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

1974 - III: The war of two narratives; Jinnah vs the Mullah

During the month when four Ahmadis have been murdered in Pakistan for their faith, reading the recently released transcript for the In-Camera sessions is indeed a surreal experience.

If there ever was Jinnah's Pakistan, it was mortally wounded and finished off by a pack of wolves which shred into pieces on the 7th of September, 1974.

Mr. Abdul Hafeez Peerzada, who was Bhutto's Law Minister revealed many years later that the whole issue was a political 'compromise' by his leader. His comments in this video are in stark contrast to his speech on 7th of September where he presented the resolution on behalf of the whole house. (pages 3072-3081)

Pirzada admitting some hard facts. Courtesy Dunya TV.

In this vidoe, Mr. Pirzada has said that an 'Ahmadi' MNA also voted for the motion. This is incorrect. The person he is referring to (Malik M. Jaafar) was not an Ahmadi. Please read his remarks from page 2644 onwards.

It was a war of two narratives for Pakistan. One, the fictional narrative of the clergy which considered Pakistan to be an Islamic theocracy where all non-Muslims are 'Dhimmis': (page 2966) The other, the real version of history which explains the creation of Pakistan as a progressive, secular country governed by the Islamic ideas of universal justice and equality.

While everyone blames Zia for introducing the notorious Blasphemy law, one 'esteemed' MNA, Mr Ahmad Raza Khan Kasuri * suggested the death penalty for 'apostates' in the penal code. (page 2976)

One leading member of the 'Takfiri' MNAs was Zafar Ahmad Ansari, a close friend of Maudoodi and one of many hidden hands in Islamization of Pakistan from the very beginning. Ansari showed his true colours during Zia era by advising him to do away with any opposition. Such ardent and resolute enemies of Jinnah's vision were let loose on the constitution of Pakistan by Mr. Bhutto.

In 1974's parliament, no one fought for Jinnah's Pakistan but Hadhrat Mirza Nasir Ahmad, Khalifatul Masih III (a.r.). I have carefully read the whole document and do keep returning to it for clarifications, but I have no doubt in my mind that PPP, its allies and its opposition were all united against Jinnah's Pakistan.

The Attorney General's concluding remarks were essentially the whole list of questions he was given by the committee. i.e., he repeated the  allegations without even mentioning the Ahmadiyya responses for many of them. It is one thing being unconvinced of an argument, but willfully ignoring solid historic facts and not even acknowledging them is just criminal.

One method of reading this document is quite simple. You can read the Attorney General's concluding speech delivered on the 5th and 6th of September and then compare all of its contents with the cross-examination that took place.

For example, Finality of Prophethood is the main subject in his speech and in the concluding remarks of ALL of the speakers.  At one point , speaker of the house quite sternly reminds a member to stay seated if he had any regard for 'Khatm-e-Nabuwwat'.(Page 3059)

During the cross-examination, no direct questions were raised on this subject. i.e., Ahmadiyya opinion on the verse Khatam-un-Nabiyyeen ** was never sought by the house. He did mention the subject as a follow-up question i.e., Can more prophets come? What is ummati Nabi? etc But no reference to Quranic evidence was made by him.

Attorney General's concluding remarks are an example of intellectual cowardice. He fails to acknowledge any strength in the Ahmadiyya position on any subjects discussed throughtout the course of the proceedings. Even for the most biased (not bigoted) observers, Ahmadiyya services in the creation of Pakistan are an accepted historic fact. But he even diluted that by including some conspiracy theories and myths about the boundary commission. (page 3044).

Next: The Background

Agha Shorish Kashmiri, a firebrand of Ahrar. Speaking during the anti-Ahmadiyya agitations.

* Mr Kasuri reported an attack on his car in Aug 74 during the proceedings. He was attacked again in November 74 in which his father was killed. Mr. Bhutto was hanged for this 'alleged' crime.

** One example can be found on page 1282 where Attorney General mentioned the verse but did not want a 'commentary', only the meanings for the phrase 'Khataman-Nabiyyeen'.

Previous: 1974 - II : What was the Questions again?

1974 - II What was the question again?

Yasser Lateef Hamdani, a prominent Pakistani lawyer and  columnist asks a simple question on the In-Camera charade of 1974. Why was the Attorney General so intent on dissecting the details of Ahmadiyya beliefs and its history? The fundamental question at this stage was whether the Parliament of Pakistan has any right to declare anyone Non-Muslim?

The state should not be defining the boundaries of faith and putting people in or outside of it. Religious sects and their leaders are more than capable of defining (rightly or wrongly) what true faith is, and all should be free to do so.

The 'Mahzarnama' (Memorandum) submitted by the Ahmadiyya delegation to the members of the house prior to start of the In-Camera proceedings asked these two basic questions.

1. Is any Assembly in the world, per se, entitled to deprive an individual of the basic right to exercise his free will to attribute himself, to the religion of his choice? Or,

2. Is any Assembly in the world, per se, entitled to decide, by way of interference in the domain of faith and religion, as to what it considers to be the religion of any community, sect or individual?

Mr. Yahya Bakhtiyar, the Attorney General of Pakistan started the questioning on the first day, 5th of August 1974. After a brief introduction of the witness and of Ahmadiyya Jamaat, he went to the question of religious identity. At first he wanted the definition of a Muslim from the witness. But to prove that the Parliament has the right to decide on matters of faith, Mr. Bakhtyar went into one convoluted argument after another, all of which were extreme examples of fraud or willful impersonations in various settings. These were flawed and misleading tactics, but it becomes evident during the course of the proceedings that Mr. Bakhtyar was only playing out a script under the strict instructions of Mr. Bhutto and his Mullahs (rather Mullahs and their Mr. Bhutto). 

