| Current affairs | |
| 20 Apr 2010, NewAgeIslam.Com | |
| Kerala: Terror's Own Country | |
| By VR Jayaraj Source: The Daily Pioneer, New Delhi URL: http://www.newageislam.com/NewAgeIslamCurrentAffairs_1.aspx?ArticleID=2727 |
--
Asadullah Syed
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Kerala: Terror’s Own Country
--
Asadullah Syed
How Team Obama is reaching out to Muslims in US
| Islam and the West | |
| 20 Apr 2010, NewAgeIslam.Com | |
| How Team Obama is reaching out to Muslims in US | |
| Andrea Elliott April 19, 2010 When President Barack Obama took the stage in Cairo last June, promising a new relationship with the Islamic world, Muslims in America wondered only half-jokingly whether the overture included them. After all, Obama had kept his distance during the campaign, never visiting an American mosque and describing the false claim that he was Muslim as a "smear" on his Web site. Nearly a year later, Obama has yet to set foot in an American mosque. And he still has not met with Muslim and Arab-American leaders. But less publicly, his administration has reached out to this politically isolated constituency in a sustained and widening effort that has left even skeptics surprised. Muslim and Arab-American advocates have participated in policy discussions and received briefings from top White House aides and other officials on health care legislation, foreign policy, the economy, immigration and national security. They have met privately with a senior White House adviser, Valerie Jarrett, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. to discuss civil liberties concerns and counterterrorism strategy. The impact of this continuing dialogue is difficult to measure, but White House officials cited several recent government actions that were influenced, in part, by the discussions. The meeting with Napolitano was among many factors that contributed to the government's decision this month to end a policy subjecting passengers from 14 countries, most of them Muslim, to additional scrutiny at airports, the officials said. That emergency directive, enacted after a failed Dec. 25 bombing plot, has been replaced with a new set of intelligence-based protocols that law enforcement officials consider more effective. Also this month, Tariq Ramadan, a prominent Muslim academic, visited the United States for the first time in six years after Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton reversed a decision by the Bush administration, which had barred Ramadan from entering the country, initially citing the USA Patriot Act. Clinton also cleared the way for another well-known Muslim professor, Adam Habib, who had been denied entry under similar circumstances. Arab-American and Muslim leaders said they had yet to see substantive changes on a variety of issues, including what they describe as excessive airport screening, policies that have chilled Muslim charitable giving and invasive FBI surveillance guidelines. But they are encouraged by the extent of their consultation by the White House and governmental agencies. "For the first time in eight years, we have the opportunity to meet, engage, discuss, disagree, but have an impact on policy," said James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute in Washington. "We're being made to feel a part of that process and that there is somebody listening." In the post-9/11 era, Muslims and Arab-Americans have posed something of a conundrum for the government: they are seen as a political liability but also, increasingly, as an important partner in countering the threat of homegrown terrorism. Under President George W. Bush, leaders of these groups met with government representatives from time to time, but said they had limited interaction with senior officials. While Obama has yet to hold the kind of high-profile meeting that Muslims and Arab-Americans seek, there is a consensus among his policymakers that engagement is no longer optional. The administration's approach has been understated. Many meetings have been private; others were publicized only after the fact. A visit to New York University in February by John O. Brennan, Obama's chief counterterrorism adviser, drew little news coverage, but caused a stir among Muslims around the country. Speaking to Muslim students, activists and others, Brennan acknowledged many of their grievances, including "surveillance that has been excessive," "over inclusive no-fly lists" and "an unhelpful atmosphere around many Muslim charities." "These are challenges we face together as Americans," said Brennan, who momentarily showed off his Arabic to hearty applause. He and other officials have made a point of disassociating Islam from terrorism in public comments, using the phrase "violent extremism" in place of words like "jihad" and "Islamic terrorism." While the administration's solicitation of Muslims and Arab-Americans has drawn little fanfare, it has not escaped criticism. A small but vocal group of research analysts, bloggers and others complain that the government is reaching out to Muslim leaders and organizations with an Islamist agenda or ties to extremist groups abroad. They point out that Jarrett gave the keynote address at the annual convention for the Islamic Society of North America. The group was listed as an unindicted