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?