had left on the 25th under Miraj-ud-Din Salar and the other on the 26th under Sahibzada Faiz-ul-Hasan, succeeded in reaching Karachi and were arrested there.
Action decided upon in Karachi on the night of 26th/27th February was taken by the Punjab Government and persona whose list had been prepared by the Inspector-General of Police on his return from Karachi were arrested. These arrests generated a wave of resentment and lawlessness throughout the Province, more especially in Lahore and the district towns of Sialkot, Gujranwala, Rawalpindi, Lyallpur and Montgomery. The mounting wave of disorder became so uncontrollable in Lahore that on 6th March the military had to step in and put the town under Martial Law.
LAHORE.
27th February 1953—In compliance with the decision arrived at in Karachi a warrant for the arrest of Maulana Akhtar Ali Khan was issued but when it was shown to him by the police officer who had been entrusted with its execution, the Maulana offered to give an undertaking that he would sever his connection with the agitation if he were not arrested. He was taken to the Civil Lines Police Station where he wrote out the following apology :—
“I consider the turn taken by the present movement harmful for the integrity of Pakistan and think that if this movement continues like this, the enemies of Pakistan would take undue advantage of it and every Pakistani would disapprove any such movement as jeopardises the integrity of Pakistan. The present trend of this movement tends to engender discord and chaos in the country. If, God forbid, disturbances increase and the Government is compelled to use force, it shall be highly derogatory for both sides. In my opinion, even a single drop of a Musalman’s blood is more valuable than the whole of the Universe. We should, therefore, further consider the matter in order to straighten the situation. I am not connected with the present ‘direct action’. I have never advocated violence, nor was I in favour of reproaching and abusing the Governor-General, the Prime Minister and other dignitaries of Pakistan or taking out their (mock) funeral processions or picketing their houses. What to say of doing such things, in my view, even to think of such things is not right for a right thinking Pakistani. In order to stabilise the inner administration of our country and to enhance its prestige and dignity in the eyes of foreign countries, we should abstain from committingr any such act as might result in making us an object of ridicule in the eyes of the world.”
According to this document one drop of a Musalman’s blood was more precious to the Maulana than the entire creation; the Maulana had nothing to do with ‘direct action’; the shape that the movement had taken carried in it a threat to the solidarity of Pakistan; the Maulana was against violence and disorder of every sort; he could not possibly think of putting up with such things as mock funerals of the Prime Minister and other leaders or picketing of their houses ; and he was against everything which was calculated to expose Pakistan and her people to the ridicule of the world. In view of this abject apology, Maulana Akhtar Ali Khan was not arrested and no action was taken against his paper, the ‘Zamindar’, until it misbehaved again on 28th February.
28th February 1953—With the arrest of the leaders in Karachi on the 27th and in the Punjab on the night of 27th/28th February, shops were closed in Lahore and small demonstrative parties walked in the streets forcing unwilling shopkeepers to close their shops. In the afternoon a public meeting was held in the garden outside Delhi Gate where some volunteers who had prepared themselves for arrest were garlanded and taken in procession towards the Civil Secretariat. On the way, however, the crowd changed its mind and marched on The Mall with Government House as its objective. The crowd numbered five to six thousand but there was no apparent tendency to violence, the processionists contenting themselves with shouting anti-Government, anti-Police and anti-Ahmadi slogans. The procession was stopped and asked to disperse near the Charing Cross where the Commissioner, the Inspector-General of Police, the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, the District Magistrate and the Senior Superintendent of Police had arrived. The garlanded volunteers came out and offered themselves for arrest. They were, however, told that since there was no ban on public assemblies or processions, they had committed no offence and could not be arrested. The volunteers, however, insisted on their being arrested and in order to clear the road for traffic, thirty-four persons were arrested under section 107/151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, put in a truck, driven away and dropped at some distance from the town. The crowd then dispersed and scattered in different directions.
Shortly after this the Commissioner, the Home Secretary, the Inspector-General of Police, the District Magistrate and the Senior Superintendent of Police conferred together in the Civil Lines Police Station and after discussing the situation decided against the banning of public meetings and processions.
1st March—This was a day of processions and arrests.
The news that Maulana Akhtar Ali Khan had apologised went round the whole town. The public became furious and besieged his house on the McLeod Road. A posse of police, however, arrived and on an assurance by the Maulana’s son that he was in his village in Karamabad in the Gujranwala district, the mob dispersed. At about the same time Maulana Ahmad Ali organised a big procession outside the Delhi Gate. The crowd appeared. to be in a violent mood and damaged a police vehicle by throwing brickbats
Maulana Ahmad Ali was arrested under section 3 of the Punjab Public Safety Act and thirty-two other persons were arrested under section 107/151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Another procession appeared near the High Court Building, intent on marching on the Government House. It was stopped and twenty-nine persons were put under arrest by the Additional Superintendent of Police. The same officer faced another procession on the Mall where he arrested twenty-three more persons. la the afternoon a large procession set out from the Delhi Gate for the Government House but was stopped near the Charing Cross in the presence of the Commissioner, the Home Secretary, the Inspector-General of Police, the Deputy Inspector-General of Police and the District Magistrate. Many men came out and offered themselves for arrest. They were put into trucks and, as on the previous day, dropped away from Lahore. The crowd then dispersed without showing any signs of violence.
2nd March—It appears that on hearing that Maulana Akhtar Ali Khan had deserted the cause and closeted himself in his house in Karamabad, some local men went to him there and taunted him with cowardice. The Maulana denied the accusation and came to Lahore on the evening of the 1st or the morning of the 2nd March. He went to Wazir Khan Mosque where he attempted to explain his position to the public and asserted that he was still as true to the movement as he had been before. He also announced that he would offer himself for arrest in the afternoon. Accordingly a procession, 10,000 strong, set out from the mosque in the evening. This time the crowd was hostile and rowdy. The procession was stopped near the Charing Cross, where the Commissioner, the Home Secretary, the Inspector- General of Police, the D. I. G. Police and the S. S. P. were present, and declared an unlawful assembly. The Maulana and some others were arrested and collected in a place which was cordoned by the police. Suddenly a crowd of about 1,000 attacked the police cordon with brickbats, tins, bottles and other odd missiles. In the attack eleven police officers, including two Superintendents of Police, namely, Mr. Zulqarnain Khan and Mr. Taylor, were injured and the crowd had to be lathi-charged. The Maulana was removed to the jail and forty-one persona were arrested for assault and rioting. The persons who had been arrested earlier with Maulana Akhtar Ali Khan were taken away from Lahore and released as before. The crowd thereupon dispersed. After the mob had cleared off, the Commissioner, the Home Secretary, the Inspector-General of Police, the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, the District Magistrate, the Senior Superintendent of Police and the Superintendent of Police, C. I. D. held a conference at the Civil Lines Police Station. As the situation had been rapidly worsening, it was decided to inform the General Officer Commanding, the 10th Division, and to request him to come over and stand-by with troops in aid of civil power. The General did not come himself but sent his G. S. O. 1 (Lt. Col. Sheereen Khan) and two other officers who explained that if military aid was needed a requisition from the Provincial Government was necessary. This led to some argument, the civil authorities contending that the District Magistrate, without any reference to Government, was competent to ask for aid from the army and the military officers sticking to the position that as the question of the cost of troops was involved, requisition for military aid should formally come from the Provincial Government. During the argument the Inspector-General of Police offered to make a written requisition on behalf of the Punjab Government. A letter was, therefore, drafted which was signed and handed over to the military officers by the Home Secretary. The letter stated that as an outbreak of serious disorder was apprehended in Lahore and it was felt that civil authorities may not be able to cope with the situation, the Home Secretary was desired by the Provincial Government to request for the aid of troops to help the District Magistrate in the prevention and suppression of disorder. The written requisition left the number of troops, the period for which they were to be employed and the manner in which they were to be posted, to be communicated in due course to the G. O. C. by the District Magistrate, Lahore. At the conference a decision was also taken to promulgate an order under section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, prohibiting processions in specified parts of the Lahore Corporation. The same evening a meeting of the Cabinet was held at the Chief Minister’s residence which was attended by the officers who had met at the Civil Lines Police Station and by the Chief Secretary. The steps taken at the Civil Lines Police Station were approved by the Cabinet and a little after midnight the District Magistrate issued an order under section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, prohibiting an assembly of five or more persons from collecting within the Corporation limits of the City of Lahore ‘excluding the area surrounded by the Circular Road’.
3rd March— This was comparatively an uneventful day. The military moved to the Jinnah Garden and in the morning started patrolling the Civil Lines and the city area of the Corporation except the walled city. The Border Police also moved about. Some unimportant processions were taken out in the walled city and other areas covered by the order under section 144. Thirty-one persons were arrested in Anarkali for defying the order under section 144 and a defiant procession coming from Nila Gumbad to the Mall was dispersed near the Tollinton Market by a lathi-charge ordered by Mr. M. A. K. Chaudhri, Assistant Superintendent of Police. Two other crowds were halted and dispersed by lathi-charge by a police party led by the Inspector- General of Police himself. The only serious incident that occurred on this day was the stoning of a police party led by Inspector Agha Sultan Ahmad of Naulakha by a mob of about a hundred persons which was moving from the McLeod Road towards the Charing Cross via Montgomery Road. The police fired three rounds without causing casualty.
In the evening it was noticed that the troops had ceased patrolling.
4th March— On 4th March a meeting of the Cabinet was held which was attended by the Chief Secretary, the Home Secretary, the Inspector-General of Police and the Deputy Inspector-General of Police. The Inspector -General of Police read out the report of a speech delivered on the preceding night by Maulana Abdus Sattar Khan Niazi at the Wazir Khan Mosque. The speech was highly inflammatory, and an order of his arrest under section 3 of the Punjab Public Safety Act was passed by the Home Secretary but it could not be executed because the mosque where Niazi had enthroned himself had become an impregnable strong-hold of the agitators.
The military, apparently under orders from headquarters, stopped patrolling, and one or two Companies even returned to the Cantonment from the Jinnah Garden. Several processions were taken out and dispersed. One of these surrounded the Ahmadiya Buildings and was dispersed by a mild lathi-charge by A. S. I. Muhammad Akram. Streams of volunteers had now started pouring into Lahore by rail and by road. A batch of volunteers from Sargodha was dispersed by Sub-Inspector Muhammad Hamid near the Naulakha Police Station. Another batch of 110 Ahrar volunteers on the Brandreth Road was met by Sayyad Hasanat Ahmad, City Magistrate, Malik Khan Bahadur, Superintendent of Police and Sayyad Firdaus Shah, Deputy Superintendent of Police. The volunteers refused to disperse and reached Chowk Dalgran where they were tear-gassed. They would still not disperse and sat on the ground. A lathi-charge proving ineffective, they were lifted bodily, put into trucks and taken away. False rumours about this incident began at once to be circulated. It was given out that the police, in dispersing the volunteers, had profaned the Holy Qur’an by kicking and tearing it, and killed a small boy. At a meeting held outside Delhi Gate a boy was produced, holding in his hand some torn leaves of the Holy Book, who said that he was an eyewitness of the sacrilegious incident. A maulvi, probably Maulvi Muhammad Yusuf, took these leaves of the Book in hand, held them out to the audience and made a violent speech, infuriating the already excited crowd. The faked incident became a public topic for excited crowds and spread like wild fire throughout the city within a few hours, creating feeling of anger and hatred against the police.