co-conspirator in a federal case against the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, a Texas-based charity whose leaders were convicted in 2008 of funneling money to Hamas. The society denies any links to terrorism. "I think dialogue is good, but it has to be with genuine moderates," said Steven Emerson, a terrorism analyst who advises government officials. "These are the wrong groups to legitimize." Emerson and others have also objected to the political appointments of several American Muslims, including Rashad Hussain. In February, the president chose Hussain, a 31-year-old White House lawyer, to become the United States' special envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference. The position, a kind of ambassador at large to Muslim countries, was created by Bush. In a video address, Obama highlighted Hussain's status as a "close and trusted member of my White House staff" and "a hafiz," a person who has memorized the Quran. Within days of the announcement, news reports surfaced about comments Hussain had made on a panel in 2004, while he was a student at Yale Law School, in which he referred to several domestic terrorism prosecutions as "politically motivated." Among the cases he criticized was that of Sami Al-Arian, a former computer-science professor in Florida who pleaded guilty to aiding members of a Palestinian terrorist group. At first, the White House said Hussain did not recall making the comments, which had been removed from the Web version of a 2004 article published by a small Washington magazine. When Politico obtained a recording of the panel, Hussain acknowledged criticizing the prosecutions but said he believed the magazine quoted him inaccurately, prompting him to ask its editor to remove the comments. On Feb. 22, The Washington Examiner ran an editorial with the headline "Obama Selects a Voice of Radical Islam." Muslim leaders watched carefully as the story migrated to Fox News. They had grown accustomed to close scrutiny, many said in interviews, but were nonetheless surprised. In 2008, Hussain had co-authored a paper for the Brookings Institution arguing that the government should use the peaceful teachings of Islam to fight terrorism. "Rashad Hussain is about as squeaky clean as you get," said Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., who is Muslim. Ellison and others wondered whether the administration would buckle under the pressure and were relieved when the White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, defended Hussain. "The fact that the president and the administration have appointed Muslims to positions and have stood by them when they've been attacked is the best we can hope for," said Ingrid Mattson, president of the Islamic Society of North America. It was notably different during Obama's run for office. In June 2008, volunteers of his campaign barred two Muslim women in headscarves from appearing behind Obama at a rally in Detroit, eliciting widespread criticism. The campaign promptly recruited Mazen Asbahi, a 36-year-old corporate lawyer and popular Muslim activist from Chicago, to become its liaison to Muslims and Arab-Americans. Bloggers began researching Asbahi's background. For a brief time in 2000, he had sat on the board of an Islamic investment fund, along with Sheikh Jamal Said, a Chicago imam who was later named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land case. Asbahi said in an interview that he had left the board after three weeks because he wanted no association with the imam. Shortly after his appointment to the Obama campaign, Asbahi said, a Wall Street Journal reporter began asking questions about his connection to the imam. Campaign officials became concerned that news coverage would give critics ammunition to try to link the imam to Obama, Asbahi recalled. On their recommendation, Asbahi agreed to resign from the campaign, he said. He is still unsettled by the power of his detractors. "To be in the midst of this campaign of change and hope and to have it stripped away over nothing," he said. "It hurts." From the moment Obama took office, he seemed eager to change the tenor of America's relationship with Muslims worldwide. He gave his first interview to Al Arabiya, the Arabic-language television station based in Dubai. Muslims cautiously welcomed his ban on torture and his pledge to close Guantanamo within a year. In his Cairo address, he laid out his vision for "a new beginning" with Muslims: while America would continue to fight terrorism, he said, terrorism would no longer define America's approach to Muslims. Back at home, Muslim and Arab-American leaders remained skeptical. But they took note when, a few weeks later, Mohamed Magid, a prominent imam from Sterling, Va., and Rami Nashashibi, a Muslim activist from Chicago, joined the president at a White-House meeting about fatherhood. Also that month, Dr. Faisal Qazi, a board member of American Muslim Health Professionals, began meeting with administration officials to discuss health care reform. The invitations were aimed at expanding the government's relationship with Muslims and Arab-Americans to areas beyond security, said Hussain, the White House's special envoy. Hussain began advising the president on issues related to Islam after joining the White House counsel's office