1974: In response to Nadeem F. Paracha

Nadeem F. Paracha is a respected columnist of the left-wing variety, a rare species in Pakistan these days. He is a keen observer of the modern history of a nation in the process of self-combusting into oblivion. I understand and share his pain at this hopeless, prolonged and soul destroying state of affairs in Pakistan.



In his attempt to understand and explain the reasons behind Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto's 'compromise' over the Ahmadiyya issue in 1974, NFP has made a few factual errors. Errors which almost seem like an attempt to shift some blame for the 2nd constitutional amendment to its victims, the Ahmadi Muslims. NFP calls this a 'theological issue' and excuses himself from giving any opinions on its religious aspects. Ironically, at the same time he blames the myopia and laziness of the secular intelligentsia to blame Bhutto alone for this whole debacle. The matter of deciding on someone's faith is nothing but a theological issue.


It is laziness and myopia indeed if an opinion is given without considering the religious motives which caused it. NFP then gives an opinion which is rather theological in nature:

"The Qadianis claimed that Mirza was a prophet, and accused all Muslims who did not accept him as being non-Muslims"

.


The above opinion is based on the false allegations raised by the Anti-Ahmadiyya clergy which was thoroughly discussed and refuted during the In-Camera proceedings held in 1974. Why was this question even taken to the parliament? A parliament of a secularist, socialist majority should have known better!


Ahmadis DO NOT consider anyone who claims to be a Muslim to be Non-Muslim, even if they reject the claims of Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian as the Promised Messiah. In Ahmadiyya theology, this 'Kufr' or rejection of a Divinely appointed Imam (Mamur) is considered a sin, which makes the rejecter answerable in the eyes of God. It has to be understood that Ahmadiyya Muslims interpret the word 'Kufr' in a Quranic context and not as an absolute term of exclusion and hatred commonly used by the Mullahs against each other.


So my dear Nadeem F. Paracha, you have to understand the theology to understand the Ahmadiyya viewpoint. It is nothing but laziness and myopia if you don't even try.


Now to the events of 1974 which culminated in that constitutional amendment. I find it rather amusing that NFP would defend Islami Jamiat Tulaba (IJT) like this. Even if a bunch of hooligans shouting profanities at Rabwah railway station got away with 13 minor injuries (as Samdani commission report confirmed) as a result of a brawl, does that mean that the whole community should be punished for the actions of a few?


And where did you get the idea that some 'Ahmadiyya leaders' were involved in planning a violent response. Ahmadiyya Jamaat's leaders do not resort to violence. Our 130 years history is a witness to that. The fact is, that some Ahmadiyya youths were involved in this brawl which took place on 29th of May because the IJT students, while shouting abuse from the outbound train a week before had also threatened violence on their way back on the 29th. The head of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, Hadhrat Mirza Nasir Ahmad had condemned the actions of those misguided Ahmadis in his Friday sermon on 31st of May.


I also believe that the Rabwah Railway incident was a pre-planned event, used as a pretext to start a violent street agitation against the Ahmadiyya Jamaat. A year before this incident, in spring 1973, an extraordinary session of Ahmadiyya Jamaat's Majlise Shoora was called in which the Khalifatul Masih (Mirza Nasir Ahmad) had informed delegates from all over Pakistan that a grand conspriacy was being hatched against the Jamaat. He had even outlined the methods likely to be used including using hypocritics within the community. Rabwah railway station incident was not a random event. On the day of the brawl, Faisalabad Mullah rags had published fictitious accounts of mutilations of the innocent 'Muslim youths' at the hands of Qadiani 'goons'. JI leadership was in cahoots with the Petro-Dollar funded Rabita Alam e Islami who had issued an edict to boycott Ahmadis and remove them from key posts only a year ago. It is no surprise that the student wing of the same organization then gets the ball rolling at Rabwah.


