Rethinking Islam with Sultan Shahin

Books and Documents

13 Apr 2010, NewAgeIslam.Com Munir Commission Report-29: MUSLIM LEAGUE Justice M. Munir commission investigated the large-scale riots against the Ahmadya sect in Pakistan in 1953. His report is an eye-opener. It shows that our ulema are not even able to agree on a definition of who a Muslim is. Justice Munir had called heads of all Islamic schools of thought and asked them the definition of a Muslim. No two ulema agreed. It also exposes the pusillanimity of our so-called scholars of Islam and their near-total disregard of the beauty and generosity of Islam. –Editor  “Do not consider the policeman, the thanedar and the Deputy Commissioner as your rulers. Do not be afraid of them and do not care for them.” “Muhammad Ali (the reference is to the present Prime Minister) went to Delhi to find a solution for the Kashmir problem. Well and good. But why did he take his wife ‘ummul-momineen’ with himself? Brothers! his wife must be ‘ummul-momineen’, because he himself is ‘amir-ul-momineen’. Well, ‘ummul-momineen’ went to Delhi. The question involved was of the life and death of 35 lacs of Musalmans, but her little son got a scratch on the thumb and she ran back to Karachi.”  “Thirty-five lacs of Musalmans are facing death in Kashmir and this man (the reference is again to the present Premier) proclaims himself as the younger brother of Nehru. I would say ‘Be a dog but do not be a younger brother’.” Referring to officers in that speech he said they were all disciples of the British and immoral. They gambled and they drank. “I once mentioned to Mr. Noon, the Chief Minister”, he said, “that the Deputy Commissioner of a district gambles all night and doses during the day in Court. This representative of twelve lacs of people is a gambler and an adulterer. He has a depraved character but is Sahib Bahadur. Nothing was done on this complaint.” Next: The part played by the Muslim League leaders Photo: Ahmadiyya Mosque, Nairobi Kenya Munir Commission Report-29: MUSLIM LEAGUE The activities of several prominent members of the Muslim League in relation to the Tahuffuz-i-khatm-i-nubuwwatmovement and the consequent disturbances have been detailed in an earlier part of this report. It is necessary here merely to recapitulate the main incidents connected with the Muslim League or individual members or officebearers of the Muslim League who were subject to the party discipline. It will be remembered that during the period under review Mian Abdul Bari was the President of the Provincial Muslim League from 16th April 1949 to 20th August 1950, Sufi Abdul Hamid from 20th August 1950 to 28th October 1951 and Mr. Daultana since 27th October 1951. After the Mamdot Ministry was dismissed, Mian Abdul Bari nominated some leaders of the Muslim League as Advisers to the Governor during the time that section 92-A was in force. Though the responsibility for Provincial administration was that of the Governor, who was acting on-behalf of the Governor-General, the Governor followed the same practice as is followed when a popular Ministry is in office. The Advisers, therefore, occupied the same position as that of the Ministers. Malik Muhammad Anwar was the Adviser in charge of law and order from 4th November 1949 to 24th July 1950. Though by the Press Statement of Mr. Daultana of 1st April 1952 and the directions issued in pursuance of that statement to the League organisations on 3rd April 1952 members of the Muslim League were prohibited from presiding over non-Muslim League meetings, and they were directed not to take any part in activities which might create estrangement or enmity between different classes of Pakistan citizens, none of the League organisations took these instructions to mean that its members were not to take part in activities connected with the Tahaffuz-i-khatm-i-nubuwwat movement.  The instructions had excluded functions of a purely social or non-political nature, and though it was pointed out that the word ‘political’ was to be interpreted strictly and not loosely, the members of the Muslim League in several districts began to associate themselves whole-heartedly with the Tahaffuz-i-khatm-i-nubuwwat movement. Nor was the direction that members of the Muslim League should not take any part in activities which might create estrangement or enmity between different classes of Pakistan subjects, seriously taken and the office-holders and members of the League as well as members of the Legislative Assembly who had been elected on the League ticket, began freely to take part in activities in support of the movement.  