in January 2009. He helped draft Obama's Cairo speech and accompanied him on the trip. "The president realizes that you cannot engage one-fourth of the world's population based on the erroneous beliefs of a fringe few," Hussain said. Other government offices followed the lead of the White House. In October, Commerce Secretary Gary Locke met with Arab-Americans and Muslims in Dearborn, Mich., to discuss challenges facing small-business owners. Also last fall, Farah Pandith was sworn in as the State Department's first special representative to Muslim communities. While Pandith works mostly with Muslims abroad, she said she had also consulted with American Muslims because Clinton believes "they can add value overseas." Despite this, American actions abroad - including civilian deaths from drone strikes in Pakistan and the failure to close Guantanamo - have drawn the anger of Muslims and Arab-Americans. Even though their involvement with the administration has broadened, they leaders remain most concerned about security-related policies. In January, when the Department of Homeland Security hosted a two-day meeting with Muslim, Arab-American, South Asian and Sikh leaders, the group expressed concern about the emergency directive subjecting passengers from a group of Muslim countries to additional screening. Farhana Khera, executive director of Muslim Advocates, pointed out that the policy would never have caught the attempted shoe-bomber Richard Reid, who is British. "It almost sends the signal that the government is going to treat nationals of powerless countries differently from countries that are powerful," Khera recalled saying as community leaders around the table nodded their heads. Napolitano, who sat with the group for more than an hour, committed to meeting with them more frequently. Khera said she left feeling somewhat hopeful. "I think our message is finally starting to get through," she said. Source: NDTV, New Delhi URL http://www.newageislam.com/NewAgeIslamIslamAndWest_1.aspx?ArticleID=2726 |
--
Asadullah Syed
The rebirth of the Indian Mujahideen
| Islam,Terrorism and Jihad | |
| 20 Apr 2010, NewAgeIslam.Com | |
| The rebirth of the Indian Mujahideen | |
| Zakir Naik as a jihadi mentor By Praveen Swami Less than an hour before police surrounded the Indian Mujahideen bomb-factory hidden away on the fringes of the Bhadra forests in Chikmagalur, Mohammad Zarar Siddi Bawa had slipped away on a bus bound for Mangalore — the first step in a journey that would take him to the safety of a Lashkar-e-Taiba safehouse in Karachi. Inside the house, officers involved in the October, 2008, raid found evidence of Bawa's work: laboratory equipment used to test and prepare chemicals, precision tools, and five complete improvised explosive devices. Even as investigators across India set about filing paperwork declaring Bawa a fugitive, few believed they would ever be able to lay eyes on him again. But in February, a closed-circuit television camera placed over the cashier's counter at the Germany Bakery in Pune recorded evidence that Bawa had returned to India — just minutes before an improvised explosive device ripped through the popular restaurant killing seventeen people, and injuring at least sixty. Dressed in a loose-fitting blue shirt, a rucksack slung over his back, the fair, slight young man with a wispy beard has been identified by police sources in Gujarat, Maharashtra and Karnataka as "Yasin Bhatkal" — the man who made the bombs which ripped apart ten Indian towns and cities between 2005 and 2008. Witnesses at the restaurant also identified Bawa from photographs, noting that he was wearing trousers rolled up above his ankles — a style favoured by some neo-fundamentalists. Bawa is emerging as the key suspect in Saturday's bombings outside the M. Chinnaswamy Stadium in Bangalore — a grim reminder that the jihadist offensive that began after the 2002 communal violence in India is very far from spent. The obscure jihadist Little is known about just what led Bawa to join the jihadist movement. Educated at Bhatkal's well-respected Anjuman Hami-e-Muslimeen school, 32-year-old Bawa left for Pune as a teenager. He was later introduced to other members of the Indian Mujahideen as an engineer, but police in Pune have found no documentation suggesting he ever studied in the city. Instead, Bawa spent much of his time with a childhood friend living in Pune, Unani medicine practitioner-turned-Islamist proselytiser Iqbal Ismail Shahbandri. Like his brother Riyaz Ismail Shahbandri — now the Indian Mujahideen's top military commander — Ismail Shahbandri had become an ideological mentor to many young Islamists in Pune and Mumbai, many of them highly-educated professionals. The Shahbandari brothers' parents, like many members of the Bhatkal elite, had relocated to Mumbai in search of new economic opportunities. Ismail Shahbandri, their father, set up leather-tanning factory in Mumbai's Kurla area in the mid-1970s. Riyaz Shahbandri went on to obtain a civil engineering degree from Mumbai's Saboo Siddiqui Engineering College and, in 2002, was married to Nasuha Ismail, the daughter of an electronics store owner in Bhatkal's Dubai Market. Shafiq Ahmad, Nasuha's brother, had drawn Riyaz Shahbandri into the Students Islamic Movement of India. He first met his Indian