Wikileaks and 1974 Anti-Ahmadiyya Agitations

 US Diplomatic Cables, now declassified (or released) via wiki leaks, give an interesting insight into the Spring and Summer of 1974. United States has always enjoyed great influence in Pakistani establishment and certain details present in the diplomatic correspondence of that time show a government under threat.

It appears that Bhutto maintained a neutral stance to avoid any embarrassment on the humanitarian front, but hid behind the parliament to make his decisions. Also, the US diplomats reported on the agitations as 'generally under control' and ignored the human cost of the violence. 

Here are a few excerpts I found to be of interest. 

'VIRTUALLY ALL OUR CONTACTS MAINTAIN THAT MILITARY AND CIVIL SERVICES ARE "FULL" OF AHMADIYAS,  WHEN PINNED DOWN, ONLY NAME WHICH GENERALLY COMES TO MIND IS RECENTLY RETIRED AIR MARSHAL CHAUDHRY. ACCORDING TO ONE SENIOR CIVIL SERVANT, GOP HAS LOOKED INTO MATTER AND FOUND THAT SENIOR-MOST AHMADIYA IS (UNNAMED) PROVINCIAL SECRETARY IN SIND.'

(1974 June 7, 12:31 (Friday), Lahore)

 JAMAAT-I-ISLAMI LEADER MIAN TUFAIL MOHAMMAD REPORTEDLY SENT TELEGRAM TO SAUDI ARABIA OVER WEEKEND REQUESTING KING FAISAL'S INTERVENTION TO HELP SOLVE SECTARIAN QUESTION. IN TELEGRAM, MOHAMMAD REPORTEDLY REMINDED MONARCH THAT ISSUES SHOULD BE VIEWED IN LIGHT OF DECISIONS TAKEN DURING RABITA-E-ALAM-E-ISLAMI CONFERENCE HELD LAST APRIL IN JIDDA. (ACCORDING TO LOCAL SOURCE, CONFERENCE DECIDED TO CONDEMN AHMADIYAS AS AGENTS OF ISRAEL AND INTERNATIONAL ZIONISM, AND TO DECLARE AHMADIYAS AS NON-MUSLIMS THROUGHOUT ISLAMIC WORLD.)

1974 June 17, 11:46 (Monday) Lahore)

TEHRIK ISTIQLAL LEADER ASGHAR KHAN HELD PRESS CONFERENCE IN LAYRE JUNE 14, WHICH FOR FIRST TIME IN MONTHS GOT HIM CONSIDERABLE (ADVERSE) PUBLICITY. APPARENTLY, NO JOURNALIST OF ANY PERSUASION WAS SATISFIED WITH AIR MARSHAL'S COMMENT THAT AHMADIYA COMMUNITY WAS "ALREADY A TINY MINORITY," ALTHOUGH HE DID STATE THAT HE FIRMLY BELIEVED IN FINALITY OF PROPHET MOHAMMAD (KHATM-E-NABUWWAT).

1974 June 17, 11:46 (Monday) Lahore)

PRESS CONTINUED TO CARRY INFLAMATORY STORIES DURING WEEK, INCLUDING ONE ARTICLE IN JAMHOOR JUNE 21 DATELINED CHINIOT, IN WHICH CORRESPONDENT CLAIMED HE HAD RECEIVED INFORMATION FROM KARACHI THAT AHMADIYAS WERE PURCHASING GOLD IN LOCAL MARKET WHICH WOULD BE TRANSFERRED TO NEW AHMADIYA HEAD-QUARTERS OUTSIDE PAKISTAN VIA BRITISH OR AMERICAN DIPLOMATIC MISSION.

(1974 June 28, 11:46 (Friday), Lahore)

MAJLIS- E- AHRAR ANNOUNCED INTENTION TO HOLD PUBLIC MEETING OUTSIDE LAHORE' S DELHI GATE TO PAY TRIBUTE TO ACTION OF AZAD KASHMIR ASSEMBLY, TO FEATURE NOTED OPPOSITION FIGURES SUCH AS AGHA SHORISH KASHMIRI AND NAWABZADA NASRULLAH KHAN, AS WELL AS SOME PROMINENT LEADERS OF JAMIAT ULEMA, JAMIAT ULSUA PAKISTAN AND JAMIAT ULEMA ISLAM, AND SIMILAR MEETINGS WERE SCHEDULED FOR OTHER PARTS OF THE PUNJAB.

(1973 May 11, 09:15 (Friday), Lahore)

And one strange one. Regarding a Group Captain Sajjad Haider who wanted a diplomatic post in Washington. It is interesting to see him being labelled as anti-Ahmadiyya and his own claims of being one.

ALTHOUGH HAIDER HAS APPARENTLY BEEN REHABILITATED, IT LOOKS AS IF HE IS NO LONGER CONSIDERED FIT FOR FIRST-LINE OPERATIONAL DUTY IN PAKISTAN. HE IS ANTI-AHMADIYA, AND CLAIMS TO HAVE BEEN INSTRUMENTAL IN REMOVING FORMER AIR MARSHAL CHAUDHRY.

(1974 July 24, 09:01 (Wednesday), Lahore)


Previous: 1974 VI: Kufr and Islam; Circles and Boundaries
Next: 1974: In response to Nadeem F. Paracha

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?

