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
“How
long will the names of ‘prophet’, ‘promised Messiah’, ‘Ahmad’ and ‘Muhammad’ be
dinned into our ears in this country in respect of an adulterer, drunkard,
goonda, badmash, forger, liar and Dajjal, and how long will the pure and chaste
mothers of the Ummat be allowed to turn in their graves, restless with shame,
for a woman who is the disgrace of humanity?” (The reference is apparently to
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and his wife).
Next: The role of
the newspapers in the campaign
Photo: Ahmadiyya Baitul Mujeeb Mosque, Monrovia -
Liberia
The Decision Of 24th December
1952
Under this head we shall deal with a number of
files which were postponed for a discussion with the Chief Minister and in
respect of which a decision was ultimately taken on the 24th
December.
(A)
Convention at Rawalpindi on 15th and 16th November
1952—The following extracts from speeches deserves
notice:—
(1) Master Taj-ud-Din: Zafrullah will have to
face a trial after his removal for anti-State and anti-Islam
activities.
(2) Qazi
Ehsan Ahmad: The struggle is between ghaddar
and wafadar
or between truth and falsehood. * * * In these days the terms
interest and profit, bribe and fee, spy and prophet are synonymous. Violence is
permissible for the protection of Islam, though not for its propagation. The
Mirzais want to rejoin India.
Muhammad Miskin: Don’t let Mirzais be buried in
your graveyards. Abdullah Shah: Mirzais were caught smuggling arms. Mirza Ghulam
Ahmad was a Dajjal, a false nabi.
Master
Taj-ud-Din (second day) ‘Cease fire’ had been manoeuvred by Mirzais. Not even
during British regime was section 144 applied to mosques. If Government feel
reluctant to declare the Ahmadis a minority, boycott them socially and
economically. Ammunition weighing one maund, ten seers and four chataks had been
imported into Rabwah. (How precise is the information!) Hafiz Muhammad Saeed: In
Gujranwala, shops were keeping separate utensils for Mirzais. (Which means, you
also should do the same thing) Maulvi Muhammad All Jullundri: Mirzais were
zindeeq and
punishable with death. Every Muslim should add the word kazzab
(liar) to the name of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. Whoever kills a pretender
gets the reward of a hundred martyrs.
Hakim Fazal
Karim: Mirza was not a sharif
insan (a gentleman). Sayyad Ataullah Shah Bukhari: Mirza Sahib said he was
impregnated by God.
His God was guilty of an offence under section
376 P.P.C. Rawalpindi speeches:
15-11-52. Chief Minister
signs.
Violence is lawful.
On 21st November, S. P. (B), reported that it was
time Maulvi Muhammad Ali Jullundri was prosecuted or detained. This was an
honour for Jullundri, because the speeches were unexceptionally good and it was
difficult to make a choice. But the choice apparently was on the “order” side,
and the “law” side was ignored. However, the D. I. G. wrote on the 25th November
1952 that the Chief Minister had directed that on return from Karachi he would
hold a discussion and decide how to deal with militant and sectarian
speeches.
(B)
The Lyallpur Convention 26th and 27th September. Samundri,
28th September — Sahibzada
Faiz-ul-Hasan: Mirza Sahib was a man of low morals and worthy of prosecution
under the Goondas Act as he had outraged the modesty of the Prophet’s daughter,
He and Zafrullah were goondas. Sheikh Husam-ud-Din: Zafrullah is khabees, (This
word means foul, abominable, wicked, filthy or impure.). He should be
prosecuted. Sayyad Ataullah Shah Bukhari related his favourite story about Queen
Victoria.
He added that Mirzais were responsible for the
air crashes of Jangshahi and Kahuta. On these speeches the D.I.G. suggested on
28th October 1952, that some kind of ban on Sayyed Ataullah Shah Bukhari was
necessary. He might be restricted to one district. The speeches were corrupting
the nation. The Home Secretary said the time had come when Government should
review the whole position. The tone and tenor of the speeches was highly
mischievous. A meeting was suggested for
discussion.