No notice of these activities, if they ever came to the notice of the Punjab Provincial Muslim League, was taken, and inquiries made by some members evoked no definite reply. In its meeting held on 17th July 1952, the City Muslim League of Gujranwala passed a resolution declaring that khatm-inubuwwat was a fundamental doctrine in Islam, disapproving of the application of orders under section 144 to mosques, characterising such orders as an interference in religion and demanding the Government not only to withdraw those orders but also to withdraw all cases arising out of their contravention. The resolution of the City Muslim League, Gujranwala, was followed by the resolution of the City Muslim League, Sargodha, on 20th July to the effect that the Ahmadis be declared a non-Muslim minority and requesting the Provincial Muslim League and the All Pakistan Muslim League to take practical steps to obtain such declaration. In a similar resolution the City Muslim League, Kamoke, declared the Qadianis to be ineligible for membership of the League and asked for their rustication from that body. The important Leaguers who associated themselves with resolutions relating to the declaration of Ahmadis as a non-Muslim minority, which were submitted to the Working Committee of the Provincial Muslim League for the annual meeting that was to be held on 26th and 27th July 1962, were:— Qazi Murid Ahmad, M.L.A., Councillor, Punjab Muslim League, Sahibzada Mahmud Shah of Gujrat, Councillor, Punjab Muslim League, Muhammad Islam-ud-Din, M.L.A., Maulana Sayyad Ahmad Saeed Kazmi, Member, Provincial Muslim League Council, Khwaja Abdul Hakim Siddiqi. President, City Muslim League, Multan, Sufi Muhammad Abdul Ghafur Ludhianvi, Office Secretary, District Muslim League and Councillor Punjab Muslim League, and Muhammad Ibrahim Qureshi, General Secretary, City Muslim League, Jhang, and Councillor, Punjab Muslim League. These resolutions were examined by the Chairman, Mr. Daultana, and other office-bearers, and though it is not known who proposed or drafted the resolution which was moved at the second session of the Council on 27th July, Mr. Daultana has taken full responsibility for that resolution.  The resolution, which was passed by an overwhelming majority of 284 to 8, recited that differences between the Musalmans and the Qadianis on the doctrine of khatm-i-nubuwwat were fundamental, that owing to these differences a proposal had been put forward to class the Qadianis as a non-Muslim minority in the constitution of Pakistan, that this proposal reflected to a certain extent the reaction of Muslims to the strong separatist tendencies which the Qadianis themselves had shown in religious matters and other spheres of civic and social life, that the proposal involved grave and important issues of a constitutional and legal nature which required deep and careful consideration and could, with the fullest confidence, be left to the mature judgment of the leadership of the Pakistan Muslim League and the Pakistan Constituent Assembly, that in the meantime every member of Muslim League must endeavour to create an atmosphere of calmness and serenity in which alone deliberate decisions affecting fundamental constitutional policy could be taken and that the Council affirmed its unwavering adherence to the principle that it was not only a democratic but also a religious duty of Muslims of Pakistan to protect the life, property, honour and all civic rights of every citizen of the State irrespective of his or her caste or creed. The view underlying this resolution had been explained earlier by Mr. Daultana in his speech at the Sialkot District Muslim League Conference at Pasrur, and after the passing of the resolution he further clarified it in his speeches in Hazuri Bagh, Lahore, on 30th August and at Rawalpindi on 13th September. In each of these speeches Mr. Daultana emphasised his and all Muslims’ belief in the finality of prophethood and the consequences of disbelief in that doctrine, the nature of the demands that followed from or were based on that doctrine, and the position that the demands were of a constitutional nature which were only cognisable by the Centre. Of course in those speeches he emphasised the fact that religious minorities in Pakistan were entitled to protection of life, property and honour. The resolution and the speeches show as clearly and unequivocally as words can that the Muslim League and Mr.  