On Iqbal day, 2010

Growing up in Pakistani educational system in the eighties, I was made aware of Allama Iqbal from the first day when I heard "lab pe aati hay dua" being recited in the school. The poem is prayer by a child that God may make his life a guiding light for others. Iqbal teaches the child that he must stand by the poor and help those in need. To be honset, children at school assembley just followed the tune. We had no idea what it meant. This was a generation which will grow up to live the democracy of post-Zia era and post-democracy Musharraf times. And now post-Musharraf democracy. We learnt that our collective lives were not a glowing beacon for people to follow, neither were we a generation to help our nation's poor and downtrodden. Iqbal's first dream is being broken every single day in Pakistan.We have seen enough carnage of racial, sectarian violence, a war in Kashmir, an insurgency in Baluchistan, a mutiny in tribal areas and the rise and further rise of terrorism. We have suffered natural calamaties of Biblical proprotions. Iqbal's prayer, recited by millions of Pakistani children remains unanswered.
During my middle school years, I was told that Iqbal was the person who saw the vision of Pakistan and Quaid e Azam fulfilled his dream. I imagined Iqbal, the wise sage, waking up from his dream in his candle-lit quarters, looking for a piece of paper to write down the description of this Divinely inspired vision. It turned out that this "dream" was a well thought out speech in a political conference, and later explained in a letter to the Daily Times, London. In these days, I became fond of Iqbal and borrowed his poetry books from the library and tried to memorize many of his poems. His Shaheen Momin was my hero, my ideal. His rhetoric of superiority of a praciticing Muslim and his message of revolution was very appeasing to me. At that time, I was also a keen reader of Naseem Hijazi, Barbara Cartland of urdu literature. Except for he was a man, and wrote novels around the glorious Muslim conquests in Middle-East and Europe. The comparison with Barbara Cartland is due to his fixation with just one era and with one aspect of history.
Iqbal's portrait appears in many offices across Pakistan. In many of his protraits, he appears in a contemplative pose with an eagle soaring in the background. The eagle or falcon represents a true Muslim. A soldier of Islam who is proud of his Islamic heritage and superior understanding of the world around him. To us, Iqbal was one of these super-Muslims. How bravely did he stand up to the British and Hindus to guide the Muslims to find their pride and recover their prestige. And Muslims of India did just that by creating Pakistan. I read about Captain Sarwar, Major Aziz Bhatti etc. and thought of them as personifications of Iqbal’s Shaheen. In the 80s, Gen. Zia’s american Jihad was taught in school books. India was always evil, Israel a mortal enemy and Russian was the official language in Hell. Iqbal’s selective poetry in school books, and many religious sunni teachers, no wonder Pakistanis have such a one-sided view of Iqbal.
Then I found Ghalib and Meer. Iqbal’s poetry did not seem as brilliant when I compared them. I discovered in college, that to consider Ghalib better than Iqbal was to confess that you preferred wine and women over your faith. But Ghalib’s poetry agreed with my thoughts more than Iqbal. Ghalib’s honesty and humour had much more to offer than Iqbal’s dry slogans. But when it came to politics, I was still in agreement with Iqbal. Muslims needed the strength of character, the military advantage to win their place in the world. Ghalib was always busy ruing his bad luck and failures. Meer was crying himself to sleep. But Iqbal was challenging the accursed satan himself. He even went as far as questioning God's Wisdom on why Muslims were in decline.
But then I found Faiz. Ghalib had a match. Iqbal was No. 3 in the list. Faiz teaches us to be stubborn in the face of adversity, but he also keeps one foot in the dreamland. He trusts God's Wisdom and accepts that pain and persecution is all a part of our collective experience. He may have been a communist, but his metaphors are more closely connected to the Holy Scriptures than Iqbal's.
What was my reason to demote Iqbal from my list of literary heroes? (He still is on the list.. but somewhere at number 25 or below). I read a comment once that Ghalib resorted to writing Qaseedahs for the British Monarch. I also found a lament Iqbal wrote at the death of Queen Victoria, where he equated the day of her death to Muharram. I have no problems with people writing praises for the Kings and Queens. Both did what they though was right. But Iqbal’s deep study of Greek and modern European philosophy had an impact on his own thinking. He was a student of history, but was not such a great revolutionary as portrayed in the books. He himself denied in a letter that he never wanted a separate homeland for muslims, but was only throwing options to ensure peace in India. I think muslims in India made Iqbal into a celebrity too soon. As soon as he returned after his overseas education, he was treated like a leader. His poetry was lauded as the best in the whole country. But was his phiolsophy as sound as his linguisitic abilities? I find that today, everyone claims Iqbal to be one of them. Secularists love him because he condemned the mullah. Mullah quotes him as he was a Jihadist. Scholars like Ghulam Ahmad Pervez (of Tolu-e-Islam) claim that Iqbal was a rationalist like Sir Syed. Indians revere him, Pakistanis claim the ownership over Iqbal. What was Iqbal? I think, he was a poet, who could never make up his mind.
A freethinker like he was, Iqbal dismissed orthodoxy for most of his life, until he required guidance (or was pushed to seek it) by the Ahrar. In 1935, just three years before his death, Dr. Iqbal felt the urge to oppose the Ahmadiyya Sect, despite his four decades long active relationship with them. His close relatives were Ahmadis. His eldest son, Aftab Iqbal was sent to Qadian to study in the Ahmadiyya boarding school. These last three years of his life, gave Iqbal the popularity among the ultra-orthodox Ahrar, and later Jamaat e Islami and other deobad and even salafi-wahabi movements.
I would like to believe that Iqbal’s vision was a federation of fucntioning muslim provinces who followed rationalist Islamic ideology like his. But who can tell? Our Jihadis find the ailing, angry and vindictive Iqbal more agreeable.