The above-mentioned account of the Dalgran incident has been taken by us from the written statements and the evidence of officers. The version given of this incident by the Ahrar and the Majlis-i-Amal, however, is entirely different, and it is alleged that during that incident a police officer did kick at the Holy Qur’an, and beat to death a young boy, and in support of this allegation Muhammad Nazir witness No. 32, Muhammad Hanif witness No. 33, Sheikh Muhammad Rafiq witness No. 34 and Siraj Din witness No. 37 have been examined. The Court also examined Sayyad Hasanat Ahmad, City Magistrate, Lahore, and Malik Khan Bahadur Khan, Superintendent of Police, Punjab Constabulary, who were present on the occasion. According to the non-official witnesses, a batch of volunteers was coming from Chowk Dalgran side towards the railway station when it was stopped by the police. The volunteers were asked to disperse but they sat down and when an attempt was made to remove them to some trucks which were standing near by, they laid themselves on the ground and had to be dragged. Among the men who were so dragged was an old man who had on his person a hama’il. When he was being dragged; the hama’il came off his person and a police officer of short stature and with a goitre in his neck kicked at it. The witnesses differ whether the hama’il was pushed into the drain or remained lying on the ground and whether it was in a cover or without a cover. The man who was wearing it has not been called and his particulars have not been given; nor have the particulars of the boy who is said to have been beaten to death been given. We cannot imagine that a Musalman police officer, however irreligious he may be, would kick at the Holy Book, and thus be guilty of the grossest blasphemy. This is conceded in the arguments before us but it is suggested that the Book might have been trampled upon unintentionally. Sayyad Hasanat Ahmad and Malik Khan Bahadur Khan have both denied the allegation and since non-official evidence about it is hopelessly discrepant, we cannot hold that anyone kicked at the Holy Book or beat any boy to death.
Other tactics resorted to by the agitators to spread hatred of authority were:
(1) circulation of leaflets to the effect that more than a thousand persons had been shot down in Jhang and Sargodha whereas the truth was that not a single bullet had been-fired that day in either of these places;
(2) spreading the rumour that Ahmadis were going about in cars shooting down people indiscriminately;
(3) announcement from the Wazir Khan Mosque that Government servants had struck work and joined the movement; and
(4) spreading reports that the district police had refused to fire and that it was the Border Police and the Constabulary Police alone who were firing.
The allegation that some Ahmadis clad in military uniform went about in a jeep indiscriminately shooting people has been made the subject-matter of proof before us and several witnesses have been called in support of it. But though some mysterious vehicle with some unidentified men in it seems to have moved about on this day, there is no evidence before us that the occupants of this vehicle were Ahmadis or that the vehicle itself was the property of an Ahmadi.
At 4-30 p.m. a public meeting was held outside Delhi Gate with an audience of about 5,000 where references to a child having been shot and the Holy Qur’an having been trampled under foot by the police in Chowk Dalgran were made. After the meeting a procession was formed which moved towards the Wazir Khan Mosque. The crowd was stopped by Assistant Sub-Inspectors Manzur-ul-Haq and Muhammad Sadiq near the mosque. Information was received over the telephone by Sayyad Firdaus Shah, Deputy Superintendent of Police, that these two Assistant Sub-Inspectors had been kidnapped and taken inside the mosque where they had either been killed or were on the point of being killed. The Deputy Superintendent of Police took an armed reserve led by S. I. Muzaffar Khan of Police Station Kotwali and marched towards the mosque. Just outside the mosque he was met by a furious mob and when he inquired about the whereabouts of the two police officers, he was surrounded and attacked by the rioters with knives and sticks and killed on the spot. He had as many as fifty-two injuries on his-person. His own revolver and two muskets of the policemen who were accompanying him, were snatched and Sub-Inspector Muzaffar Khan was injured. The D. S. P.’s body was conveyed by someone to the Kotwali where the Home Secretary, the Inspector-General of Police, the District Magistrate and the Senior Superintendent of Police were present. Col. Alam, Officer Commanding 1st Baluch Regiment, also arrived with some other officers and the General Officer Commanding joined a little later. While these officers were reviewing the situation, the District Magistrate disclosed that on hearing the news of the murder of the D. S. P. he had decided to hand over the town to the military and communicated his desire to the military officers. This action was not approved by the Inspector-General of Police who thought that there was no necessity of surrendering control to the army at that stage. If the District Magistrate had in fact handed over control to the army we would have considered him as having acted sensibly and wisely, but that officer himself is not willing to take the credit for any such action and in his evidence before us he has completely denied having ever decided to hand over to the military.
The officers present decided to impose the curfew and the necessary order was promulgated by the District Magistrate. The police patrolled the town and came across several crowds which were dispersed by firing. Thus a mob which was defying the curfew was contacted near the Bhati Gate and it dispersed on a few rounds having been fired. Firing was also opened at a crowd in the Naulakha Bazar who had come out of their houses in contravention of the curfew. A mob of Ahrar volunteers which had collected on the Circular Road near the Ahrar office, began to advance towards the Kotwali and after being given the necessary warning, was fired upon, one of them having been killed and another wounded. Another crowd was dispersed by Chaudhri Muhammad Husain, Superintendent of Police, at the McLeod Road by rifle fire which resulted in some casualties. Firing was also resorted to on the Nisbet Road by Inspector Agha Sultan Ahmad who fired four rounds; twice in Gowalmandi by the Sub-Inspector; by the Inspector-General himself at a crowd which was heading towards the Kotwali, causing some casualties; and by Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Post Mochi Gate, on rioters who were brickbatting the Police Post. The whole city was literally in a state of tumult and throughout the night weird and dreadful noises could be heard over long distances.
A little after midnight a meeting was held at the residence of the Chief Minister which was attended by the Home Secretary, the Inspector-General of Police, the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, the District Magistrate, the Senior Superintendent of Police and the General Officer Commanding and some other military officers and continued till 3 a.m. The Inspector-General of Police apprised the General Officer Commanding of the events that had happened and were expected to happen so that it might be decided how the military could be effectively employed.
5th March—The events that occurred after the murder of Sayyad Firdaus Shah, Deputy Superintendent of Police, and the awful eerie noises that were heard on the night of 4th proved to be ominous portents for the dawning day. Though everyone was guessing what would happen, the events when they came were beyond all prediction. That the order under section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure prohibiting assemblies in public was not made applicable to the walled city and none of the responsible officers could go to Wazir Khan Mosque where the Deputy Superintendent of Police had been, murdered, was a tacit admission of the fact that the city had become out of bounds for the authorities responsible for the maintenance of order.
At 9 o’clock on the morning of 5th March the District Magistrate called a meeting of notables of the city with a view to persuading them to issue an appeal to the public to remain peaceful and to use their personal influence with the masses, but none agreed to be a party to any such course of action, and only a few women offered to go to the Wazir Khan Mosque. As the day advanced, incident after incident began to happen, involving attacks on the police and the Ahmadis and the looting and burning of property belonging to Government or to the Ahmadis. The order issued under section 144 prohibiting the gathering of five or more persons in public places was defied throughout the town and mobs collected everywhere, threatening and abusing persons in vehicles and in some cases pulling them out. Manzur Ahmad, an Ahmadi teacher of Baghbanpura, was stabbed to death and this was followed by some more murders and general loot and arson. Some Government omnibuses were completely burnt and two post offices were first looted and then burnt. One police vehicle was set on fire and six others damaged. Several private concerns were also looted. A police party which was taking some dead bodies for post-mortem examination to the Mayo Hospital, was met by a mob which attempted to seize the bodies in order to parade them before the public, and two constables received injuries in the fracas. Police were brickbatted in several and fired upon in two places, one head constable having been wounded with a bullet. A military patrol was also brickbatted outside Lohari Gate and it had to open fire. The police had to fire in several places during the day. Clerks of several offices including the Secretariat stopped work and came out. The Islamia College students also left their classes and marched to the Dyal Singh College where they persuaded the students of that College to come out and join them. They threw brickbats, breaking windows and panes and damaging the principal’s car. From the Dyal Singh College they went to the University Hall and from there to the Government College. No attempt was made to disperse them by force because the police appeared to be anxious to avoid a clash with students.
Cyclostyled posters appeared on the walls calling upon policemen to lay down their arms because the struggle against the Government was a jihad in which no Muslim could fire upon another Muslim.
Curfew was imposed by the District Magistrate prohibiting people from appearing on any road, street, lane, by-lane, thoroughfare or any other public place between 3-30 p. m. and 6 a. m. on 5th-6th March and between 6 p.m. and 6 a.m. from 6th to 11th March 1953. This order applied to the whole town with the exception of a portion of the Civil Lines. The assembling of five or more persons in any public place and the carrying of arms at any time of the day or night within the aforesaid area were also prohibited in the aforesaid areas for a period of two months.
In the morning the Governor called a meeting of the Cabinet to which the Chief Secretary, the Home Secretary, the General Officer Commanding the 10th Division and some Staff Officers, the Inspector-General of Police, the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, the District Magistrate and the Senior Superintendent of Police were also summoned. To the Ministers and officers present at the meeting the Governor suggested use of force in strong measure as his experience in Bombay showed that if in the early stages of a disturbance a large number of rioters was killed, the trouble was nipped in the bud. After prolonged discussion the following decisions were reached at the meeting :—
(1) “In view of the deterioration of the situation in Lahore and a general flare-up in the city, in the first instance the police should take very strong action using any amount of force that may be necessary to quell disturbances. Police patrols will be supported by military contingents under their own Commanders”.
(2) “If the police cannot cope with any particular sector, the senior police officer present should hand over charge of the situation in that sector to the army Commander accompanying him”.
(3) “If the above measures fail to restore law and order and the police cannot keep the general situation under control with this partial aid by the military, the military will be asked to take over charge of the city”.
(4) “All steps should be taken to keep the morale of the Police Force high. They should be told that suitable awards will be given for gallantry and distinguished and conscientious discharge of duty. They should also be informed that in case of casualty while on duty, adequate compensation will be given to the next-of-kin. In the case of the late Sayyad Firdaus Shah, Government will award two squares of land in a colony district to his heirs”.