Agha Shorish Kashmiri was fawning over King Faisal at the OIC conference and praying for his speedy ascendency to the office of Khalifa for all Muslims. Mr. Bhutto was not blind to the immense wealth and prestige which came with the Saudi patronage. It only made sense for a person of his ambition to sacrifice the Ahmadiyya Muslims to gain popularity among the religious minded masses of Pakistan. Maulana Kausar Niazi wrote in his book “The last days of premier Bhutto”;


"He was referring to the Constitutional Amendment regarding the Ahmadis, which has prompted country wide celebrations. Mr. Bhutto felt that the credit which should have gone to his government had not been accorded. “The maulvis are claiming all credit for the Amendment,” he complained, “we must portray the true picture before the people."


Here is another interesting observation. PPP of early days was branded a communist party by the religious right. With such a toxic label, Mr Bhutto had no hope to win many seats in Punjab in 1971 elections. It was Mirza Tahir Ahmad, who later became the 4th head of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community who helped PPP leadership to choose the appropriate candidates in Punjab which then ensured a very unlikely PPP victory. Ahmadis were helping the country to follow more progressive path and they supported the only party which was serious in its secular and enlightened vision for the country’s future.


Bhutto then stabbed his benefactors in the back, and while in his jail cell five years later, equated the Ahmadiyya Muslim community to the 'Jewish Lobby' in USA. He had tears in his eyes when he had to insist that he was a Muslim because a high court judge had called him a 'Muslim in name only' during his murder trial.


He died believing that maybe his act of declaring Ahmadis Non-Muslims will become the cause of his forgiveness.


Whether he will be forgiven or not, God is the only Judge of that. But Mr. Bhutto left the country firmly in hands of religious bigots for a long time to come. Even people like Nadeem F. Paracha cannot bring themselves to accept that their beloved leader sacrificed the soul of Pakistan 40 years ago.


How can we hope for things to change?
Here is the Ahmadiyya response to the declassified In-Camera proceedings and the historic background to the 2nd amendment.

1974 - IV: The Background

In order to understand the motives behind Bhutto government's decision to declare Ahmadis non-Muslims, we also need to understand the sequence of events leading to July 1974. What you will find  in this analysis is a story of treachery, hypocrisy and opportunism of politics and Mullahs.

The Elections:

Despite a temporary lull in anti-Ahmadiyya sentiments during the Ayub era, it was obvious that Jama'at Islami and other religious organizations were in no mood to let Ahmadis live in peace. 1970 was the election year and religious parties were hoping to gain power. This would be their first of many election losses to come. Both Barelvi and Deobandi conglomorates and Jamaa't Islami could only gain 10 seats in National Assembly. Bhutto's socialist PPP won majority in West Pakistan, mainly due help and advice from the Ahmadi leadership. Ahmadis also supported friendly candidates from other parties as well, but where it mattered the most, they voted for PPP.

Agha Shorish Kashmiri's Chattan wrote that PPP's victory is a lesson for the religious right-wing, but Mr. Bhutto won due to Qadiani conspiracies in Sindh and Punjab. It is ironic that the same paper was reporting Ahmadiyya hand in support of Mufti Mahmood's political rallies before the elections. Mr. Kashmiri, being a great orator was a sought after ally of the religious orthodoxy. In those days he was supporting Mr. Maudoodi.

Jama'at e Islami leadership. Sponsored by the Foreign hand.

The elections resulted in a stalemate between the Awami league in East Pakistan and PPP in the West. This lead to the tragic events of 1971 and creation of Bangladesh.

Ahmadis on Key Posts:

In September 1971, Sahibzada M.M. Ahmad, the advisor to the President on economic affairs was attacked in his office by one Aslam Qureshi (later Maulana Aslam Qureshi). Mr. Qureshi was praised in the press for his upright character. Sahibzada sahib survived the attack. This was a time of crisis in Pakistan. But Mullah was busy inciting the public against the Ahmadis; especially those who were serving their country in prominent positions.

Assassination attempt was made on Sahibzada Mirza Muzaffar Ahmad, A Federal Minsiter.

It is true that some Ahmadis were serving in prominent positions in the civil and military services, but it was a natural outcome of being brought in an environment where education and loyalty to country was part of their faith. Sahibzada M.M. Ahmad sahib was the most distinguished economist of his era his services to the country are well documented. In the war of 1971, when most other generals were busy surrendering one half of the country to the enemy, an Ahmadi General Eftikhar Janjua laid down his life while on active service.