(C)
Speeches made at Gullu shah fair (Sialkot) on 3rd October 1952
— Maulvi Bashir Ahmad and Qazi Manzur Ahmad said Mirza Ghulam Ahmad
was a liar and Dajjal and urged the boycott of Ahmadis. The latter added that if
Mr. Daultana came to Mirza Sahib’s help, he would be confronted with shoes. “If
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad had said that he had placed his head on the knee of Khwaja
Nazim-ud-Din’s daughter, you would see what happens.” (The reference is to Mirza
Ghulam Ahmad’s vision that he had seen his head in the lap of the Prophet’s
daughter, but it was implied that he spoke as one speaks of his
mother.)
Speeches on the 7th October: Maulvi Bashir Ahmad
related a story of 1936 when one Dr. Ehsan Ali had raped a sister-in-law of
Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad, who had him punished with ten shoe-strokes
given by herself. The shoe-strokes of the beloved fall gently like flowers.
Islam prescribes stoning to death for adultery. If rape is committed with a
woman of ——— ‘s family * * *.” Maulvi Karamat Ali thus spoke: “Mirza Ghulam
Ahmad says: ‘Arise, ye swine, and recite your prayers’. These are his manners.
If Khwaja Nazim-ud-Din is a Sunni, then he also is the progeny of prostitutes
and his womenfolk are bitches, says Mirza Ghulam Ahmad
.”
One of the resolutions passed at this meeting was
to the following effect: This meeting demands of Government the declaration of
Ahmadis as a minority community because they are renegades, and a renegade
Action against Jullundri recommended.
Lyallpur speeches:
26-9-52.
Ban on Ataullah Shah Bukhari
recommended.
Renegades are put to
death.
according to Islam is punishable with death. To
put them to death is no offence in Islam and it is not the duty of Muslims to
protect their lives and property. A renegade’s life has no value, but this is so
when there is an Islamic State. On the 18th November 1952, the District
Magistrate of Sialkot, at the instance of the Superintendent of Police, asked
Government, in obedience to the policy letter of 5th July 1952, for permission
to prosecute the aforesaid three speakers. S. P. (B) (Mr. Nazir Ahmad) noted
that Manzur Ahmad was a staunch worker against Ahmadis while Bashir Ahmad was a
bigoted Ahrari, Khateeb of Jamia Mosque at Pasrur and President of the local
Majlis-i-Ahrar. Three days later, on 21-11-52, Mr. Nazir Ahmad noted that the
prosecution of these persons will create a “fuss” in Sialkot, but Mr. Anwar Ali
said: “We should lose no opportunity of prosecuting disruptionists who try to
undermine the stability of the State at this
juncture”.
The case was kept pending until the meeting of
the 24th December 1952, between the Chief Minister and his officers, when it was
decided that “where a speech offends against ordinary law, legal action should
be taken”. On 3rd January 1953. Mr. Nazir Ahmad, while communicating this
decision to the Superintendent of Police at Sialkot, added, entirely on his own
responsibility, that he understood the three Maulvis in question to be “petty
people”, and that it would not serve any useful purpose if they were
prosecuted.
We think this conduct is unprecedented and very
objectionable.
Possibly the C.I.D. officer also felt that where
his Government had extended divine tolerance to so many other offenders against
law, he would not be far wrong in extending it to another
few.
(D)
The Sialkot Convention on 9th and 10th November 1952—Maulana
Abul Hasanat Sayyad Muhammad Ahmad Qadri: Khwaja Nazim-ud-Din was “Allah
Lok”—eating was a different matter. Some pahlwans were
intended merely for eating. It made no difference whether he consumed one, two
or twenty chickens. Sahibzada Faiz-ul-Hasan: I would call Mirza Sahib a Dajjal
and Kazzab. He had called those persons a breed of swine who did not believe in
him. Khwaja Nazim-ud-Din and Mr. Daultana fall in that
category.