(5) “Efforts should be made, as far as possible, to isolate the students from the rioters”.
(6) “The public-spirited citizens representing all political parties will be addressed by His Excellency the Governor today and exhorted to use their influence to restore sanity in the city”.
The Chief Secretary was asked to draft a statement for issue over the signatures of the prominent citizens summoned to the afternoon meeting, but as he was called to the Secretariat where clerks had gone on strike, the statement was drafted by the Home Secretary. The draft prepared by the Homo Secretary was considered by the Governor to be too condemnatory of the demands to have any chance of acceptance by the representatives of the public. On return from the Secretariat the Chief Secretary also attempted a draft but then the idea was given up.
At the afternoon meeting the Inspector-General of Police as desired by the Governor and the Chief Minister gave a detailed account of the situation. He was followed by two more speakers, namely, Maulana Abul Ala Maudoodi and Mr. Ahmad Saeed Kirmani, M. L. A. The Maulana described the situation as a civil war between the public and the Government and asserted that unless the Government expressed its willingness to consider the demands of the people, he would not subscribe to any appeal. Mr. Kirmani said that the movement was being led largely by hooligans and other irresponsible persons and that the intelligentsia were not with it. After Mr. Kirmani had finished his speech, the Chief Secretary, the Home Secretary, and the Inspector-General of Police were requested to go out. The meeting, however, continued and Maulana Abul Ala Maudoodi busied himself in the preparation of a draft appeal, but the production was not approved by the Governor and the Chief Minister.
Another meeting was held at the Government House in the evening which was attended by the Ministers, the General Officer-Commanding and Brigadiers Haq Nawaz and F. R Kallu, the Chief Secretary, the Home Secretary, the Inspector-General of Police, the Deputy Inspector-General of Police and Malik Habib Ullah, Superintendent of Police, C. I. D. The situation was reviewed and it was decided that since the last incident of lawlessness had taken place at 2-30 p. m., namely, an attack on a police party and the burning of a police vehicle, firing should be avoided as much as possible. The Governor desired that cases of ordinary violations of the curfew should not be taken notice of, and one of the officers or the Governor himself also proposed a ‘let-up’ in the firing. The decision to relax firing created considerable confusion among the police officers who were engaged in controlling the situation. According to the orders of the morning, the police was to take strong measures, and police patrols under the command of Mr. S. N. Alam and Malik Habib Ullah had been sent out with these instructions. When the orders of the evening were conveyed to the Kotwali control and were in turn communicated to the officers engaged in active operations, they were completely bewildered and could not decide what to do. The scattered Police Force was left in utter confusion and firing was resorted to during the night only on one occasion, i. e. at a crowd of Railway employees who had struck work and were engaged in damaging a signal and a train.
There are two events of 5th March, which have been the subject matter of some dispute and argument before us. The first of these relates to the firing in Gowalmandi at about midday, in which several persons including Abdul Aziz, Mudi, Nizam Din and Muhammad Habib are said to have been killed. The allegation by the Ahrar and the Majlis-i-Amal is that these men were killed by Malik Khan Bahadur Khan, Superintendent of Police., Punjab Constabulary, and A. S. I. Abdul Karim who was attached in those days to Police Station Gowalmandi. Abdul Aziz and Mudi are said to have been shot by Abdul Karim with rifle bullets and Nizam Din and Muhammad Habib with the same bullet fired by Malik Khan Bahadur Khan. The witnesses who have been called to prove this allegation are Hidayat Ullah No. 45, Husain Bakhsh No. 46, Ghulam Ahmad No. 48, Chiragh Din No. 49, Abdur Rauf No. 50, Master Abdul Majid .No. 51, Hakim Muhammad Jamil No. 53, Mehr Din No. 54, Siraj Din No. 55, Muhammad Hanif No. 56, Ghulam Husain No. 57, Taj Din No. 58, Ala-ud-Din No. 59, Sardar Muhammad No. 60 and Maqbul Ahmad No. 61. The incident was the subject matter of separate inquiries by Mr. Ata Muhammad Khan Noon, D. I. G., Mr. Abdul Haye, Magistrate, and a military officer. Nothing was proved in these inquiries against either of the two officers who in the evidence before us have been accused of shooting innocent men in cold blood. This firing seems to be traceable to an earlier incident which was reported in F. I. R. No. 70 of Police Station Gowalmandi. According to that report, information was received that several hundred men were setting fire to a house in Gowalmandi, which, was occupied by A. S. I. Abdul Karim who on that very day had done some firing near the Mayo Hospital. On receiving this information A. S. I. Faiz Ahmad, A. S. I. Sultan Ahmad and Head Constable Abdul Qadir with a party of police rushed to the spot. They attempted to disperse the mob but were fired at from the roof of a house and Head Constable Abdul Qadir was hit. One of the constables was beaten with a stick.
The incident in dispute very probably occurred a little later after this, and it is quite possible that the police fired vindictively to avenge the injuries caused to Head Constable Abdul Qadir and a foot constable. A. S. I. Abdul Karim totally denies having been present at this firing. He says that on that day he fired only three rounds from his revolver, one near Ganda Engine, the other near Chowk Amir Ali, and the third near his own house but killed nobody. He, however, admits that on that day there was some other firing in Gowalmandi under the order of Malik Khan Bahadur Khan, Superintendent of Police, Punjab Constabulary, which had nothing to do with the incident in dispute. We refrain from giving any finding about this incident because by our terms of reference we are required to report only on the adequacy or otherwise of the measures, and excessive firing is not within the scope of these terms unless such firing contributed to or accentuated the disturbances.
The other issue in dispute in regard to the events of 5th March is the meeting of the Cabinet alleged to have been held in the Government House at 6-30 p.m. which is said to have been presided over by the Governor and attended by Major-General Muhammad Azam Khan, G.O.C., Brigadiers Haq Nawaz and Kallu, the Chief Secretary, the Home Secretary, the Inspector-General of Police and Malik Habib Ullah, A.D.I.G., C.I.D. One of the decisions taken in this meeting is stated to have been that there should be relaxation in the firing. The Governor and the G.O.C. both deny that there was any such meeting but the Chief Minister, the Home Secretary, the Inspector-General of Police and Malik Habib Ullah are definite that such meeting did take place. The proceedings of the meeting were scribbled by Malik Habib Ullah on a piece of paper, Ex. D. E. 231 which he handed over sometime after the meeting to the Home Secretary who produced it in Court with his written statement. This document contains in itself inherent evidence of its being genuine inasmuch as its contents appear to have been written in a hurry and some of the sentences in it are obviously incomplete. It gives the time of the meeting as 6-30 p.m. and mentions the names of the persons present and the decisions taken which are five in number, one of which is: “H. E. said that in case of ordinary technical violations of curfew no action should be taken”. Neither the words “relaxation in firing” nor the word “let-up” appears in the document. It is quite possible that neither Mr. Chundrigar nor Major-General Muhammad Azam Khan can now distinctly recall what transpired in the hustle-bustle which must have then prevailed. It may equally well be that what the officers have described as a formal meeting was no more than consultation and discussion in the course of which those present expressed certain views which were generally agreed to, and Malik Habib Ullah considered them as decisions taken in a formal meeting. The point is not of much importance because Mr. Chundrigar himself admits that the suggestion not to take action in cases of technical violations of the curfew was made in the course of discussions on that day. But what is of importance is that some alterations in the decisions of the morning was suggested and accepted and this alteration was taken by the police, though we cannot say how, as a direction not to use force to the extent they were doing to suppress disorder in accordance with the decisions of the morning. The fact that after this meeting there was no firing at all by the police anywhere except near the Ikmoria Bridge, shows almost conclusively that the police must have been directed to relax the firing.
6th March—6th March was a Friday and since early morning processions from all sides began to pour into the Wazir Khan Mosque. Government offices suspended work, Loco and Carriage Shops closed down, and labour came out in full strength in sympathy with the movement. The Kotwali was besieged by angry crowds who were throwing stones at the building and demanding that senior police officers who had resorted to firing should be handed over to them. As the latest orders were that firing was to be avoided as far as possible, tear-gas shells were fired from the roof of the Kotwali to keep off the mob, but as soon as the tear gas blew over, the crowds closed in again. While the Inspector-General of Police was on his way to the Kotwali, his car was stopped near the Railway Station by a mob which was stopping all persons in cars or tongas or on bicycles. Near Police Station Naulakha he saw an uncordoned tank with some troops and people walking all round it. Near the underbridge on the Circular Road, he was again stopped by another mob headed by a bearded man. but managed to go on. Another mob he saw was chasing a horse-cart with lathis. The cart was overtaken and the horse unyoked. On coming near the Kotwali he heard the crowd shouting ‘Shahi Police zindabad’, ‘Pakistan Army zindabad’, ‘Police Constabulary and Border Police murdabad‘. At the Kotwali he met the Senior Superintendent of Police, Mirza Naeem-ud-Din, and both talked things over and exchanged views. There is a serious discrepancy between Mr. Anwar Ali, the Inspector-General of Police, and Mirza Naeem-ud-Din, the Senior Superintendent of Police, as to what the latter said in the course of their conversation. Mr. Anwar Ali’s evidence on the point is as follows :—
“He (Mirza Naeem-ud-Din) said that the people were somehow under the impression that Government was in the wrong and that it was not only unsympathetic but actively hostile. In this context the use of force was exasperating feelings further and increasing the chagrin. He said that so far the Government had not defined its attitude on the demands ; nor was there any indication that the Government had any intention of deliberating over them. This according to Naeem-ud-Din was making the situation more difficult. He wanted to be put up before the Chief Minister and to suggest that mere represession was not likely to bring the situation under control. He wanted the Punjab Government to assure the public that it was not as unsympathetic and. callous as was being made out and to add that it was doing all it could to expedite a decision on the demands. He felt that such an appeal would mitigate the bitterness and hostility against the Government which was distinctly mounting. * * * *
(On reaching the Government House) I put the S.S.P. before the C. M. and he repeated what he had told me.”
Mirza Naeem-ud-Din’s version of the talk, however, is as follows :—
“I arrived at Kotwali at about 7 a.m. and was followed by the Inspector-General of Police after about half an hour. I discussed the situation with the Inspector-General and told him that the situation was desperate and the weak-kneed policy of the Government was demoralising even the Police Force which was the only part of the Government machinery standing by it. I, therefore, urged him to explain this to His Excellency and the Hon’ble the Chief Minister. I told him that if Government did not revise its policy I would resign. The Inspector-General agreed with me and we both went to Government House.”