Mr. Bhutto also confessed to Col. Rafi in his last days that the only capable General he had known was Gen. Akhtar Malik, another Ahmadi.

The Constitution:

When the constitution of Pakistan was finalized in 1973, it became apparent that Bhutto had already started pandering to the Mullahs. The oath statements for both the President and the Prime Minister now included this statement

I ......................, do solemnly swear that I am a Muslim and believe in the unity and oneness of Almighty Allah, the books of Allah, the Holy Quran being the last of them, the prophethood of Muhammad (peace be upon him) as the last of the prophets and that there can be no prophet after him.....

One can sense the childish motives behind this action. Ahmadis agree to the statement anyway. Holy Prophet (saw) being the Khataman-Nabiyyeen was the first and the last prophet and no prophet can come after him. (i.e., his era is until the day of Judgement).

Mr. Bhutto and PPP were now acutely aware of the label of 'pro-Qadiani' and 'Qadiani agents' being applied on them by the defeated religious parties. Bhutto had to move fast to keep his popularity up among the masses. But despite his best efforts, Mullahs were still not happy. A number of other reservations against the constitution were expressed. i.e., where is the punishment for apostasy? where is the demand of Jizya from non-Muslims? Why are non-Muslims allowed to hold key posts? etc.

In the meantime, the Government of Azad Kashmir, under the leadership of Sardar A.Q Khan passed a resolution (in which only the ruling party voted) which declared Ahmadis as non-Muslims. This probably was an attempt to test the waters before trying it in Pakistan. As expected, the news was appreciated by the religious parties and Pakistani press. Even Rabita Aalam-e-Islami sent a congratulatory telegram to Mr. Bhutto (probably mistaking him to be the president of AJK).

A warning from Hadhrat Khalifatul Masih III

While it appeared that seemingly random events of persecution were happening all around, the Imam of Jama'at Ahmadiyya knew that a conspiracy was being hatched against the community on a grand scale. He called the emergency Shura (a committee of elected advisers from all over the country) in May 1973 and informed them of the secret machinations taking place in the Government and the establishment against the community. He told the community that there was a plot to assassinate the Ahmadiyya leadership and also a scheme to put economic and financial restrictions on Ahmadis (social boycott) to break them apart. And finally there was also the plan to cause internal rift among the Ahmadis in Rabwah by using some hypocrite elements from within the community.

Manufacturing Khilafat; An unfulfilled dream

The global politics of the time had given rise to wannabe 'Khalifas' around the Muslim world. Terrorists from the atheist far-left around the world had declared solidarity with the Palestinian cause. Dictators propped up by the West were going no where. So when Idi Amin, Gaddafi, Anwer Sadaat, Shah Faisal, Yasser Arafat decided to pay a visit for the Islamic Conference in Feb 1974, Bhutto was all set to become a major world leader. On the other hand Shah Faisal was being presented to the Muslim world as the unifying leader, a potential  Khalifa. Pakistani Media was in a religious frenzy at this time, Chattan ready and willing to pledge allegiance to Khalifatul Muslimeen, Shah Faisal.

OIC Summit 1974: Wannabe Saviours. Mr. Bhutto's ambitions and Shah Faisal's petro-dollars could not do the trick.

There were reports that Jamaat e Islami and other mullahs were going to use the international conference to move against the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community on a global scale. Mirza Tahir Ahmad (later Khalifatul Masih IV a.r.) met with Bhutto to share his concerns; Bhutto assured him that nothing of that sort will be allowed.

The conference was a failure for the Muslim world, but for Mr. Bhutto it was a major success. He popularity graph was at all time high.

Rabita-Aalame-Islami, an NGO sponsored by the house of Saud was present at the conference. A month of so after the conference, this organization passed a resolution declaring Ahmadis as non-Muslims. The Pakistani official delegate also signed it. This resolution also contained the Saudi Royal Decree which barred Ahmadis from entering the country or gaining employment in Saudi Arabia.