Daultana personally considered the Qadianis to be non-Muslims because no other conclusion is possible from his speech in Hazuri Bagh when he said that the raising of any argument on the doctrine of khatm-i-nubuwwat itself amounted to kufr, that khatm-i-nubuwwat was a part of our faith which was above all argument and logic, and that the Qadianis, because of their separatist tendencies, were themselves responsible for the strong feeling that had come to exist against them. The same is the conclusion to be drawn from his speech at Rawalpindi. In his speech at Nizamabad on 25th October to the District Muslim League, Gujranwala, there was a veiled hint that there were some people who were creating disunity among the Musalmans and that such people were destroying not only the unity of Islam but the integrity of Pakistan, but, keeping in view his earlier pronouncements, this could not have referred to the differences of Musalmans with the Ahmadis who, according to his earlier speeches, were clearly outside the pale of Islam. The second point that clearly emerged from the resolution and the speeches was that the demands in respect of the Ahmadis were in their nature essentially constitutional and that, therefore, they were exclusively within the cognizance of the Central authorities, i.e., the All Pakistan Muslim League, the Central Government and the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan. Mr. Daultana must have been fully conscious of the implications of this statement of the position. In the language of the resolution and the words and expressions he used in the speeches which he made on the subject, one thing was most clearly expressed and that is that the Province was not concerned with the demands except in their law and order aspect and that it was the Centre alone who could take notice of the demands and take necessary steps to have them recognised. After this no one could have dared to say that the Ahmadis were not a separate community, that they were within the fold of Islam, that the demands against them were unfounded and unjustified and that they should be rejected. The demands having thus been held to be justified, thereafter all representations and claims in reference to them had to be made to the Centre and all activities in support or to secure recognition of the demands to be directed against the Central authorities, i.e., Khwaja Nazim-ud-Din, the leader of All Pakistan Muslim League and the Prime Minister of Pakistan who could, if he liked, carry the demands through the party meeting and thus through the Constituent Assembly. Things, therefore, took the course pointed out and Khwaja Nazim-ud-Din began to feel himself in an uncomfortable position, a position in which Mr. Daultana would have found himself if the demands had related to the Provincial sphere. The centre of activity shifted to Karachi where deputation after deputation of the ulama began to call upon Khwaja Nazim-ud-Din and to discuss the demands with him. A detailed account of his interviews with the ulama and what transpired at them has been given earlier. Intensely religious, and a man of deep and sincere convictions as Khwaja Nazim-ud-Din is, he found himself placed on the horns of a dilemma. He could not refute the argument of the learned theologians which was in keeping with his own beliefs. He also knew the power that the ulama, since the Quaid-i-Azam’s demise, the passing of the Objectives Resolution and the recommendation of the Basic Principles Committee, had acquired in the land. The rejection of the demands would have brought him, as he has himself put it, to a “head-on clash” with the ulama, and this he wished to avoid at every cost. He could not have accepted the demands as it would certainly have exposed Pakistan to ridicule and disillusioned the international world of her claims as an advancing, progressive and democratic State. All attempts to temporise and compromise failed. Though the issue was clear-cut, it contained in it implications of so dangerous and radical a character that any definite decision one way or the other would have meant trouble for him. Who put Khwaja Nazim-ud-Din in this unhappy position? The answer must certainly be that it was the Muslim League resolution and its subsequent exposition and explanation. After the existence and justification of demands was officially recognised by the League, and their constitutional nature affirmed and explained, the course of the agitation was bound to be diverted to Karachi. The members of the Provincial Muslim League could hereafter be indifferent, and if they so liked, could even openly espouse the cause, for which a clear case had been made out in the League resolution itself. The result, therefore, was that members of the Muslim League began unreservedly to pronounce their support of the demands. In the spate of posters and handbills which began to appear in favour of the demands, the names of important office-bearers of the League and Muslim League M. L. As. began prominently to be mentioned. In the month of July alone five such posters were published. One of these with the heading: “On the issue of khatm-i-nubuwwat every Musalman will shed his last drop of blood”, issued by the Publicity Department of Majlis-i-Ahrar-i-Islam, Lyallpur, appeared over the signatures of Chaudhri Aziz-ud-Din, M. L. A., President, District Muslim League, Lyallpur, and Member Working Committee of the Punjab Provincial Muslim League, Sheikh Bashir Ahmad, President, City Muslim League, Lyallpur, and four other Muslim League, M.L.As.  