On a comparison of the two statements it will be apparent that while, according to Mr. Anwar Ali, Mirza Naeem-ud-Din was against the use of force and would have the Government define its attitude on the demands and to declare that it was not unsympathetic and callous to the feelings of the people and was doing all it could to expedite a decision on the issue, according to Mirza Naeem-ud-Din himself what he said was that Government was following a weak-kneed policy which was demoralising the police and that if that policy were not changed he would prefer to resign. Further Mirza Naeem-ud-Din makes no reference to his being called before the Chief Minister at the Government House and to what he said to the Chief Minister. That Mirza Naeem-ud-Din did say some such thing as is mentioned by Mr. Anwar Ali seems to be true because though denied by Mirza Naeem-ud-Din it is confirmed by the evidence of Mr. Chundrigar and Mr. Daultana.
To continue the narrative, the Inspector-General and the Senior Superintendent of Police proceeded from the Kotwali to the Chief Minister’s house where they learnt that he had left for the Government House. On the way they found all shops shut and small batches of men intent on mischief moving everywhere. From the Chief Minister’s house they both went to the Government House. On reaching the Government House they found all the Ministers, including the Chief Minister, present. There were also present there members of the Lahore Corporation, including some women, e.g., Begum Tasadduq Husain and Begum G. A. Khan, and the Mayor and Nawab Muzaffar Ali Khan Qizilbash. Ata Ullah Jahanian was also there with some student workers.
The Chief Secretary and the Home Secretary had gone in the morning to the Secretariat where they found the officials of the Secretariat collected in the compound and loudly demanding cessation of firing and acceptance of the demands. Mr. Alam, Deputy Inspector General of Police, had also arrived there. All three attempted to talk to the clerks but no one would listen to them, every attempt to argue with them being met with the demand that their viewpoint, namely, that the firing should stop and the popular demands be accepted, be conveyed over the telephone to the Governor and the Chief Minister. It was only when the Chief Secretary gave an undertaking that he would do his best to represent their case to Government and the Home Secretary held out the threat that if they were not permitted to go out, the military and the police would come and take action, that the Secretaries’ car, which had been surrounded and held up, was permitted to move. When the Secretaries arrived at the Government House, they found it all in a state of turmoil. The following is a graphic description by the Home Secretary of what was going on there:—
“A large number of people including the Councillors of Lahore were present there and the usual decorum that prevails in the Governor’s House was lacking, H. E. the Governor, the Chief Minister and the Cabinet were assembled in H.E.’s office. I went in and briefly told them what had happened in the Secretariat. Then information started coming in regarding the various incidents that were taking place in the city. The electric current of the Governor’s House was cut off and information was received by someone on the telephone from Mr. S. S. Jafri, C. S. P., that some shops in Anarkali were ablaze. The Telegraph Office and the Telephone Exchange were reported to have struck. The Inspector-General of Police and the Senior Superintendent of Police who had come from the Kotwali said that the Kotwali was more or less besieged and that the situation was alarming. The Inspector-General of Police told me that the Senior Superintendent of Police was of the opinion that the city could not be held with the mere use of force and that there should be some public appeasement also and the Government should issue a statement. The Inspector-General of Police added that he had brought this to the notice of H.E./Chief Minister. The Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Lahore Range, also reached the Governor’s House a little later.”
The situation was fast reaching a climax in the town. The Railway workers had entered the Engine Shed and taken possession of it, not allowing any engine to move out. The Railway track between Lahore and Moghalpura had been cut and a train coming from the Shahdara side stopped on the way. The automatic traffic signal near the Y.M.C.A. building was burnt by a mob which was about to loot the Commercial Buildings. Some more Government buses had been burnt. The Chief Engineer, Electricity, had been served by the workers with a formal notice that unless the Government House, the Ministers and officers residing in the G.O.R. Estate voluntarily cut off electricity, the city would be blacked out. This information from the Chief Engineer was brought to the Government House by a man who demanded that an immediate reply should be given to the notice. Just then the electricity in the Government House was cut and the secrophone ceased to work.
On going into the room of the Governor’s Secretary, the Home Secretary found the Governor, the Chief Minister and some Ministers attempting to telephone to Karachi. The Home Secretary talked to those present in the room and suggested that the situation could be brought under control only if the following action was taken :—
(1) that Majlis-i-Ahrar, Pakistan, and Jama’at-i-Islami should be declared unlawful associations;(2) that the ulama and the maulvis who were amenable to reason, and prepared to support Government in the restoration of law and order should be induced to come out and publicly condemn the lawlessness that had spread in the name of khatm-i-nubuwwat;(3) that the Central Cabinet should be requested to send one of the Ministers immediately to Lahore; and(4) that the city should be made over wholly to the army.
The Home Secretary advised that the Centre should be immediately contacted as the telephone might go out of action at any time. He successfully put through a telephone call to Karachi over the Military Trunk Line, but shortly afterwards it ended abruptly. The Home Secretary and the Inspector-General of Police who had also come into the room, then went out. Shortly afterwards the Chief Minister called in the Home Secretary and asked him to draft in Urdu a statement on the lines indicated to him in English. The Home Secretary replied that he was not well-versed in drafting statements in Urdu and suggested that the job be entrusted to Mr. Zulqarnain Khan, Superintendent of Police. Accordingly the substance of the Chief Minister’s instructions was communicated by the Home Secretary to Mr. Zulqarnain Khan in the presence of the Governor and the Chief Minister. The Chief Minister required the draft to be put up immediately as he was talking on the telephone to Karachi. The statement which was originally drafted by Mr. Zulqarnain Khan was as follows:—
“Wazir-i-Ala Punjab apni aur apni wazarat ki janib se yeh i’lan karte hain keh un ki hukumat ‘Tahaffuz-i-khatm-i-nubuwwat’ ke lidran se fauri guft-o-shanid ke liye taiyar hai aur woh awam se darkhast karte hain keh mulk men amn-o-aman qaim karne men woh un ka hath batain. Woh awam ko itmi’nan dilate hain keh police aur fauj koi mutashaddidana karwa’i bilkhasus firing nahin karengi ta waqte-keh un ko kisi ke jan-o-mal ki hifazat ke liye aisa karna na pare. Suba’i hukumat markazi hukumat se guft-o-shanid kar rehi hai aur Mian Mumtaz Muhammad Khan Daultana ba-haisiyat Sadr Suba Muslim League, Pakistan ke Sadr ke samne Punjab ke awam ki taraf se yeh mutalibat fauri tawajjah ke liye pesh kar rahe hain”.
When the Chief Minister looked at this statement, he said that it would prove completely ineffective and ordered the following words to be added:
The words “apni ta’yid ke sath” after the words “Punjab ke awam ki taraf se” and the words “kyunkeh yeh qaum ke muttafiqa mutalibat hain” at the end.
The statement was being cyclostyled when the Chief Minister again desired that the following words should be further added to it:—
“Suba’i hukumat ka ek Wazir taiyare ke zari’e in mutalibat aur hamari ta’yid ke sath aj hi Karachi bheja ja raha hai aur hamari purzor sifarash hai keh Chaudhri Zafrullah ko wazarat se musta’fi hone par fauran majbur kiya ja’e”.
The Governor and the Chief Minister were both anxious that the statement should be dropped into the mosques from the air before the Juma prayers. The Governor also asked the Home Secretary in the presence of the Chief Minister and the Cabinet to read the statement on the telephone to Khalifa Shuja-ud-Din, who had been named as the fourth dictator of the Majlis-i-Amal in a leaflet issued on that day or a day earlier. The Home Secretary complied with, the order and read over the statement to Khalifa Shuja-ud-Din and also had copies of the statement sent to Khalifa Sahib’s house as desired by the Governor. The Governor seemed to be very anxious to satisfy the Khalifa Sahib because he made repeated inquiries whether his orders regarding the furnishing of copies of the statement to Khalifa Sahib had been complied with or not. The Governor also directed the Inspector-General of Police to broadcast the statement from loud-speaker vans in the city. Translations of the statement were immediately flashed to the districts under the orders of the Governor and the Chief Minister.
The day was reminiscent of, and was about to develop into a St. Bartholomew Day when Martial Law was declared at 1-30 p.m. We have already mentioned that an Ahmadi teacher had been killed on the preceding day. On the 6th March, Muhammad Shafi Burmawala, an Ahmadi, was murdered in Moghalpura, and Jamil Ahmad, an Ahmadi college student, was fatally stabbed inside Bhati Gate. Mirza Karim Beg, another Ahmadi or a supposed Ahmadi, was stabbed on the Flemming Road, and his body thrown on a burning pyre made from some furniture. Property of the Ahmadis that was looted or burnt that day included Pak Rays, Shafa Medical, Orsuco, Musa and Sons’ shop, the Rajput Cycle Works, the godowns and timberyards of Malik Muhammad Tufail and Malik Barkat Ali, the house of Malik Abdur Rahman on Mason Road, five Ahmadi houses on Mozang and Temple Roads, including that of Sheikh Nur Ahmad, Advocate. The house of Mr. Bashir Ahmad, a leading advocate and Amir-i-Jama’at of the Ahmadiya community in Lahore, was besieged in the afternoon and the mob was about to enter the house when Mr. Bashir Ahmad fired some rounds in self-defence. He was tried for this act by a special Military Court and acquitted. On the night of 6th/7th March the house of Abdul Hakim, proprietor, Pioneer Electric and Battery Station, MeLeod Road, was raided and his old mother murdered.
MR. DAULTANA’S LEAD FOLLOWED BY MOFUSSIL LEAGUES
After the Chief Minister’s statement of 6th March several Muslim League organisations in the Province passed resolutions in support of the demands. Thus, on 6th March the Muslim League, Mian Channu, passed a resolution, that a law should be passed to the effect that no person shall use the word nabi in respect of himself and that if he did so, he would be guilty of an offence. On 7th March 1953, the City Muslim League, Wazirabad passed two resolutions, one of which enjoined every councillor to offer financial help “to the local Majlis-i-Amal and to lay down his life, if necessary, in support of the khatm-i-nubuwwat movement. The resolution further declared that the Muslim League as a body shall not interfere with the programme or activities of Majlis-i-Amal. By the second resolution it was decided to inform the Prime Minister of Pakistan and the Chief Minister of the Punjab by telegram that the demands of the Majlis-i-Amal should be accepted within three days and that failing that members of the City Muslim League would resign en bloc and would request M. L. As. from their constituencies to start a, movement to canvass support for a no-confidence motion against Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan. By the same resolution the measures taken by Government forcibly to suppress the religious demands of the Musalmans were strongly disapproved. On the same day the City Muslim League, Jalalpur Jattan, passed a resolution supporting the khatm-i-nubuwwat movement without any reservation and the statement made by the Chief Minister on 6th March, and in the light of that statement offered its support to any step taken by him. The resolution stated further that members of the League were waiting for instructions from the high command to take practical steps to achieve their object. The second resolution called upon the Government to accept the demands of the Majlis-i-Amal as early as possible. On 8th March 1953 the Muslim League, Gakhar, passed three resolutions; the first to the effect that in order to maintain the dignity of the League it was necessary for its members to side with the people and to take part in the khatm-i-nubuwwat movement; the second expressing the gratitude of the League to Mir Muhammad Bashir, its President who had offered himself for arrest and had appealed to all councillors to do likewise; and the third appointing Hakim Ali contractor as President who would make necessary arrangements to provide volunteers for arrest after the arrest of Mir Muhammad Bashir. The City Muslim League, Kamoke, on 10th March 1953, expressed itself in favour of the demand for the declaration of Ahmadis as a minority and for the removal of Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan.