Maulana Daud Ghaznavi: Qadian and Nankana were
about to be declared open cities; the one delivered to Ahmadis, the other to
Sikhs, through Chaudhri Muhammad Zafrullah Khan’s effort, and it only remained
for our foolish ministers to sign.
Master Taj-ud-Din: This 6 ft. 2 inches of a
renegade, the Foreign Minister of Pakistan. Mandal and Zafrullah were both
non-Muslims. Both were selected by the Qaidi-Azam. Mandal had run away and it is
not known when Zafrullah will do so. Zafrullah had himself declared that if he
resigned, he would leave Pakistan. He should not be allowed to leave, but
prosecuted.
Sheikh Husam-ud-Din: The British got the Mirzais
established in order to ban Jihad. They were spies of the British. Two Ahmadi
officers, a Major and a Lt. Colonel, were caught smuggling arms near Attock. And
yet Gurmani and Daultana did not believe District Magistrate recommends
prosecution.
But recommendation is not accepted because they
are “petty people”. Maulana Abul Hasanat Sayyed Muhammad Ahmad when he told them
that Mirzais were carrying arms to Rabwah.
(E)
Conference at Shujabad on 19th and 20th November 1952
— Maulvi Ghulam Ghaus of Hazara: Mirza Ghulam Ahmad got his legs and
thighs kneaded by women and Bhano was one of them. He used to see naked women
and his son admitted that lie used liquor. (Why does he worry particularly about
Bhano?) Maulvi Muhammad Ali Jullundri: Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was his mother’s
darling but an owl’s progeny nevertheless. The country was unfortunate in having
Khwaja Nazim-ud-Din as Prime Minister, but his mother was fortunate to have a
son who became Prime Minister.
Sayyad Ataullah Shah Bukhari: Mirza Mahmud
Ahmad’s father died in a latrine and mine in his house. When he died in the
latrine, he vomited from the other side. Queen Victoria * * (the same old
story). Mirza Sahib said he was made to feel like a female and Allah had
intercourse with him. He remained pregnant for ten months, then there was pain.
He caught hold of a tree and he was born. * * He urinated frequently during the
day.
The D. I. G. said on the 8th of December 1952, on
a report about these speeches, that the proper course would be to prosecute both
these bodies (the Ahmadis also?) but as the Central Government declines to
define its attitude towards the Ahrar and Punjab Government cannot act
unilaterally, he suggested merely a warning.
Really we were surprised. How can there be
bilateral action in the matter of law and order?
In addition to the cases mentioned in (A), (B),
(C), (D) and (E), the following files also were put up in the meeting of 24th
December.
1. File
relating to the speech of Maulvi Abdul Khanan of Campbellpur, that Mirzais were
fit to be murdered and Khwaja Nazim-ud-Din was a Kafir, a murtadd, a fool
and an ignorant person.
2. File relating to a poster “
ذرا سوچيں تو ختم نبوت کا منکر کون هے ” issued by the Ahmadis
early in October 1952. In effect, it said: “How can you believe in
Khatm-i-Nubuwwat if you believe that Jesus is to appear one day?” The District
Magistrate of Montgomery recommended prosecution but S. P. (B.) and D. I. G. did
not agree. The Inspector-General, taking the same view added that the Ahmadis
should be told for their own sake not to
controversy.
We do not know how these cases were approached.
We have no doubt that in a conference presided over by the Minister in charge of
law and order and including the most responsible officers of Government the
question that the Ahrar had not honoured their “assurance” must have been the
very first matter for discussion. We have no doubt that they were all convinced,
as we are, that each of the speeches we have quoted offends the ordinary law, in
which we include also section 23 of the Public Safety Act because it involves a
trial according to ordinary procedure. What was it then that required particular
I) I. G. Advises against unilateral action in law and order
sphere.
Ahmadis fit to be
murdered.
Decision of 24th
December 1952:
There need have been no decision about ordinary
law.
discussion if the decision was to be only this,
that where a speech offended against the ordinary law, the speaker should be
prosecuted, but that no further action was
necessary?