Mujahideen co-founders Abdul Subhan Qureshi and Sadiq Israr Sheikh, in the months before his marriage. Later, Riyaz Shahbandri made contact with ganglord-turned-jihadist Amir Raza Khan. In the wake of the communal violence that ripped Gujarat apart in 2002, the men set about funnelling recruits to Lashkar camps in Pakistan. Early in the summer of 2004, investigators say, the core members of the network that was later to call itself the Indian Mujahideen met at Bhatkal's beachfront to discuss their plans. Iqbal Shahbandri and Bhatkal-based cleric Shabbir Gangoli are alleged to have held ideological classes; the group also took time out to practice shooting with airguns. Bawa had overall charge of arrangements — a task that illustrated his status as the Bhatkal brothers' most trusted lieutenant. Bhatkal, police investigators say, became the centre of the Indian Mujahideen's operations. From their safehouses in Vitthalamakki and Hakkalamane, bombs were despatched to operational cells dispersed across the country, feeding the most sustained jihadist offensive India has ever seen. Communal war Like so many of his peers in the Indian Mujahideen, Bawa emerged from a fraught communal landscape. Bhatkal's Nawayath Muslims, made prosperous by hundreds of years of trade across the Indian Ocean, emerged as the region's dominant land-owning community. Early in the twentieth century, inspired by call of Aligarh reformer Syed Ahmed Khan, Bhatkal notables led a campaign to bring modern education for the community. The Anjuman Hami-e-Muslimeen school where Bawa studied was one product of their efforts, which eventually spawned highly-regarded institutions that now cater to over several thousand students. Organisations like the Anjuman helped the Navayath Muslims capitalise on the new opportunities for work and business with opened up in the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia during the 1970s. But this wealth, in turn, engendered resentments which laid the ground for an communal conflict. In the years after the Emergency, the Jana Sangh and its affiliates began to capitalise on resentments Bhatkal's Hindus felt about the prosperity and political power of the Navayaths. The campaign paid off in 1983, when the Hindu right-wing succeeded in dethroning legislator S.M. Yahya, who had served as a state minister between 1972 and 1982. Both communities entered into a competitive communal confrontation, which involved the ostentatious display of piety and power. The Tablighi Jamaat, a neo-fundamentalist organisation which calls on followers to live life in a style claimed to be modelled on that of the Prophet Mohammad, drew a growing mass of followers. Hindutva groups like the Karavalli Hindu Samiti, too, staged ever-larger religious displays to demonstrate their clout. Early in 1993, Bhatkal was hit by communal riots which claimed seventeen lives and left dozens injured. The violence, which began after Hindutva groups claimed stones had been thrown at a Ram Navami procession, and lasted nine months. Later, in April 1996, two Muslims were murdered in retaliation for the assassination of Bharatiya Janata Party legislator U. Chittaranjan — a crime that investigators now say may have been linked to the Bhatkal brothers. More violence broke out in 2004, after the assassination of BJP leader Thimmappa Naik. Zakir Naik as a jihadi mentor Iqbal Shahbandri and his recruits were, in key senses, rebels against a traditional political order that appeared to have failed to defend Muslim rights and interests. Inside the Indian Mujahideen safehouses raided in October, 2008, police found no evidence that traditional theological literature or the writings of the Tablighi Jamaat had influenced the group. Instead, they found pro-Taliban videos and speeches by Zakir Naik — a popular but controversial Mumbai-based televangelist who has, among other things, defends Al-Qaeda chief Osama bin-Laden. "If he is fighting the enemies of Islam", Naik said in one speech, "I am for him. If he is terrorising America the terrorist—the biggest terrorist — I am with him." "Every Muslim" Naik concluded, "should be a terrorist. The thing is, if he is terrorising a terrorist, he is following Islam". Naik has never been found to be involved in violence, but his words have fired the imagination of a diverse jihadists — among them, Glasgow suicide-bomber Kafeel Ahmed, 2006 Mumbai train-bombing accused Feroze Deshmukh, and New York taxi driver Najibullah Zazi, who faces trial for planning to attack the city's Grand Central Railway Station. Language like this spoke to concerns of the young people who were drawn to separate jihadist cells that began to spring up across India after the 2002 violence, mirroring the growth of the Indian Mujahideen. SIMI leader Safdar Nagori set up a group that included the Bangalore information-technology professionals Peedical Abdul Shibli and Yahya Kamakutty; in Kerala Tadiyantavide Nasir, Abdul Sattar, and Abdul Jabbar set up a separate organisation that is alleged to have bombed Bangalore in 2008 Storms of hate Well-entrenched in the political system, Bhatkal's Muslim leadership has been hostile to radical Islamism. Efforts by Islamist political groups to establish a presence there have, for the most part, been unsuccessful. But authorities acknowledge Bhatkal, like much of the Dakshina Kannada region, remains communally fraught. Small-scale confrontations are routine. Earlier this month, the Karavalli Hindu Samiti even staged demonstrations in support of the Sanatana Sanstha, the Hindutva group police in Goa say was responsible for terrorist bombings carried out last year. Pakistan's intelligence services and transnational jihadist groups like the Lashkar nurtured and fed India's jihadist movement — but its birth was the outcome of an ugly communal contestation that remains unresolved. Even as India's police and intelligence services work to dismantle the jihadist project, politicians need to find means to still the storms of hate which sustain it. URL: http://www.newageislam.com/NewAgeIslamIslamTerrorismJihad_1.aspx?ArticleID=2725 |