The Rabwah Incident

Commonly known as the precursor the the Parliamentary debate, Rabwah railway station incident is another example of how the print media and Mullah propaganda caused so much death and destruction for Pakistani Ahmadis. The event took place on 22nd and 29th of May 1974 in which a group of students belonging to the student wing of Jamaat-e-Islami got involved in a brawl with some misguided Ahmadi youth at Rabwah train station. It resulted in some minor injuries, but the news spread like wildfire all across the country. Urdu print media exaggerated the accounts of violence and presented a fictitious picture of mutilations and wanton murder of innocent Muslim boys by barbaric Ahmadis. Nothing could be far from the truth. Justice Samdani was appointed to head a tribunal to investigate the matter. His report which consisted of detailed interviews of all parties involved was submitted to the Provincial government. That report has never been made public. But Justice Samdani had to make a public announcement during his enquiry that no torture, mutilation or murder took place during the brawl. This was in response to the propaganda by various newspaper that many students had their eyes gouged out and limbs hacked off and some were in critical condition. In fact, only 13 minor injuries were reported by the doctors. A reference to this fact was also made during the in-camera session by Hadhrat Khalifatul Masih (a.r.) which was not contested.

Riots, Massacres and Boycott

Following the events in Rabwah, the whole of Pakistan was engulfed in anti-ahmadiyya riots. Nawa-e-Waqt, the most read Urdu newspaper announced on 16th of June that the Social boycott of Ahmadis has started. This was in  line with the Rabita-Alame Islami declaration a few weeks earlier urging all Muslims to do the same. Dozens of Ahmadis were killed across the country and many thousands made homeless due to arson and looting. In Gujranwala, a particularly gruesome massacre took place where eight Ahmadis were tortured and killed by violent mobs in different parts of the city. In addition to this there were horrific tales of murders where mobs killed the victims and mutilated their bodies and burnt them with their homes and possessions. While this fire was raging in all parts of the country, the national and provincial assemblies were busy blaming the Ahmadis for creating this situation. Even Justice Samdani ignored the violence against Ahmadis and only focused on the Rabwah incident which was only a minor law and order situation.

While Mullahs were busy on the street ensuring life was made hell for Ahmadis, their representatives in the national and provincial assemblies hijacked those forums to blackmail the government. Instead of discussing the law and order in the country, ministers were forced to announce their allegiance to the cause of khatm-e-nabuwwat and namoos-e-risalat.

The Foreign Hand

At this crucial turning point in Pakistan's history, Mr. Bhutto and his allies had the option to deal with the miscreant according to the law and the new constitution. Instead, Bhutto chose to blame a foreign hand in destabilizing the country once again. I am not sure what he meant by this. Those on the right may have interpreted as US and Zionists supporting the Ahmadis to topple the government. While the secular elements in his own party knew that the all the evidence led to Saudi sponsored Jamaat-e-Islami and other Wahabi-Deobandi elements. According to Dr. Mubashar Hasan, Bhutto's close friend and MNA at the time, Mr. Bhutto knew fully well that Shah Faisal was behind the Mullahs.

In the meantime, Hadhrat Khalifatul Masih III (a.r.) told AP that he considered the government fully responsible for the situation. This was consistent with his views that he shared with the Shura a year ago. Jamaa't also had reached out to the international community to highlight the human rights abuses being ignored by the state. Sir. Zafrullah Khan (r.a) raised the matter in a press conference in London. This attracted the disapproval of the government and was referred to by the Attorney General during the In-Camera sessions.

The whole month of June was spent in murdering and Jailing Ahmadis, while the government was looking for a way out. Newspapers were asked not to publish any news about the Ahmadiyya persecution to which they gladly complied.

On 30th of June, Mullahs of Parliament brought a resolution forward demanding that Ahmadis be declared non-Muslims. The law minister took the matter to the speakers chambers where a resolution was drafted which was a masterpiece in bigotry and conspiracy theories. For example it alleged that Ahmadis have made changes to Quran and they are sponsored by imperialist powers to cause divisions among Muslims. This was agreed to be presented to the house for a vote on the condition that witnesses will be called to give evidence before a final decision.