Does it not mean that even the ordinary law was
not functioning until the 24th December 1952? It means either this or it means
that, in actual fact, no decision was taken. But even after this date the
ordinary law remained suspended. We have seen how Mr. Nazir Ahmad, S. P. (B)
suspended it on his own motion in the Gullu Shah case. He started with the plea
that prosecution will lead to unnecessary fuss. He ended with saying that the
speakers were too “petty” for prosecution. In all cases, one of these two
positions must arise. The offender will be either an important person whose
prosecution might rouse further agitation, or a petty person who is beneath
contempt, and Mr. Nazir Ahmad covered both cases. He had noticed that the
Gujranwala prosecutions had been withdrawn in July because people had become
agitated; but that the Ragra of Bhera’s “Mast Qalandar”—“an abusive and
insulting criticism of the founder of the Ahmadism”—was ignored because the
writer might gain notoriety if prosecuted.
The Government obtained an assurance from the
Ahrar to safeguard the life, property and honour of the Ahmadis. The Government
themselves paid no regard to the religious honour of the Ahmadis as a body and
to the personal honour of some important members of their community. They paid
no regard even to the official dignity of the Prime
Minister.
We said that even after the 24th December 1952,
the ordinary law remained suspended. Take, for instance, the “Azad” of 12th
November 1952 (a daily organ of the Ahrar, edited by Master Taj-ud-Din), which
made the following contribution to decency in its
“editorial”:
“How long will the names of ‘prophet’, ‘promised
Messiah’, ‘Ahmad’ and ‘Muhammad’ be dinned into our ears in this country in
respect of an adulterer, drunkard, goonda, badmash, forger, liar and Dajjal, and
how long will the pure and chaste mothers of the Ummat be allowed to turn in
their graves, restless with shame, for a woman who is the disgrace of humanity?”
(The reference is apparently to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and his
wife).
On a resolution of protest by the Ahmadis of
Montgomery, the Government of Pakistan made a reference to the Punjab Government
on 21st November 1952. The passage in question was examined by the
Prosecuting Inspector, who reported that it was actionable under sections 153-A
and 295-A of the Penal Code and section 21 of the Public Safety Act. S. P. (B)
reported on 22nd December that it was the daily routine of the editor of the
“Azad” to write defamatory articles against the Ahmadis. On the 26th
December, two days after the decision of 24th December, the D. I. G. made a note
that the article was clearly punishable under section 153-A and section 21 but
that “the Central Government have given no guidance and this is exactly what we
have been
Ordinary law remained suspended even
afterwards.
No regard for religious and personal
honour
The “Azad”,
12-11-52.
A very nasty
editorial.
Protest by Ahmadis to Central
Government
deploring
so far”, and that in view of the Centre’s “apathy”, the Provincial Government
should not initiate any proceeding. Having recommended no action, he expressed
disgust over the vehement abuse and insult so repeatedly piled on the founder
and members of the Ahmadiyya community. “The article is of a piece with what is
being done daily by Ahrar leaders and mullas. I will
talk to Master Tajud Din”.
The Home Secretary agreed on the 29th December
and the Chief Minister initialled the note on the 5th January 1953. All sense of
decency revolts at this decision. We had read this passage in the ‘Azad’
earlier, but the D. I. G.’s note was read out to us while Mr. Daultana was being
examined as a witness. When we read this note, we had a feeling which had better
be left unexpressed.
We could not believe our eyes and ears. What
happened in the space of two days to alter the decision that at least ordinary
legal remedies should be applied to these nasty situations? Had the Central
Government become apathetic between the 24th and the 26th of December? If Master
Taj-ud-Din was a particularly decent fellow, and some reason had to be found for
condoning his fault, it was unbecoming to look for that reason in the apathy of
the Centre. The irony of the situation lies in the fact that it was the Centre
itself which brought this articles to the notice of the
province.