MR. DAULTANA WITHDRAWS 6TH MARCH STATEMENT
On 10th March 1953, Mr. Daultana made the following announcement:—
“On the 6th of this month, I appealed on behalf of my Ministry and myself, to the people of the Province to help in the maintenance of law and order.
I assured them that my Government would be prepared to open immediate negotiations with the leaders of the Tahaffuz-i-khatm-i-nubuwwat movement, and that my Ministers would place their demands before the Central Government with a recommendation that they should be accepted.
The appeal was made at a time when in Lahore lawless elements were indulging in loot, arson, and dislocation of essential services. The Tahaffuz-i-khatm-i-nubuwwat movement was being exploited by disruptive groups inimical to Pakistan in order to subvert authority, to create dissensions among Muslims and to promote disorder with a view to injuring the safety and stability of Pakistan.
The object of my appeal was to ensure that the people of this Province exert themselves in the maintenance of law and order so that the enemies of Pakistan are no longer able, under the cloak of a religious movement, to foment internecine dissension and create lawlessness in order to damage the security of Pakistan. In actual fact, unfortunately, lawlessness has continued in spite of my appeal, and in Lahore Martial Law had to be introduced in order to bring the situation under control.
Under the present circumstances, there can be no question of any negotiations with, or of consideration of the demands of the leaders of the Tahaffuz-i-khatm-i-nubuwwat movement. It is the foremost duty of any Government to ensure that law is obeyed and the lives and property of its citizens are fully protected.
Both the Central and Provincial Governments are resolved to suppress lawlessness wherever it should occur and to maintain law and order in the Province. The Government must suppress the present threat to the safety and integrity of the country by every means at their disposal.
I appeal to the people of this Province to co-operate with the Government in restoring law and order wherever it should be threatend and in ensuring that the enemies of Pakistan are not able to exploit the khatm-i-nubuwwat question in order to injure the integrity or safety of the country”.
The statement was endorsed by the Working Committee of the Punjab Muslim League which in its meeting held on 11th March 1953, declared that the Committee whole-heartedly supported the appeal made to the patriotic people of the Punjab and further directed every worker of the Muslim League in the Punjab to follow faithfully the directions contained in that statement.
SIALKOT
The official account of the course of events at Sialkot is contained in the written statements of Mr. I. U. Khan, Commissioner, Mr. S. N. Alam, Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Mr. Ghulam Sarwar Khan, Deputy Commissioner, and Sayyad Abdur Rauf, Superintendent of Police, and the deposition of Lt.-Col. Khushi Muhammad. We held some sittings at Sialkot and recorded a good deal of non-official evidence after Mr. Ghulam Sarwar Khan, the Deputy Commissioner, against whom there were some complaints by the public, had been transferred.
Since Mr. Mazhar Ali Azhar led a batch of Ahrar volunteers into Jammu in connection with the Kashmir agitation in 1931, Sialkot has always been a directive centre of the Ahrar. It has also been an important Ahmadi centre, being next only to Qadian. The first important incident in the Ahrar-Ahmadiya controversy occurred here when one Ghulam Muhammad Shah made a violent public speech against the Ahmadis for which he was convicted under section 295-A, I. P. C., on 30th November, 1936. The controversy continued in one form or the other till 1949, but no major incident took place during these years. On 26th November, 1949, a Tabligh Conference was convened by the Ahrar with a view to criticising the attitude of the Ahmadis before the Boundary Commission. In reply the Ahmadis held a meeting of their own on 15th January, 1950, to explain their position. While this meeting was in progress, the Ahrar raised a row and a boy was stabbed. The District Magistrate promulgated an order under section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, prohibiting meetings for a week. In November 1951 the Ahmadis intended to hold their usual annual session, but in view of the prevailing feeling they were persuaded by the District authorities to put it off. The session was actually held in November 1952 in the Ahmadis’ own jalsagah, but the Ahrar threw brickbats on the audience.
By February, 1952, the Ahrar had succeeded in Consolidating popular opinion against the Ahmadis. The agitation against the Ahmadis now took the form of Tahaffuz-i-khatm-i-nubuwwat and the All Muslim Parties Convention was held in this town on 21st July, 1952. After this convention the Tahaffuz-i-khatm-i-nubuwwatmovement became more popular and began to attract religious preachers from all sects. The movement daily gained strength and every Friday sermon in mosques became a diatribe against the Ahmadis, and the three demands began to be vigorously pressed. On 20th July, 1952, the Chief Minister made a speech on the occasion of the District Muslim League Convention at Pasrur in which he declared that he “fully endorsed the khatm-i-nubuwwat movement provided the law and order was not threatened”. In October, 1952, Maulvi Bashir Ahmad Khatib Jami’ Masjid, Pasrur, Karamat Ali Shah and Manzur Ahmad made provocative speeches against the Ahmadis on the occasion of Urs Gullu Shah. Action against them was recommended by the District Magistrate under section 21 of the Punjab Public Safety Act but Government did not agree. In November, 1952, another All Muslim Parties Conference was held in which the three demands were reiterated with added vigour. The Provincial Government had now realised the extent and intensity of the Ahrar-Ahmadiya controversy, and issued a series of general directions in the matter to District Magistrates. The purport of these instructions was that for actionable speeches only prosecutions should be launched and that arrests should not be made in mosques, nor assemblies in the mosques dispersed. Another direction confined action only to Ahrar and Ahmadis. The result, therefore, was that non-Ahrar maulvis felt themselves free to carry on anti-Ahmadi propaganda from the pulpit of every mosque.
An Action Committee was formed in this district on the advice of the Punjab Majlis-i-Amal. This Committee began to enlist razakars and collect funds. An intensive propaganda was carried on by Sahibzada Faiz-ul-Hasan who addressed a series of meetings in the district. On 20th February, 1953, several thousand men gathered for Juma prayers in the Jinnah Park, and were addressed by Maulvi Muhammad Ali Kandhalvi, Professor Khalid Mahmud, Maulvi Muhammad Yaqub and Maulvi Fazal Haq. Pamphlets and booklets against Ahmadi tenets were sold and thousands of rupees collected by the sale of eight-anna tickets.
In accordance with the decisions taken in Karachi on the morning of 27th February, 1953, the Home Secretary sent a wireless message to the District Magistrate directing the arrest of Qazi Manzur Ahmad and Wali Muhammad Jarnail. On 1st March, 1953, the city observed a complete hartal and a mob of about 10,000 people assembled at the railway station to see off the first batch of volunteers leaving for Karachi under the leadership of Maulvi Muhammad Yusuf, to offer their services for direct action. The mob had paraded in the streets, shouting anti-Ahmadi slogans and abusing Government, particularly the Prime Minister. The mob was so unruly that it delayed the train and also damaged windows of some carriages. Some of the men boarded the train with the volunteers and alighted at Narowal. On their return journey they stopped trains, looted station vendors and damaged sugarcane crops along the railway line.
On 2nd March 1953, the District Magistrate received secret D. O. letter No. 2514-29-BDSB, dated 28th February, 1953, conveying the decision of Government that the agitation was to be dealt with firmly. He called a Police-Magistrate meeting and decided:—
(1) to arrest nine ringleaders of the agitation under section 3 of the Punjab Public Safety Act on. the night of 2nd/3rd March (Approval of the Home Secretary to this step was obtained over the telephone);(2) that persons who offered themselves for arrest should be taken in custody, removed to some far off place and dropped there; and(3) that the military should be requested to stand by.
On the evening of 2nd March, 1953, a very large meeting was held in Ram Tulai, which was addressed by Maulvi Sultan Mahmud, Professor Khalid Mahmud, Maulvi Habib Ahmad and Maulvi Muhammad Yaqub. The tone of the speeches delivered was plainly anti-Government, and Professor Khalid Mahmud warned Khwaja Nazim-ud-Din that he would meet the same fate as Mr. Liaquat Ali Khan,. It was announced that two batches of volunteers would be sent to Karachi on the following day.
Maulvi Muhammad Husain, Maulvi Muhammad Ali Kandhalvi, Muhammad Sadiq son of Bhola, Maulvi Habib Ahmad, Abdul Ghafur Butt and Bashir Ahmad son of Chiragh Din, were arrested on the night of 2nd/3rd March. On the morning of 3rd March, 1953, small crowds appeared in the streets, though the military and the police were patrolling. The crowds had a defiant attitude, but they were dispersed, some by the army and some by the police under the orders of the Additional District Magistrate. When the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police reached Dar-ush-Shahabia at about 10-15 a.m. they saw a huge crowd collected inside the building and on. the roofs of the surrounding houses, all shouting anti-Government slogans, When asked to disperse, they closed the door of the Shahabia from inside. On this the District Magistrate declared the assembly as unlawful and directed Mr. Khalil-ur-Rahman, Assistant Superintendent of Police, and Khwaja Iqbal Ahmad, Magistrate, to disperse them. Mr. Khalil-ur-Rahman, when he entered the building, discovered that his service revolver bad been removed by someone from the holster. However, he and Khwaja Iqbal Ahmad succeeded in arresting four persons who wore garlands, one of them being Maulvi Muhammad Yaqub who could not be arrested on the night of 2nd/3rd March. After the arrests the crowd again climbed on the roofs of the Dar-ush-Shahabia and the adjoining buildings and began throwing brickbats from behind the parapets, driving the police behind some vehicles that were parked on the road in front of Dar-ush-Shahabia. The shower of brickbats resulted in injuries to the District Magistrate, the Superintendent of Police and the Assistant Superintendent of Police. One Sub-Inspector was stabbed. After a warning was given but not heeded, the District Magistrate ordered the police to open fire. The crowd, however, continued to throw brickbats from behind the parapets.