Another, published by Idara-i-Tahaffuz-i-Khatm-i-Nubuwwat, which demanded the release of persons arrested in the movement and an inquiry into the circumstances which resulted in the death of the ‘martyrs of Multan’, was subscribed by Dr. Ali Muhammad, President, Muslim League, Sumundri, Chaudhri Ali Sher, General Secretary, Muslim League, Samundri, Sheikh Muhammad Alam, Councillor District Muslim League, Lyallpur, Hakim Munsif Ali, Member Working Committee, Muslim League, Lyallpur, Chaudhri Khuda Bakhsh, Member Working Committee, Muslim League, Samundri, Chaudhri Muhammad Ali Mujahid, Samundri, Chaudhri Muhammad Yaqub, Samundri, and Chaudhri Inayat Ullah, Samundri. The third poster was signed by Muhammad Ashiq Khan, General Secretary, City Muslim League, Qasur, Sayyad Hasan Ali Shah Hamdani, Councillor, City Muslim League, Qasur, and Mian Khadim Husain, Member Muslim League, Qasur. Similarly a poster published in Jhang was signed by Hakim Muhammad Ain-ul-Haq, Secretary, Primary Muslim League, Maghiana, Mian Gul Muhammad, Member Working Committee Muslim League, Maghiana, Hafiz Zafar Ahmad, Member Working Committee Muslim League, Maghiana, Hakim Abbas Ali Khan, Member Working Committee Muslim League, Maghiana, Sayyad Muhammad Sibtain, Member Working Committee Muslim League, Maghiana, Sayyad Ghulam Abbas Ali Shah, President.  Primary Muslim League of Village Jhirki, Haji Allah Jowaya, Councillor City Muslim League, Maghiana, Master Allah Ditta, Councillor, Muslim League, Maghiana, Mian Ghulam Qadir, Member Muslim League, Maghiana, Master Ghulam Nabi, Senior President, Muslim League, Maghiana, Mian Nazir Hussain, Councillor City Muslim League, Maghiana, Mian Ahmad Din, Treasurer, Muslim League, Maghiana., Chaudhri Dost Muhammad, Member Muslim League, Maghiana, Mian Amir Bakhsh, Joint Secretary, Muslim League, Maghiana, Mian Khadim Hussain, Salar District Muslim League, Jhang, and Mian Rahmat Ullah, Convener, Primary Muslim League, Maghiana. The poster published by Majlis-i-Tahaffuz-i-Khatm-i Nubuwwat, Sheikhupura, under the heading “Unanimous Demands” and signed by Ata Muhammad, Khair Din Chishti, Mahbub Ilahi, Muhammad Sharif, Muhammad Aslam, Abdur Rahim, Amin Gilani, Nasir Qureshi and Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad, Members of the Working Committee and Councillors of the City Muslim League, Sheikhupura, supported the demands, declared the promulgation of orders under section 144 as interference with religion and demanded their withdrawal. Another poster by the same body and on the same subject was signed by Chaudhri Abdul Ghani, M. L. A., Councillor, Pakistan Muslim League, Haji Muhammad Ali, M. L. A., Chaudhri Lal Khan, President, District Muslim League, Sheikhupura, and Chaudhri Muhammad Ibrahim, President, City Muslim League, Sheikhupura. Members of the Muslim League took active part in the collection of funds and the enrolment of volunteers and some of them became dictators or members of the direct action committees in districts and when the disturbances started, they jumped wholeheartedly into the movement. As many as 377 members of the Muslim League joined the agitation. Their particulars are given in a list prepared by Mr. Muhammad Husain, Superintendent of Police, compiled from official information received from the districts. With the exception of Mianwali every district seems to have been affected. The following statement would show the number of members affected in each district:— Lahore … … … … 26 Sialkot … … … … 28 Sheikhupura … … … … 21 Gujrat … … … … 37 Sargodha … … … … 58 Jhelum … … … … 9 Rawalpindi … … … … 21 Campbellpore … … … … 5 Montgomery … … … … 18 Jhang … … … … 10 Dera Ghazi Khan … … … … 3 Muzaffargarh … … … … 16 Multan … … … … 21 Gujranwala … … … … 43 Lyallpur … … … … 61 377 These gentlemen took part in processions, leading violent mobs, violating orders promulgated under section 144 and collecting funds with a view to financing the movement. Among the persons in this list are presidents, senior vice-presidents, secretaries, treasurers and other office-bearers of the various Muslim League organisations in the Province. Four of them were Councillors of the Provincial Muslim League, five were members of the Muslim National Guards, two were Advocates, and one the editor of an Urdu daily. Fifty-four of them were arrested under section 3 (3) and six under section 21 of the Punjab Public Safety Act, eleven under section 188 of the Pakistan Penal Code, six under Martial Law Regulations, two in cases of loot, arson and murder, and one under sections 124-A and 153-A of the Pakistan Penal Code. Two of them absconded while one was let off with a