Mr. Daultana says in court: “The Home Secretary
agreed and so did I. Had any further action been considered advisable by the
officers, I would undoubtedly have agreed to it. The notes were based on the
Pakistan Government letter which referred to the article in question for
disposal. I have no recollection of having read the article or the note. My
attention was directed to the fact that the D. I. G. wanted to take some action
after meeting Master Taj-ud-Din and I was not required to give any particular
decision. The question of taking action against objectionable writings and
speeches had been previously decided upon and the policy was quite clear. No
reference was made to me to clarify any ambiguity in the order or to take
specific instructions about a particular case”.
But he added on a question by us that “if a
glaring case of inaction by the D. I. G. or the Home Secretary came to me in the
form of a note which was merely for information, it would be right for me to
take action.” Not only right, it should be his duty to act. For in such a case,
the policy laid down by him will not have been
pursued.
The policy was to take action under ordinary law,
and the D. I. G. refuses to take action, merely to spite the Central
Government.
Further, we do not think the position which Mr.
Daultana takes is correct as regards the files which were put up to him for
information. They were not put up to him D.I.G. recommends no action because of
Centre’s “apathy” Home Secretary and Chief Minister do not
disagree.
Bad taste in the
mouth.
Mr. Daultana’s
explanation.
Policy was quite clear, and officers could have
acted.
But if it is a glaring case of inaction—out of
respect for being the Minister in charge. They were put up that he might be kept
abreast of the situation and of the action which was being taken so that if he
regards the action to be inadequate or excessive, he might amend or cancel
it.
Similar
inaction is noticeable in respect of speeches made on the 26th December 1952 and
the two following days at a Khatm-i-Nubuwwat Conference at Chiniot. The
following extracts may be profitably reproduced:—Master
Taj-ud-Din—Zafrullah
was not loyal to Pakistan but to his Khalifa. Watch his activities and sack him.
Because the Ulama
had demanded release of Ahrar leaders, religious discussion had been
banned in Government offices.
M.
Muhammad Ali Jullundri — An Ahmadi
officer had sent a truck load of ammunition from the Ordnance Factory at Attock
to Rabwah. Zafrullah had agreed to the retention of Indian officers in Kashmir.
He was a traitor. He got Gurdaspur annexed to India. Both the Mirzais and Ahrar
were opposed to the creation of Pakistan, but for different reasons—the former
for political reasons, the letter on the basis of Mirza Ghulam, Ahmad’s
ilhams.
S.
Muzaffar Ali Shamsi—Mirza,
Ghulam Ahmad was a fasiq
and fajir. Ghaffar
Khan has been imprisoned because he is a traitor to Pakistan, but Zafrullah who
is a traitor to the Prophet is Foreign Minister.
S. Ata
Ullah Bukhari—The
Muslims can unseat the Central Government as they did the Khizr Ministry, if
they do not remove Zafrullah Khan. If people and the Government did not take
effective steps, the British will set up a Mirzai Government at
Rabwah.
The speeches were reported to the Chief Minister,
who saw the report on 7th January in the new year. But no remarks
were made and no action was suggested.
THE
PRESS
We have so far confined this part to the
conferences held and the speeches made, with a necessary reference here and
there to a newspaper article or a pamphlet. There is a definite allegation,
however, that while on the one hand Mr. Daultana took no action after the
agreement with the Ahrar in July 1952, on the other hand certain papers which
were under the Government’s influence were actively encouraged to fan the
movement and to “canalise” it in the direction of
Karachi.
The decision of the Provincial League Council,
which was held at Lahore on the 26th and 27th July 1953, to refer the demands to
the Centre is cited as an eloquent instance of canalisation. On the face of it,
Mr. Daultana persuaded the delegates, in the teeth of stiff opposition, not to
insist on passing a resolution that the Ahmadis be declared a minority, but he
did so, it is argued, in order to ward off suspicion, to direct the movement to
the Centre, to embarrass the Central Government. For that reason he prepared the
ground by making up with the Ahrar, withdrawing all bans virtually without
condition, but if there Mr. Daultana’s stand is not correct. Other cases of
inaction.
Canalisation. was any condition, it was that the
Ahrar would support Mr. Daultana in the next election, which might be
precipitated by the ferocity of the Khatm-i-Nubuwwat movement, and that Mr.