At this stage another crowd suddenly appeared on the road from behind the Dar-ush-Shahabia and rushed on the police showering brickbats. They were ordered to disperse, but since they continued throwing bricks, the police was ordered to open fire. The crowd then receded and one man was found dead, the number of rounds fired being twenty-one. The dead body was picked up by the police, but the swelling mob overflowed the police and snatched away the dead body and Maulvi Muhammad Yaqub from custody. The situation went completely out of control and was, therefore, handed over to the military under the command of Lt.-Col. Khushi Muhammad of the 8th Punjab Regiment. The mob besieged the civil officers who were driven into a blind lane from where they managed to get on the roof of a house in the lane where shortly afterwards was brought Ghulam Hasan, A. S. I. who had been stabbed in the stomach and deprived of his revolver. In the meantime the mob set fire to two police vehicles and the jeep of the District Magistrate. The Municipal Fire Brigade was requisitioned, but this was also burnt. At this stage information was received that the mob was going to burn the District Courts Building, the Police Office and other public buildings. The District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police managed to get out and take a guard with them from the Police Lines to protect the public buildings, including the State Bank building.
While the Dar-ush-Shahabia incident was in progress, another crowd was encountered by the City Inspector and the City Magistrate near Chowk Sant Singh in Rangpura, which was heading for Dar-ush-Shahabia. The mob was stopped but it became violent and caused injuries to the City Magistrate, the City Inspector, A. S. I. Sana Ullah and a head constable. The military, however, came to their assistance and saved them from further harm.
By midday the crowd had assumed immense proportions and started attacking police constables on traffic duty. It then formed itself into a procession and went on parading the dead body of the man who had been killed at Dar-ush-Shahabia. It went to the City Muslim League office where the library was looted. Khwaja Muhammad Safdar, M.L.A., President of the City Muslim League, was brought out of his office and taken through the streets with a blackened face. He was, however, rescued by Col. Khushi Muhammad. The procession then marched to Jinnah Park where about 50,000 persons offered funeral prayers for the dead man under the leadership of Maulvi Muhammad Yaqub. Of course the Maulvi delivered a suitable funeral oration.
The Commissioner, having been informed of the situation by telephone, arrived the same evening. The District Magistrate had imposed a 24-hour curfew from 1 p. m. on 3rd to 1 p.m. on 4th, but since owing to shortage of police and military force it could not be enforced, the Commissioner modified it by changing the hours from 10 p. m. to 4-30 a.m. The same evening one Abdul Haye Qureshi, who was a non-Ahmadi bat had dissuaded the mob from indulging in violence, was beaten and his house ransacked.
Public meetings and processions were banned on the 4th March by an order under section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On this day the Direct Action Committee shifted its operations from the Dar-ush-Shahabia to the mosque of Maulvi Nur Husain which is situate near the Tehsil and Police Station Sadr. A large mob which was on its way to that mosque, was intercepted and halted. Under the direction of the Commissioner, the District Magistrate ordered the mob to disperse, but it rushed at the officers. The police was ordered to lathi-charge the crowd but this provoked a shower of brickbats from the surrounding houses. Mr. Khalil-ur-Rahman, Assistant Superintendent of Police, sustained a serious head wound and a police van was damaged. The situation was, therefore handed over to the military who opened fire and brought it under control. Shortly afterwards a mob re-assembled in front of the mosque. The military officers argued with them and requested them to disperse, and finding that this had no effect, pulled a tape across the street as a barrier, warning the crowd not to advance beyond it. But somebody snipped the tape and burnt the Army Flag, and some persons flourishing swords and knives began to dance and advance towards the barrier. The military, under the orders of Brigadier A. K. Akbar, opened fire and four persons were killed and ten wounded. There is an amusing episode in the incident just mentioned. Let Lt.-Col. Khushi Muhammad tell it himself:—
“One of the men, who came out dancing with knives, offered his chest to receive a bullet, but I told him that so long as he remained on the other side of the tape, he would get no bullet ; but that the moment he crossed the tape, he would get one. When the firing began, I did not see this man at all. He had disappeared in the crowd. After the first firing a maulvicame up and started abusing the army and the police describing them as kafirs. I told the bugler to blow the bugle. As soon as he heard the bugle, ho rushed back, jumping over the crowd.”
In the afternoon an A. S. I. and a constable were mobbed near the railway station and the revolver of the A. S. I. and the rifle of the constable snatched and their uniforms burnt. Another foot constable, who was carrying some case-property, was assaulted and relieved of the property. Two Ahmadis were stabbed and the houses of three others looted by the mob.
Mr. S. N. Alam, Deputy Inspector-General of Police, arrived in the evening and found that the District Magistrate had handed over the situation to the military. He thought that such handing over was not justified and in consultation with the Commissioner decided to take over from the military. He addressed the police who had become demoralised by the incidents of the 3rd and 4th March and made arrangements for patrolling the city. The military shifted their Brigade Headquarters to the City Kotwali.
On the 5th March the army held a flag march throughout the city and did intensive patrolling. Some processions were dispersed and volunteers arrested.
On 6th March Mr. Daultana’s appeal was broadcast over the radio and also conveyed by a wireless message. This created the impression that the Government had capitulated and put the District officers in an unenviable position. The banned processions and public meetings continued and a large number of persons were arrested daily. Ninety-eight volunteers were arrested on 7th, 121 on 8th and 149 on 9th., showing that the appeal of the Chief Minister had no effect on the public.
On the 7th March, Professor Khalid Mahmud and Fazal Haq made speeches calling upon the police and the army to lay down arms and exhorting public servants to strike their work and join the movement.
The agitation drifted on to 10th March when a wireless message from the Chief Secretary, directing the District authorities to put down all lawlessness with firmness, was received. This made the people realise that thereafter the District officers would not put up with any lawlessness. Section 144 orders, therefore, began to be obeyed. Professor Khalid Mahmud, Fazal Haq, Maulvi Sultan Mahmud and others had shifted to mosques from where they were directing the movement by issuing orders and instructions through loud speaker and secret messages. It was not considered expedient to arrest them in the mosques and proceedings under section 87 and 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were taken against them. This produced the desired effect and they came out of the mosques and offered themselves for arrest on 12th March. With their arrest the agitation practically ended, and the city was restored to completely normal conditions on 16th March.
The foregoing narrative has been taken from the written statements and evidence of officers. No contradiction of it is to be found in the evidence of non-official witnesses which we recorded at Sialkot. What has been stressed in that evidence is that the District Magistrate beat or caused to be beaten some persons who had been arrested and confined in, jail, that he himself had his jeep set on fire by a police constable, and that he himself encouraged the procession that marched to the railway station on the 1st of March. With the first allegation we are not concerned though there is considerable evidence in support of it; the second is an insult to anyone’s common sense; while the third is denied by Maulvi Muhammad Ali Kandhalvi himself. It is our considered finding that in handing over the situation to the military more than once, the District Magistrate acted wisely and courageously and thus saved the law and the power behind it from public humiliation and ridicule. The responsibility for the consequent bloodshed, if it does not lie on the men concerned, does not lie on the police or the military; it lies elsewhere.
GUJRANWALA
Because of its proximity to Sialkot and of its being the home town of Sahibzada Faiz-ul-Hasan, an Ahrar popular speaker, Gujranwala is an important centre of the Ahrar.
The Ahrar held their Tabligh Conference here early in 1949, but the Conference was not much of a success as the sincerity of the Ahrar to the new-State of Pakistan was still under serious suspicion. They held another Conference in 1951 in the garb of Defence (difa’) Conference. This proved a great success because arrangements for this Conference were made by the President of the City Muslim League. Sayyad Ata Ullah Shah Bukhari spoke at this Conference and is reported to have given expression to his belief that it was an act of piety to kill the Ahmadis and to burn their property. A third conference was held in the same year in which the Ahmadis were described as kafirs and their social and economic boycott was advocated.
On 20th June, 1952, which was Yaum-i-Mutalibat, the Ahrar held a public mooting inside Sheranwala Bagh Mosque in contravention of an order under section 144. This meeting was addressed by Sahibzada Faiz-ul-Hasan, Sheikh Husam-ud-Din and Master Taj-ud-Din, who were all arrested but subsequently released under the orders of the Chief Minister. At another conference in July 1952, Sahibzada Faiz-ul-Hasan is said to have declared that to kill an Ahmadi was to gain the pleasure of God. After the conference was over a tea party was arranged in honour of Maulana Akhtar Ali Khan, which was attended by the Deputy Commissioner and the Muslim League leaders. The Ahmadis subsequently complained to the Deputy Commissioner that at the conference a speaker had incited the audience to murder the head of the Ahmadiyya community. The feeling created against the Ahmadis resulted in the Wazirabad Municipal Committee’s terminating the services of two male and four female Ahmadi teachers. Sahibzada Faiz-ul-Hasan, Maulvi Abdul Wahid, Khatib of the Sheranwala Bagh Mosque, and Maulvi Muhammad Ismail took prominent part in the agitation against the Ahmadis and in canvassing the support of other religious and political parties. A public meeting under the auspices of the Majlis-i-Amal was held at Gujranwala on 2nd and 3rd November, 1952, which was also attended by Mian Tufail Muhammad, a representative of Jama’at-i-Islami. The Majlis advocated social and economic boycott of the Ahmadis, and after this eating houses began to display notices on their premises to the effect that Ahmadis could have their food in separate utensils at those houses. One Abdul Ghaffar Asar, B.A., who earlier had succeeded in his drive against the prostitutes, also joined the movement to widen his sphere of influence. Maulana Akhtar Ali Khan of the ‘Daily Zamindar’ addressed three public meetings in which he collected Rs. 2,000 for the movement. At another meeting held in his home town Karamabad, he made an appeal for contribution of a sum of one crore of rupees to the same cause. After the ultimatum was presented to the Prime Minister in Karachi, intensive preparations commenced for the direct action and maulvis intensified their propaganda in different towns of the district-Comrade Abdul Karim and Maulvi Abdul Ghafur Hazarvi at Wazirabad, Maulvi Abul Hasan Muhammad Yahya and Maulvi Fazal Ahmad at Hafizabad, Latif Ahmad Chishti and Hafiz Abdush-shakur at Kamoke and Maulvi Abdul Wahid and Maulvi Muhammad Ismail at Gujranwala. Volunteers began to be enrolled and the quota for Hafizabad, which, was fixed at 500, was completed within a week of the formation of the Majlis-i-Amal. Total enrolment for the district was 4,500 and Mr. Manzur Hasan, the Secretary of the City Muslim League was one of the signatories to the volunteers’ pledge.
Agitation commenced with the arrest of Maulvi Muhammad Ismail, Khatib of the Ahl-i-Hadith Mosque, under the orders of the Provincial Government; Processions of volunteers before their departure for Lahore and public meetings became a daily feature. The Majlis-i-Amal was dissolved and Hakim Abdur Rahman, Vice-President of the Majlis-i-Ahrar, Gujranwala, was appointed a dictator of the movement.