warning. One, who was a lambardar, was dismissed from his office while the licence of another for possession of a revolver was suspended. The Provincial organisation looked at all these activities with perfect equanimity and no evidence is to be found anywhere in the bulky record before us of that organisation’s disapproval of such activities. In fact, there are suggestions made from several quarters that the movement had the Provincial organisation’s support and encouragement. The demands, though they related to the Ahmadis, were against the Government. Now the Government in power in those days, as it is at present, was the Muslim League Government. How persons subject to the discipline of the Muslim League could take part in such a movement or in the direct action campaign that was subsequently launched, is beyond our sense of propriety and decency to comprehend and no attempt has been made to explain this apparent act of indiscipline and disloyalty to that organisation. The Gujranwala and Sargodha incidents are typical in this respect, and we endeavoured to obtain an explanation of the conduct of some Muslim Leaguers of these places. The result of our effort is reproduced below. The Deputy Commissioner of Gujranwala says the following in his written statement:— “The party in power in the City Muslim League supported the defiance of law and condemned Government action, demanding the release of the arrested agitators who defied the ban on public meetings. A resolution was also passed and a poster issued in this connection. * * * * * * * * * * * * The local Muslim League office-bearers failed to rise to the occasion and associated with the agitators in the hope of wrenching leadership from their opposite group in the League itself, such as: Sheikh Barkat Ali, Sheikh Muhammad Ashiq, etc.” Mr. Manzur Hasan is a member of the Legislative Assembly, having been elected to that body on the Muslim League ticket, and is the Secretary of the City Muslim League, Gujranwala. He is an Advocate and in that capacity had defended the accused who were prosecuted for their contravention of orders under section 144 prohibiting public assemblies in mosques which were not of a religious nature. As has been pointed out earlier, on 20th June 1952 some prominent Ahrar leaders addressed a public meeting in Sheranwala Bagh Mosque, Gujranwala after the Juma prayers. This meeting had been proclaimed a day before in the manner in which public meetings are announced and was held after Juma prayers had finished. In a meeting of the City Muslim League, Gujranwala, Mr. Manzur Hasan had moved the resolution which demanded the release of the persons who had been arrested for organising or speaking at the public meeting held after the Juma prayers on 20th June and for the withdrawal of orders under section 144. He was called as the 79th witness in the inquiry and the relevant part of his statement is as follows:— “Q.—You have stated in your written statement that there was a party opposed to you which was the favourite of the Deputy Commissioner and the Superintendent of Police. Please name the members of the party? A.—(The witness mentions certain persons and then says) of them Seth Ghulam Qadir, Seth Muhammad Abdullah, Sheikh Barkat Ali and Sheikh Ashiq Hussain are members of the Muslim League. Q.—Did you know that by passing this resolution you were condemning the Government? A.—I did not then realise that by denouncing the arrests made by the Government for contravening orders under section 144, Criminal Procedure Code, I was condemning the Government itself. Q.—Who were arrested for contravening orders under section 144, Criminal Procedure Code? A.—Sahibzada Faiz-ul-Hasan, his son whose name I do not know, Maulvi Abdul Wahid and some others. Most of the men arrested were Ahrar. Q.—Were you their counsel when their case came up to Court? A.—I am a lawyer and I defended the son of Sahibzada Faiz-ul-Hasan and Maulvi Abdul Wahid when their case came up to Court. Q.—Was there any allegation that any one of these men had made a speech in contravention of an order under section 144 Criminal Procedure Code? A.—No first information report was put in Court and, therefore, I cannot say whether this was the allegation against them. * * * * * * * * * * * * * I did hear that Sahibzada Faiz-ul-Hasan had made a speech in defiance of an order under section 144, Criminal Procedure Code. I do not accept the proposition that a man can make any kind of speech that he likes in a mosque. The speech made by Sahibzada Faiz-ul-Hasan was in a mosque. Q.—If you do not accept the principle that a person is entitled to make any kind of speech in a mosque and you did not know what kind of speech was made by Sahibzada Faiz-ul-Hasan in the mosque, why were you a party to a resolution condemning the arrest of Sahibzada Faiz-ul Hasan for such a speech? A.