Daultana would then stand on the Khatm-i-Nubuwwat ticket. Whether that was
agreed or not is a matter for the next election, but our present object is to
examine the socalled “canalising” tendencies. We should add here that Kh.
Nazim-ud-Din also felt aggrieved on that score. “Whoever pressed the Centre for
a decision,” he stated, “did so in order that the responsibility should shift to
the Centre. * * In that case, if the Army and the Police shot anybody, the
provincial leaders would say it was at the bidding of the Centre. If in the
sequel the Central Government were overthrown, the Provincial Government would
say to the people: ‘We had supported you
throughout’.”
The press generally receives vast patronage from
the Directorate of Public Relations in the form of advertisements, but it will
presently appear that four of the vernacular papers were more or less in the pay
of Government for large sums received in advance as the price of newspaper
copies to be supplied to certain institutions—schools, hospitals and Jails—in
execution of on anti-illiteracy drive. The position as to the principal papers
in Lahore was as follows: The ‘Pakistan Times’, the ‘Imroze’ and the ‘Nawae
Waqt’ did not interest themselves in the movement, the ‘C. & M. Gazette’
belonged to a pro-Ahmadi concern, the ‘Azad’ was an Ahrar organ, the ‘Alfzal’
(with a limited circulation) an Ahmadi organ, and the ‘Zamindar’ notoriously
pro-Ahrar. The ‘Zamindar’ and three other papers received altogether the
following amounts from Government in the account we have already
mentioned:—
Rs. Afaq .. 1,00,000 (apart from Rs. 26,250 on
account of advertisements).
Ehsan .. 73,000
Zamindar .. 30,000
Maghribi Pakistan ..
22,000
Parts of these payments were made on the
following dates in July, 1952.—
Rs. To Zamindar .. 10,000 on 3rd
July.
To Afaq .. 40,000 on 4th
July.
To Ehsan .. 40,000 on 5th
July.
The scheme of patronising papers wag first
adopted in December 1950 or January 1951 in a conference convened by Kh.
Shahab-ud-Din as Minister for Information “to compensate papers which suffered
in sale because of maintaining a sober and sympathetic attitude towards the
Government,” says Mir Nur Ahmad, who was Director of Public Information during
Mr. Daultana’s Government. It was contended by the counsel for the present
Government, Ch. Fazal Ilahi, that Mir Nur Ahmad was the agent of Mr. Daultana’s
Government in using these four papers for the purpose of Four papers in the pay
of Government.
Original scheme of patronage,
1950.
keeping the agitation alive and directing it to
Karachi. Mir Nur Ahmad, however, maintains that until July 1952, the policy of
Government was not to interfere with the right of newspapers to support or
oppose a particular view, but that in the third or fourth week of July he was
told by the Chief Minister to use his influence and advise the papers to give up
writing on the subject.
It is not
correct, however, that the Government as a whole, (in which term we include the
Secretaries) became concerned about the press only in the second or third week
of July. For on the 4th July 1952, the Home Secretary sent to the Chief Minister
at Nathia Gali quite an anxious note (Annexure H-1 to his written statement)
about the perversity of some of the editors. “I sent for the D.P.R. in the
morning and told him to accelerate his machinery and flood the province with
propaganda material. I impressed upon him that one or two press notes will not
meet the situation * * * *. As desired by H. C. M., I spoke to Maulana Akhtar
Ali Khan and the editors of his group on the 1st July and explained the whole
situation to them and answered all the questions which they could think of for
dispelling their apprehensions and misgivings. They went back completely
satisfied, but I am sorry to say that with the exception of one paper they did
not express approbation of Government’s action even in a mild form. I again
spoke to M. Akhtar Ali Khan yesterday as desired by H. C. M. on the telephone
and after having been convinced once again about the bona
fides of whatever we have done, he has virtually upheld in today’s paper
all that the Ahrar have been saying. The other papers of his group have done
likewise. * * * Messrs. Hamid Nizami (of the Nawae Waqt) and Mazhar Ali Khan (of
Pakistan Times) were also called by me yesterday. They both considered that what
this Government had done was worthy of popular support. * * * * Mr. Nizami,
however, said he feared that if he were to say so in his organ, the newspapers
favoured by the Government and the Muslim League would be the first to denounce
him as an Ahmadi for increasing their own circulation. * * * * Mr. Mazhar Ali
Khan said that the root cause of the trouble was that Government had themselves
made religion their source of slogans and strength. He added that if one group
could exploit religion, how could the others be denied its use for furthering
their own ends.”