Yahya Bakhtiyar (from Pakistan sentate website)

At one point Mr. Bakhtyar said, as if trying to justify the immorality of his actions..

'(even if you were declared ) a non-Muslim minority... will they stop you from prayers ...or in believing that you are a Muslim?'

And on being asked about the freedom of propagating he says

'No, no, nobody can stop you from propagating either.' (page 128)

Barely ten years after the constitution was amended, it was made a criminal offence for Ahmadis to do all of the above and more. How short-sighted was that Attorney General? And how naive was his Prime Minister! *

Throughout the proceedings, one gets a distinct impression of the true characters of the assorted members belonging to the religious parties. Their behaviour was childish at times, but mostly disrespectful and clownish. Even on the first day, a Mullah objected (in the absence of the delegation) that some of them were whispering and smiling among each other. In fact, knowing the character and personalities of the Ahmadiyya delegation (May Allah have Mercy on all of them), I am not surprised at their patience, bravery and good humor. Only people of such personal conviction and sense of responsibility for their nation and Islam could have tolerated that circus of ignorance and moral deprivation.

Shah Ahmad Noorani, also could not bear the sight of Khalifatul Masih III (a.r.) being seated while answering the questions.(page 202) This was the measure of the small-mindedness of the main perpetrator of this resolution. Here is another example of his lies that he is narrating fully aware that he is able to create such fiction without an official transcript for anyone to verify.

Official transcript has no mention of Tel Aviv or the pigeon story. **

The question of the basic human right of a person being in conflict with the intentions of the Parliament was touched upon again but only fleetingly. I got the impression that Mr. Bakhtiar was offended or (pretended to be offended) by this assertion.

Despite his best effort, the Attorney General appears to be under a constant reminder to not let the witness speak, not let him read from a written source and only force a Yes or No answer. Someone even implies that the questioning committee is 'leaking' the questions to the delegation in advance (page 664). Such was the paranoia in the room.

Regarding the fundamental question of human rights and the remit of the parliament, Mujeebur Rahman sahib raises some valid questions in his article. i.e., on the basis of the questions put to the Ahmadiyya delegation, the resolution presented to the house should have been

Anyone who calls another Kafir, or does not pray Janaza prayer for other sects, does not marry persons of other sects or ever opposed the creation of Pakistan should be declared Non-Muslim.

(Please not that all these are false, exaggerated and fabricated allegations against the Jamaat. I am only posing a hypothetical scenario just to make sense of things).

* Mr. Bakhtiyar also represented his leader Mr. Bhutto in the murder case for which he was hanged.
** Tel Aviv was mentioned in the closing remarks by the members. During the cross-examination question was raised about the presence of an Ahmadiyya Mission in Israel. The town is known as Kababeer where Ahmadiyya Jama'at was established among the Palestinian Arabs since 1920s.

Next: 1974 -III : The war of narratives
Previous: 1974 - I : In camera proceedings released

1974 - In-Camera Proceedings of the Parliament of Pakistan - 1

Finally, after the wait of almost 38 years, the speaker of National assembly of Pakistan has made public the notorious proceedings of 1974 select committee. These are now available online and can be accessed by everyone.

Offical report was finally released recently. Title page.

The document is 3100 pages long, containing the record of the 'cross-examination' that took place of the two Ahmadiyya delegations; one from the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama'at, and the other from the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement. This document can be downloaded here as a pdf file.

The first delegation comprising of four members was led by Hadhrat Mirza Nasir Ahmad, the third Khalifatul Masih, was cross-examined for many days by the Attorney General, Yahya Bakhtiar. There were two versions of these events in circulation since the parliament declared Ahmadis as non-Muslims.

One was the Mullah narrative which was allegedly based on the official transcripts and published under the title "Parliament mein Qadiyaniyon ki Shakist" by Mullah Allah Wasaya. Please note that Allah Wasaya version is a heavily edited account from the document obtained illegally. From the released document it becomes abundantly clear that the committee and its speaker were unanimous in their opinion to keep it a secret for as long as possible. I invite you to compare the original with the Mullah version and and the Ahmadiyya version to confirm who is more truthful in their account.

The Ahmadiyya version of events was described in detail by Maulana Dost Muhammad Shahid who was a member of the delegation. This was a response to the book published by Allah Wasaya and not an attempt to disclose what was an official secret until now.

I have just finished reading the full account. It is a transcript which clearly reflects the aggressive, pre-planned and orchestrated effort by the Parliament to confirm the propaganda spread by the Mullahs at that time. Mr. Bakhtyar treated the whole affair as a criminal case, trying to prove a party guilty like a lawyer who was paid to do so. His tone was mostly aggressive, his style interrupting and his method very questionable. Due to this reason, the reader has to piece together what the witness (Hadhrat Khalifatul Masih III) was trying to say between his interruptions.

As an Ahmadi, I was not surprised at any of the contents as it only lists the same arguments presented against the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. The responses presented to the committee were not only adequate from a logical point of view, but also served as final warning to that unfortunate house which ushered the era of darkness for Pakistan.

In the coming weeks, I will present my analysis of the proceedings, especially on what was said in the absence of the delegations and during the concluding remarks uttered by all concerned.

Right now, my mind is wondering on the ineptitude and bigotry of that Parliament which took Pakistan back to the dark ages.

Next 1974 -II; The Question.