—We were against the application of section 144, Criminal Procedure Code, for anything done in the mosques. Q.—Did you consult the President of the Punjab Provincial Muslim League before you proposed this resolution? A.— No. * * * * * * * On the following morning I was, against my will, taken out of Gujranwala and dumped in Pindi Bhattian. Q.—When did you return to Gujranwala? A.—On the next day. Q.—Did you then lead a procession? A.—I did not voluntarily lead any procession. On 7th March when I returned from Pindi Bhattian and was near the Clock Tower, I came across a huge procession consisting of 30 or 40 trucks. I was made to sit on a truck by the agitators. The procession stopped outside the mosque near the City Police Station. Q.—Did you then go inside the mosque? A.—I was forcibly taken inside the mosque and threatened to sign the document which I have mentioned above. Q.—Was the document that you signed the pledge of the Majlis-i-Amal? A.—The form had been prepared by the Majlis-i-Amal. Q.—Did the Muslim League, before the commencement of the disturbances, ever organise a public meeting to be addressed by the Ahrar? A.—Once in the beginning of 1951, a difa’ conference was called in Gujranwala. This meeting had been called by six different parties, including the Ahrar, Islam League, Jinnah Awami League and the Jama’at-i-Islami. Q.—Was a public meeting held on the occasion of ‘Yaum-i-Mutalibat’ on 20th June, 1952? A.—A meeting for this date had been proclaimed, but it was cancelled because of an order under section 144. Q.—The information is that this meeting was held inside the Sheranwala Bagh Mosque and that it was addressed by Sahibzada Faiz-ul-Hasan, Sheikh Husam-ud-Din and Master Taj-ud-Din Ansari and that they were all arrested? A.—As far as I remember, because public meetings had been prohibited by an order under section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a meeting was held on the occasion of Juma-tul-Wida’ in the Sheranwala Bagh Mosque * * * * * * * * * Speakers at this meeting included Sahibzada Faiz-ul-Hasan, Sheikh Husam-ud-Din and Master Taj-ud-Din Ansari. Q.—Are you quite sure that the case in which you were retained did arise out of the arrests made for the speeches delivered on this occasion? A.—The case did arise out of the speeches made on this occasion. Q.—Do you remember if Maulana Akhtar Ali Khan addressed any public meeting in Gujranwala in connection with this movement? A.—Yes. Q.—Who gave the tea party? A.—I gave this party not in my capacity as Secretary of the City Muslim League but by reason of my personal relations with the Maulana. The party was attended by almost all the Muslim Leaguers of the town. Q.—Did any Muslim Leaguer condemn the agitation from public platform? A.—It was not possible because of the overwhelming feeling in favour of the movement. Q.—Did any office-bearer or any prominent member of the Muslim League take part in the agitation voluntarily? A.—No. Some of them were of course forced to take part.” Mr. Aftab Ahmad, President, City Muslim League, Gujranwala, deposed as follows:— “Q.—Did the Muslim League, as a body, or did any leader of the Muslim League ever condemn the agitation publicly? A.—We had no instructions from the Provincial Muslim League. When the Chief Minister had visited Gujranwala on 17th February, we had asked for instructions from him. He had, however, said that he had received no instructions from the Centre. He had added that, if the instructions came from the Centre to crush the movement, the Punjab Government would act accordingly * * * * * * * * * The actual words used by him were: ‘Sir, I can finish the agitation within two minutes but Khwaja Sahib does not let me do it.’ Because there were no instructions, either from the Province or from the Centre, we were not in a position publicly to denounce the movement. Q.—What object did the district officers have to encourage these men? (men in the City Muslim League opposed to the party of Mr. Aftab Ahmad and Mr. Manzur Hasan). A.—It has been the custom with this batch always to curry favour with the officials. The district officers also wished to be popular by supporting the party which was supposed to be running the movement. The district officers did not like local Muslim League and, therefore, it was their policy to set up a rival party. Q.—Why were the district authorities against the local Muslim League? A.—Because the Muslim League used to criticise the local administration.” Qazi Murid Ahmad is a member of the Legislative Assembly, having been elected on the Muslim League ticket. He is also a member of the Council of All Pakistan Muslim League, His status will be apparent from the following answers to the questions put by us:— “Q.—Which ticket did you stand on for election? A.