In the Home Secretary’s place, we would have
expressed gratitude to both these gentlemen for giving us some
home-truths.
Mr. Ghias-ud-Din said in his evidence that this
note was signed by the Chief Minister and returned. On one occasion, he said,
Mr. Anwar Ali, Mr. Qurban Ali and he himself waited on the Chief Minister and
spoke to him on the subject. Thereafter, Mr. Qurban Ali sent for Mir Nur Ahmad
and told him in strong terms that publicity must be organised on more effective
lines. As a. result of this exhortation “one or two posters” were issued by the
D.P.R. D.P.R.’s plea.
Home Secretary’s complaint against press: 4th
July 1952.
Government itself made use of
religion:
Mr. Mazhar Ali Khan of Pakistan Times. I.G. pulls
up D.P.R. for paucity of publicity.
Possibly that is why Mr. Ghias-ud-Din said in his
note of 4th July that “one or two posters” will not do. In the decisions taken
on the 5th July, 1952, it was expressly stated that “propaganda in newspapers
should also be intensified and the papers which are generally pro-Government
should be asked to co-operate in this matter also because their attitude is
anything but favourable towards the Government in this
matter.”
But Mir Nur Ahmad says: “In the conference of 5th
July the officers told me nothing in particular”—one gets the impression that
they told him hardly anything worth mentioning. But he adds, unostentatiously:
“except that pro-Government papers were not helpful and I should try to get more
help.” This is like saying: “He did not cause any particularly serious injury,
except that it was six inches deep.” Again; “Their attitude was that the
administration should do nothing which might be construed either in favour of or
against the demands. This meant that I should not interfere.” It was then that
he was confronted with the relevant decisions of the 5th
July.
If the pro-Government papers were to be asked to
co-operate “in this matter”, if it was by the Home Secretary that their attitude
was “anything but favourable”, how could it mean that Mr. Nur Ahmad was not to
interfere or do anything which should betray the mind of Government? But when
confronted he said, “This related to the misunderstanding regarding the ban on
the mosques.”
That there was a general complaint against the
pro-Government press and also about the Department of Islamiat is evident from
the statement of Dr. Ishtiaq Husain Qureshi, Minister for Information. When he
came to Lahore in the latter half of July, 1952, he was told by somebody whom he
does not remember that the Directorate of Public Relations had been supplying
newspapers with articles which were calculated to fan the agitation. He was
morally convinced that the information was correct and frankly asked Mir Nur
Ahmad whether it was true that the Department of Islamiat was Supplying articles
to newspapers.
“He tried to parry the question, but I pressed
him. He said that efforts had been made to “canalise” the agitation into certain
channels. I had in particular confronted him with the fact that the Afaq, which
was for all practical purposes under the Directorate of Public Relations, had
taken up the attitude that the Ahmadis should be declared a minority. His answer
was that this had been done to canalise the agitation into certain channels. I
said it was not ‘canalising’ but fanning the agitation.” Thereafter Dr. Qureshi
contacted Mr. Daultana who asked him to tea on the 19th July. He told Mr.
Daultana that if the Provincial Government had decided upon a line of action
which was a departure from the previous line of action in connection with
publicity, it was only fair that the matter should have been discussed with him
at Nathiagali (at the meeting of the Basic Principles Committee early in July).
Mr. Daultana said this “canalising” had been done without his
knowledge.
Next: The role of the newspapers in the
campaign
12:39 AM
Sultan Shahin
0 comments:
Post a Comment