On 2nd March D. O. letter No. 2514-29/B. D. S. B., dated 28th February 1953, from the Chief Secretary was received by the District Magistrate, prohibiting further arrests, but on 1st March 1953 the Superintendent of Police had received instructions from the A. D. I. G., C. I. D., to prevent batches of volunteers from proceeding to Lahore and Karachi, which meant arresting them at Gujranwala. The two instructions were contradictory to each other, and since owing to shortage of Magistrates and police force and accommodation in jail the district officers were not in favour of making any arrests and intended to watch the situation for another day or so, a reference was made to the superior police officers at Lahore as to what to do in the circumstances and the reply received was that the earlier instructions to arrest volunteers had to be carried out and that if there was not sufficient accommodation in jail, the persons arrested could be dumped in distant villages.
At 10 o’clock on 2nd March a meeting was held in the Court Room of the Deputy Commissioner, which was attended by officials and non-officials. The office-bearers of the City Muslim League, however, made this meeting an occasion to denounce their opponents in the League and refused their active co-operation to the district authorities. The trains to Lahore began at this stage to be interrupted by the crowds which collected at the railway station to see off the volunteers entraining for Lahore. The Additional District Magistrate with a police party went to the railway station and arrested and detrained a batch of 50 volunteers. On this the crowd became excited and held up the train twice. When the Additional District Magistrate made a second attempt to get the train steamed off, he was attacked and injured together with five policemen including a Sub-Inspector. The same evening the Sind Express was held up at some distance from the railway station by an excited mob of 5,000. The Superintendent of Police reached the scene with six foot constables, but the party was pelted with stones and brickbats. It had grown dark and as the mob, if not dispersed, would have resorted to violence and annoyed the passengers in the train, the Superintendent of Police ordered three foot constables to fire twelve rounds in the air. This dispersed the crowd without causing any casualties. After this a meeting of respectables of the town was called at the railway station but though every one condemned hooliganism, none was prepared to give any practical help lest he should be termed a kafir or Mirzai.
As the Muslim League office-bearers had pledged their support to the Majlis-i-Amal, the dictator of the Majlis-i-Amal called upon Mr. Manzur Hasan, M. L. A., Secretary of the City Muslim League, to lead a batch and to court arrest. Sheikh Aftab Ahmad, the President of the League, suggested that in order to avoid the impression that the movement had the support of the League, a mock arrest of Mr. Manzur Hasan should be staged. This was agreed to, and Mr. Manzur Hasan was arrested, taken in a police jeep and dropped in a remote corner of the district on the understanding that he would not return to Gujranwala for some days. People, however, came to know of the stratagem and on the following day some 200 men went to the house of Sheikh Aftab Ahmad and asked him to join a procession. He was taken out of the house and was made to march with a procession to the Sheranwala Bagh Mosque. By this time Mr. Manzur Hasan had returned to Gujranwala and joined the agitators in the Sheranwala Bagh Mosque, where he made several speeches against the Ahmadis and the Government and led a procession with seven other City Muslim League councillors. They were all arrested.
The statement of the Chief Minister on 6th March was, as directed from Lahore, proclaimed throughout the town. According to information received by the Superintendent of Police, on 7th March attacks were apprehended on the lives and properties of Ahmadis. The situation was discussed with the army who suggested promulgation of an order under section 144 prohibiting public meetings and processions, but the proposal was not accepted by the Superintendent of Police and the Deputy Commissioner, and instead it was decided to arrange joint police and military patrols. After this no incident of lawlessness was reported in the town, except an attempt to loot an Ahmadi’s shop.
On 7th March a frenzied mob of agitators in village Nandpur murdered one Muhammad Husain in the belief that he was an Ahmadi. The investigation showed that this murder was brought about by a trick by one of the enemies of the deceased.
On 8th March the local M. L. As, were called to the Sheranwala Bagh Mosque and requested to go to Lahore for instructions. The M. L. As, met the Chief Minister but brought no definite instructions.
A company of the Army arrived at Gujranwala on 5th March, a battalion on the 6th and the Deputy Inspector-General of Police with two Punjab Constabulary Reserves on the 8th.
When the military arrived, it was welcomed with shouts of ‘Pakistani fauj jis neSialkot goli chalane se inkar kar diya zindabad, Pakistani fauj zindabad’. It was being announced by the agitators throughout that they were engaged in jihad, a crusade against infidelity, and posters appealing to the police and the military not to fire but to join in the jihad were put up in several places.
About a dozen Ahmadis in the district were made to renounce their creed.
The Muslim League in this district was actively associated with the movement. The Muslim League, Gujranwala City, passed a resolution supporting the khatm-i-nubuwwat movement, and Mr. Manzur Hasan, its Secretary, sent the same resolution to be moved at the meeting of the Provincial Muslim League Council at Lahore. He also attempted to table a similar resolution at the Dacca session of the All Pakistan Muslim League.
A deputation of Ahmadis waited on the Superintendent of Police on 20th March but he expressed his inability to do anything for them as on the previous day he had asked for instructions from the Chief Minister who had refused to give any because the Centre had not taken any decision in the matter.
With the arrival of reinforcements a round-up of goondas and search for illicit arms commenced. Maulvi Abdul Wahid, who was at the back of the agitation, and Hakim Abdur Rahman, the dictator, were arrested on 11th and 12th March respectively. Some other maulvis then came forward and they were also arrested. Eventually it was decided to raid the Sheranwala Bagh Mosque with the assistance of the military. This was done and the mosque was cleared of the agitators and a sum of Rs. 10,100 recovered from Qari Abdul Karim. This amount is said to have been collected by Sheikh Aftab Ahmad, Mirza Sharif Beg, Muhammad Din. M. A. Aziz Ansari and some councillors of the Gujranwala Muslim League.
Orders for the arrest of Safdar Ali and Naseer Din alias Naseeria, two notorious leaders of goondas, were issued by the District Magistrate. The former managed to slip out, of the district and was subsequently arrested at Jhang. Naseeria evaded arrest for some time but was eventually traced and arrested.
Other centres of agitation in the district were :—
(1) Kamoke—Demonstrations and processions against the Ahmadis and the Government were organised here by Latif Ahmad Chishti and Hafiz Abdush-shakur. The funds seized amounted to Rs. 10,772.(2) Wazirabad—Maulvi Abdul Ghafur Hazarvi and Comrade Abdul Karim were the local organisers of the movement. A train was held up here by placing a log across the track. Funds seized amounted to Rs. 2,560.(3) Hafizabad—Feelings were worked upon here by Abul Hasan Muhammad Yahya and Maulvi Fazal Ilahi.(4) Gakhar—Trains were stopped here. Mir Muhammad Bashir, President of Gakhar Muslim League, courted arrest along with some councillors.(5) Naushehra Virkan—Dr. Muhammad Ashraf, an old Congressite was responsible for the trouble here.(6) Sodhra—Public meetings here were organised by Maulvi Abdul Majid of the Ahl-i-Hadith.
RAWALPINDI
The course of events that preceded the commencement of the disturbances here was precisely the same as in the other towns of the Province. The Ahrar started by denouncing the Ahmadis and their religion. In return the Ahmadis began to rake up the past of the Ahrar to strengthen the suspicion against their sincerity to Pakistan. After the All Parties Muslim Convention the Ahrar succeeded in winning the alliance of other religious sects, preachers and pirs, with the result that mosques became propaganda centres of the anti-Ahmadiya movement and Friday sermons were almost exclusively devoted to the deprecation of the Ahmadiya tenets. In November 1952, Sayyad Ata Ullah Shah Bukhari and Qazi Ehsan Ahmad of Shujabad, two top-ranking leaders of the Ahrar, addressed a public meeting at the Liaquat Garden. Thereafter, a vigorous campaign was started for enlistment of volunteers and collection of funds.
With the arrest of the leaders of the movement in Karachi and of Maulana Ghulam Ullah Khan by the Punjab Government on 27th of February, processions and public meetings became the order of the day. The public meeting held in the Liaquat Garden, presided over by the Pir Sahib of Golra Sharif, was perhaps the largest public meeting held in living memory. The situation became critical on 6th March when after exaggerated versions of the events that had happened in Sialkot and Lahore, information came that the Punjab Government had accepted the popular demands and communicated their acceptance to Karachi. The immediate result was that people thought that the Government had surrendered and the processions became more aggressive and more numerous and had to be dispersed by lathi charges.
On 6th March, another meeting was held in the Liaquat Garden. A crowd, after dispersing from the meeting, went along the Murree Road and set fire to an Ahmadi mosque and a small car. Later, that very evening, some other incidents of loot and arson took place. The Ahmadiya Commercial College, Nur Art Press and the Pak Restaurant, situate in different parts of the city, were broken into and attempts were made to loot, burn or otherwise destroy the effects. A non-Ahmadi young man, employed in the Nur Art Press, was stabbed in the belief that he was an Ahmadi, and he succumbed to the injuries caused. As the situation became explosive, the military was called in on 7th March. On that day, telephone wires were cut in the jurisdictions of Police Stations Golra and Sangjani, Military were posted at suitable strategic points in the city.
On 8th March, a furious mob led by Masud Malik, a communist student of the Government College. Rawalpindi, and Maulvi Abdul Quddus Poonchi came in front of the Police Kotwali and started throwing brickbats. The City Magistrate ordered the police to fire and one of the rioters was killed and six others injured. After this, orders under section 144 banning processions and meetings and imposing the night curfew were passed. Two hundred and thirty-nine persons were convicted of breach of the curfew. The organisers of the movement then took refuge in the Jami’ Mosque from where they went on sending volunteers to court arrest. One thousand and thirty-three volunteers were arrested and prosecuted under section 188 of the Pakistan Penal Code. They were all convicted, with the exception of sixty-four who apologised and were released.
The morale and loyalty of the lower ranks of the police and the army began to be affected because of the character of the agitation, and most of the Muslim League leaders and local M. L. As. went into hiding and refused to come out to face the public. In fact they played a double-role, outwardly siding with the authorities but inwardly supporting the agitation. There was no maulvi in the entire district who did not support the agitation. Among the maulvis arrested were Arif Ullah Shah, Muhammad Maskeen, Muhammad Ismail Zahidi and Abdul Hannan, all members of the All Parties Muslim Convention.
A large number of men came from the surrounding districts to take part in the agitation. A batch of 2,000 Pathans from the Hazara district was reported to be advancing towards Rawalpindi, but the Superintendent of Police prevailed upon the Pir Sahib of Golra Sharif to issue instructions to them to return. Similarly, Maulvi Muhammad Ishaq Mansehrvi, an old but a popular maulvi, also came out to load the movement, but the district authorities succeeded in winning him over and inducing him to issue a written appeal to refrain from lawlessness and disorder.
The agitation died down in the third week of March.