—The Muslim League ticket. Q.—Did you ever before stand for election to the Provincial Legislature? A.—No. Q.—Did you have any chances of election to the Assembly if you had not obtained the Muslim League ticket? A.—Even if the League had not given me the ticket and I had to stand as an independent candidate, I think I would have succeeded. Q.—How much land do you own? A.—Twenty kanals. Q.—What do you do for your living? A.—Up to the date of my arrest I was a commission agent in grain business. Q.—Who gave you this licence? A.—District authorities. Q.—What income tax do you pay? A.—Nothing”. The witness was the President of the Majlis-i-Amal of Sargodha and took active part in the agitation, even after the programme under the resolution of ‘direct action’ had begun, for which he was arrested. The witness collected subscriptions for the Majlis-i-Amal and made some very strong speeches in favour of the demands and against the Government. The sort of things that he said at these meetings are reproduced below:— “Do not consider the policeman, the thanedar and the Deputy Commissioner as your rulers. Do not be afraid of them and do not care for them.” “Muhammad Ali (the reference is to the present Prime Minister) went to Delhi to find a solution for the Kashmir problem. Well and good. But why did he take his wife ‘ummul-momineen’ with himself? Brothers! his wife must be ‘ummul-momineen’, because he himself is ‘amir-ul-momineen’. Well, ‘ummul-momineen’ went to Delhi. The question involved was of the life and death of 35 lacs of Musalmans, but her little son got a scratch on the thumb and she ran back to Karachi.” “Thirty-five lacs of Musalmans are facing death in Kashmir and this man (the reference is again to the present Premier) proclaims himself as the younger brother of Nehru. I would say ‘Be a dog but do not be a younger brother’.” Referring to officers in that speech he said they were all disciples of the British and immoral. They gambled and they drank. “I once mentioned to Mr. Noon, the Chief Minister”, he said, “that the Deputy Commissioner of a district gambles all night and doses during the day in Court. This representative of twelve lacs of people is a gambler and an adulterer. He has a depraved character but is Sahib Bahadur. Nothing was done on this complaint.” To continue with his evidence in Court:— “Q.—When did you draft the resolution which was submitted to the Council of the Provincial Muslim League? A.—The resolution must have been drafted 10/15 days before the date of the meeting of the Council. Q.—Did you consult any one when you drafted the resolution? A.—It was my individual act. Q.—Do you know that this resolution had dangerous possibilities? A.—No. I apprehended no danger from the resolution that I intended to move. Q.—Did you, before you sent your resolution, consult any higher authority in the Muslim League? A.—No. Q.—Were you a supporter of the ‘direct action’? A.—I know nothing about ‘direct action’, but what was intended to be done was ‘rast iqdam’. Q.—When did you hear the words ‘rast iqdam’ for the first time? A.—I do not remember. Q.—In what connection did you come across the words ‘rast iqdam’? A.—I read in the newspapers that the Central Majlis-i-Amal had passed a resolution threatening to resort to ‘rast iqdam’ if the demands were not satisfied. Q.—What did you take ‘rast iqdam’ to mean? A.—I took this expression to mean that Musalmans were to hold public meetings and pass resolutions to communicate the demands to the Government, arrange deputations in this connection to wait on the district officials but not to engage in any unconstitutional methods. Q.—Before the resolution of ‘rast iqdam’, had not deputations waited on Government and Government officials and had not public speeches been made almost everywhere in support of the demands throughout the Province? A.—Yes. All these things had been done before, but, after the ‘rast iqdam’ resolution, they were to be done more vigorously. Q.—Do you know that your position as an M.L.A. is due to the Muslim League? A.—Yes. I do realise it. Q.—Did you realise that Government in power is a Muslim League Government? A.—Yes, I knew it full well. Q.—If ‘rast iqdam’ meant civil disobedience or violation or breach of the laws of land, then you would certainly not have joined the movement? A.—No. If I had taken ‘rast iqdam’ to mean any such thing as the Court suggests I would have refrained from joining the movement. Q.—Do you agree that any action on the part of a Muslim Leaguer which is intended to embarrass the Government or to depose it is a breach of fidelity to the League? A.—If the matter is a religious matter, I would not care for the Muslim League or for the Muslim League Government.” URL: http://www.newageislam.com/NewAgeIslamBooksAndDocuments_1.aspx?ArticleID=2689