The Chief Takfiri. Mufti Mahmood or Bhutto?

But it is evident from the events above that the decision was already made. Many years later, Dr. Mubashar Hasan blamed the law minister for being an 'idiot' for agreeing to such wording. Mr. Farooq Ali Khan also admitted that the matter was decided not in his chambers, but by Rabita-Alame-Islami many months ago.

Mr. Bhutto's Hubris

According to Dr. Mubashar Hasan, Bhutto was fully aware of the outcome of his actions, but he was confident that whatever Mullah's had plotted, he would overcome them by his political maneuvering. This policy of appeasement came back to haunt him a few years later. Bhutto was fairly vocal in public about his intentions to deal with the matter in parliament. Everyone knew that he intended to declare Ahmadis as non-Muslims as the final solution to this 90 years old issue. Khan Abdul Wali Khan, once a secular leader of Pakhtuns, but an ally of Mr. Bhutto also joined hands with him at this juncture.

                          Dr. Mubashar Hasan stating some facts

Jamaa't writes to the Secretary of National Assembly

On 4th of July, the Nazir Umoor-e-Aama, Mirza Mansoor Ahmad sahib wrote to the secretary of National assembly to allow a delegation to present the Ahmadiyya belief in-front of the steering committee set up by the Parliament. The government responded that unless the Khalifatul Masih III (a.r.) attends himself, they will not allow a hearing, instead written statement maybe submitted.

It was decide that a Memorandum be presented to the Parliament which was published and submitted before Hadhrat Khalifatul Masih III read it in the parliament on 22nd and 23rd of July.

The Ahmadiyya delegation then attended the in-camera session from 5th of August to respond to the questions from the Steering committee.

The Ahmadiyya delegation

The above overview has been adapted from Silsila Ahmadiyya, Volume III, which contains thorogh research and facts on the events of 1974. The authors managed to interview Prof. Ghafoor of JI, Abdul Hafeez Peerizada, Mubashar Hasan and Farooq Ali Khan of PPP to obtain their eye witness account of the proceedings.

NEXT: V- Conspiracy Theories

1974 - Some Clarifications regarding the official record

Before I proceed with any further review of the recently declassified proceedings of the In-Camera session, there are a few clarifications I would like to make.

1. The document was not voluntarily released by the Government. According to Mr. Bashir A. Khan who acquired the document, he had to sue the Secretary of the National assembly to obtain the records.
2. The audio tapes which should have accompanied the documents have been allegedly destroyed in a fire.
3. The records themselves do not contain the most important evidence submitted by the Ahmadiyya delegation. i.e., Mahzarnama. It however contains the detailed response to the Mahzarnama by various religious leaders.
4. The records were declassified by the individual efforts of an Ahmadi Mr. Bashir A. Khan, who wrote thousands of letters to various political leaders and officials. He also funded the legal action himself. We are grateful to Mr. Khan for bringing such a historic record into the public domain.

As for the quality of the records I have the following observations.

1. A large number of Arabic references presented by either sides has been omitted. One can only take an educated guess on what these may have been.
2. At many points, the speaker of the house asked the reporters to leave. We do not know what was discussed in the hall after the delegates left for recess. I don't know if it was against the rules, but what were they trying to hide? It was already an 'in-camera' process.
3. Without the tapes, we can not be certain of the veracity and completeness of the records. Luckily Maulana Dost Muhammad Shahid sahib recorded hours of video testimony before his demise.
4. The events which led to this in-camera session are mostly unavailable. For example Samdani Commission report which became the basis of the whole affair has also mysteriously disappeared.
5. The preceding parliamentary debates which led to the events reported in the documents are also not available to give it some context.
6. It is important for the reader to acquire all other relevant historic evidence to complete the picture presented in records.

Despite all of the above, this documents reveal a wealth of information about the mindsets, motives and conduct of both sides.

I will be posting some more thoughts and findings in the coming days. InshaAllah.
Previous: The war of two narratives
Next: 1974: IV - The Background