LYALLPUR
This district is an important centre of the Ahrar, many of whom come from the districts of Jullundur, Gurdaspur, Hoshiarpur, Ludhiana and Amritsar which are also the home districts of most of the colonists. Up to January 1953, the Ahrar-Ahmadiya controversy here took the same course as elsewhere. On the occasion of the Prophet’s birthday celebrations on 1st December 1952, the Ahrar displayed banners on which were written the demands that the Ahmadis be declared a minority and that Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan be removed from the Cabinet. After this the demands became a regular feature in the pre-prayer or post-prayer speeches. The speeches were directed not only against the Ahmadis but also against the Government. At a public meeting held at Jaranwala these demands were reiterated in speeches made by Maulvi Feroze-ud-Din, Hafiz Abdul Qadeer, Maulvi Inayat Ullah Mujahid, Maulvi Mirdad and Maulvi Abdur Rahim. Similar meetings were held at Lyallpur, Samundri, Toba Tek Singh, Tandlianwala and Gojra. All along razakars were being enrolled who took an oath on the Qur’an and signed the pledge for direct action with their blood, Subscription for the movement came in easily. The number of razakars reached 9,000 and funds collected amounted to Rs. 30,000.
The movement had the support of many a Muslim Leaguer. In fact many councillors of the League belonged to the Ahrar party and actually influenced the public in favour of the movement.
Ghulam Nabi Janbaz of Lyallpur, Qazi Muhammad Husain of Tandlianwala and Maulvi Obed Ullah of Lyallpur were arrested on 27th February under the direction of the Provincial Government. On 1st March a procession set out from the Jami’ Masjid, Lyallpur, for the railway station to see off a batch of 15 razakars under the leadership of Maulvi Muhammad Yusuf, Khatib of Jami’ Masjid, which was proceeding to Karachi. No arrests were made, because telephonic instructions received by the Superintendent of Police from Lahore were that razakars proceeding to Karachi were not to be arrested. On the following day, Sahibzada Iftikhar-ul-Haq made a highly inflammatory speech in front of Railway Station, Lyallpur, where he had been taken in procession by a crowd of about 6,000 people prior to his departure for Lahore with about 100 razakars. He was detrained at Salarwala Railway Station and arrested. Public meetings and processions were banned by an order under section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 3rd March. Despite this, however, on receiving news of the firing in Sialkot a procession of 4,000 to 5,000 moved from the Jami’ Masjid to the Deputy Commissioner’s house. Before it reached its destination, thirteen persons were arrested and the procession was dispersed. The Agricultural College closed and razakars started pouring in from the country. In the evening, the Deputy Commissioner held a meeting of prominent citizens which was also attended by the Presidents of the District Muslim League and the City Muslim League. The attitude of both these gentlemen was anything but co-operative, and the latter even stated that his attitude was determined by his interview with the President of the Provincial Muslim League whom he had seen at Lahore a short while earlier.
On the 4th March there was a complete hartal in the town and some 7,000 men collected in the Jami’ Masjid where speeches were made by several maulviscondemning the firing at Sialkot. After the meeting, three separate processions set out which subsequently got mixed up and swelled to 10,000. They then made for the Deputy Commissioner’s house and, reaching there, repeated their demands to him and offered themselves for arrest. The Deputy Commissioner, however, tactfully diverted and himself led the procession towards the jail where leaders of the procession and 124 other persons were arrested. The Superintendent of Police also accompanied the procession.
In response to the Deputy Commissioner’s request to the Home Secretary for the military, a battalion of 9/8th Punjab Regiment arrived on the night of 4th/5th.
On 5th March, 50 volunteers were arrested and dropped twenty miles away and 55 members of a procession were arrested under section 188 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The news of firing at Lahore was received at Lyallpur on 6th March. There were several processions formed in protest and about 125 persons were arrested. The Chenab Express was detained near Railway Station, Lyallpur, by volunteers coming from Chak Jhumra. News was also received that Martial Law had been declared in Lahore. In the evening came the announcement of the Chief Minister to the effect that the Punjab Government agreed with the demands of the agitators and that these with the views of the Punjab Government were being communicated to the Centre and a Minister from the Province was going to Karachi to press them before the Cabinet. This appeal was taken by the agitators as tantamount to a surrender by the Punjab Government and in consequence the campaign was intensified, some of the Muslim League M. L. As. proposing after this to offer themselves for arrest.
The 7th March was a day of rowdyism and lawlessness. Three different processions were taken out and as many as 107 men were arrested, including Sheikh Bashir Ahmad, President, City Muslim League, who courted arrest. The District Courts were attacked by a mob of 10,000 which broke windows, forced Magistrates to close their Courts and then entered the Deputy Commissioner’s house. A retail cloth shop of the Lyallpur Cotton Mills was looted, the railway line damaged and three trains held up near the railway station. Shops and passengers on the railway station were robbed, some women in the train molested, and a cabinman seriously injured. The mob was asked to disperse and on its refusing to obey, the District Magistrate ordered the police to open fire. Accordingly 47 rounds were fired and four persons were killed and four injured. Curfew was imposed after this.
On the same day, some Muslim League M. L. As. led a procession in Samundri.
On 8th March, a mob of 20,000 gathered to say funeral prayers for the dead of the previous day. After the prayers a procession was formed which paraded the streets. Another procession was taken out from the Agricultural College. The curfew was defied throughout the day and about 110 persons were arrested. On hearing that a mob was making for the Chiniot Bazar, the Deputy Commissioner and the Deputy Inspector-General of Police went there with a military patrol and met an aggressive mob. The mob was declared an unlawful assembly and was ordered to disperse, but the order was not obeyed and the District Magistrate ordered the military to open fire. As a result three persons were killed and one wounded.
Some Ahrar volunteers came from Gujranwala in a truck fitted with a mike. They evaded arrest and drove to Jhang where they were arrested. They were carrying with them three revolvers, ample ammunition and a sum of Rs. 30,000.
On the same evening, a mob cut off the wires of the internal transmission system inside the city.
A full-day curfew was clamped on 9th March, but despite this students of the Agricultural College took out a long procession. Razakars poured in from the country and about 120 of them, who had camped in the Jami’ Masjid, were arrested. In the evening, the District Magistrate called a meeting of prominent citizens at which the President of the District Muslim League merely acted as a spokesman of the Committee of Action.
On the 10th March came the second appeal of the Chief Minister directing firm action against the agitators. This produced good effect, because it gave a clear direction to the District officers. The movement, therefore, began to subside and, although a procession of volunteers came out of the Jami’ Masjid on 17th March, the mosque was cleared with the assistance of the mutawalli on the 19th March and the district returned to normal on the 20th March.
Throughout the period no injury was caused to the life or property of any Ahmadi; nor any damage to any property in the city or in the industrial area. There were two incidents of private firing, each by an Ahmadi under a misapprehension, and some children were injured in each.
The other towns in the district, which were affected by the agitation, were Chak Jhumra, Jaranwala, Dijkot, Samundri, Tandlianwala, Gojra, Toba Tek Singh and Kamalia, but no force had to be used in these places and no damage to life or property of Ahmadis was caused.
Total funds seized from the agitators amounted to Rs. 4,723-2-3.
MONTGOMERY
Montgomery is an important Ahrar centre because here (1) many Ahrar have settled. (2) several judicial cases against the Ahrar and sponsors of the anti-Ahmadiya movement originated and (3) the Ahrar run an institution, called Jami’ Rashidia which was the main centre of their religio-political activities. The five leading Ahrar in this district were Mufti Zia-ul-Hasan, a nephew of the Ahrar leader Maulvi Habib-ur-Rahman of Ludhiana, who has settled in Montgomery, Maulvi Habib Ullah, Maulvi Lutfullah and Maulvi Abdullah who are brothers and founders of Jami’ Rashidia at Montgomery, and Maulvi Bashir Ahmad Rizwani who has settled in Okara.
The story of the events that preceded or occurred during the disturbances here is to be found in an exhaustive written statement compiled by Mr. Haq Nawaz, Superintendent of Police, and is the same as elsewhere, namely, counter speeches by the Ahrar and the Ahmadis, a vigorous propaganda against the Ahmadis from the mosques after the demands had been formulated by the All Parties Muslim Convention in July 1952, collection of funds and recruitment of volunteers for the direct action and, after the arrests on 27th February, public meetings and processions and arrests under section 107, Criminal Procedure Code or section 3 of the Punjab Public Safety Act. Local members of the Jama’at-i-Islami and other maulvis joined the movement and mosques were converted into headquarters of the razakars. The names of persons of different parties including the Ahrar, the Jama’at-i-Islami and the Muslim League who took active part in the demonstrations are given in appendix 1 to the written statement of the Superintendent of Police. The number of volunteers recruited was 2,000 in Montgomery, 1,500 in Okara, 700 in Arifwala and 200 in Chichawatni.
Orders of the Provincial Government to arrest Maulvi Lutfullah and Habib Ullah were received on 27th February. The latter was already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for contempt under an order of the High Court. The District authorities intended to make more arrests and obtained the Government’s permission to arrest Mufti Zia-ul-Hasan and M. Abdullah I and M. Abdullah II. On 2nd March instructions were received from the A. D. I. G. that volunteers proceeding to Karachi were not to be arrested.
The Chief Minister’s appeal of 6th March had the same effect here as elsewhere, namely, it gave further impetus to the agitation.
The only incidents of importance that occurred in this district were at Okara. On 6th March a mob of 3,000 visited the railway station and detained the Down Pakistan Mail for three hours. The crowd also broke the windows of carriages and vacuum chains and attempted to molest lady passengers. On 8th March, telegraph lines were cut near Okara. On 3rd April, after some fiery speeches had been made in the Jami’ Mosque, a procession of women, displaying some placards, came out. The police attempted to seize the placards, but an excited mob of 500 rushed towards the police. While the crowd was being pushed back by the police, a 70-year-old man received an injury and later died in the hospital. There is also the incident of 8th March, which we see no reason to disbelieve though it is not mentioned in any of the official statements, of Hafiz Muhammad Bakhsh, Secretary Ahmadiya Jama’at in Chak No. 2/4-L, near Okara; and his family members, of whom one is a graduate and the other a B. A., LL.B., having been made to recant their creed and abuse the founder of the Ahmadiya movement and of their having been taken from their village by a mob of 4 or 5 thousands to Jami’ Millia, Okara, where they were produced and required to repeat their recantation before Maulvi Zia-ud-Din and Maulvi Mueen-ud-Din.
A 24-hour curfew was imposed in Montgomery and Okara on 14th March to facilitate arrest of the ring leaders and again from 2-30 p.m. to 6 a.m. on 17th March at Montgomery. Public processions and meetings also were banned in Montgomery and Okara for a period of 17 days on 13th March.
The district returned to normal after the incident of Okara on 3rd April 1953.
NEXT PART 4 TO PART 6