--
Asadullah Syed
| Books and Documents | |
| 20 Apr 2010, NewAgeIslam.Com | |
| Munir Commission Report-35: The assurance by the Ahrar on 19th July 1952 | |
| This period ends with the famous "assurance" by the Ahrar to keep the peace but not to be of good behaviour. Before discussing it, however, we wish to refer to a note of the D. I. G. which gives an indication of the Ahrar mind immediately before the assurance. Master Taj-ud-Din and some others had by this time been arrested for violating prohibitory orders. Mr. Anwar Ali wrote the following note (in substance) on 5th July, 1962: "Maulana Akhtar Ali Khan came today with Maulvi Ghulam Ghaus Sarhaddi, now President of Ahrar. The object was to give an assurance that no speeches will be made which are likely to disturb public peace, provided the persons arrested were released and section 144 was withdrawn. I explained the decisions reached today at the officers' meeting and told them Government might consider release, etc., if the two leaders apologised. Maulvi Ghulam Ghaus Sarhaddi said that so far, he and his party were of the belief that Master Taj-ud-Din had not committed any wrong. Once it is realized by the Ahrar that Government will not change its decisions, they will be more disposed to come to a settlement." 7th July 1952: Mr. Qurban Ali Khan—"I do not think Government have any cause to change their decisions that law and order shall be maintained. Whatever tends to cause disorder must be hit on the head, well and hard." The Home Secretary forwarded the note with the remark that the Ahrar were realising that they are being isolated, and Mr. Daultana initialled the note on 8th July. The Home Secretary's note that the Ahrar realized the effect of the policy of isolation reminds us that the Government also viewed their isolated state sympathetically and allowed them to invite the Ulama of all parties to relieve the monotony of their isolation. It should have been foreseen that the Ahrar were making a very open bid for breaking loose from the ring which the Government thought it had forged round them, in which case the wisdom of allowing the convention to be held in defiance of the law is questionable. The law was an ass, but they have made it a joke now. The ostensible object of allowing the convention was to contact the Ulama before the meeting and persuade them to preach against violence. Mir Nur Ahmad, D. P. R., says the Chief Minister particularly asked him to contact Maulanas Abul Hasanat Sayyed Muhammad Ahmad Qadri, Muhammad Bakhsh Muslim and Ghulam Murshid. He was given to understand that "in the atmosphere of the convention" these Maulanas could not secure a decision "on the desired lines." But if the Chief Minister was interested in the decision, as he ought to have been, it is remarkable that neither did Mir Nur Ahmad inform him that the "contacts" had failed nor was Mir Nur Ahmad asked by him as to the result. These Maulvis began to take an active part in the agitation, and in October, 1952, the Department of Islamiat, determinedly ignoring these activities, selected them for making lectures on payment. Mr. Daultana said it was not his policy that the Ulama should be encouraged to attend this convention. (The decision had been taken at the meeting of officers on 5th July.) On seeing file No. 16(2)94, however, he agreed to having written the following note on 5th July: "This convention may actually prove to be useful from the Government point of view if the intending participants were contacted by District Magistrates or D. P. R. and prevailed upon to denounce violence and defiance of law". 5th July: two Ahrar leaders meet D. I. G. They do not accept his suggestion of "apology" Mr. Anwar Ali's fears. Ahrar defeat Government's effort at isolation. "Contacting" policy failed, but notice of it was not taken. But these remarks as to the convention have been provoked by the use of the word "isolated" in the Home Secretary's note. It occurred to us that the two positions were inconsistent. We take no serious objection to the hope entertained, if it was entertained in good faith, and it is possible to have two honest opinions in this matter. To revert to the meeting of Maulana Akhtar Ali Khan and Maulana Sarhaddi with the D. I. G., it will be noticed that the Ahrar were not prepared to apologize, and wished Government to withdraw the ban and the prosecutions on their own terms. They would continue making speeches, but the speeches will not be such as were likely to disturb the peace. There is at least an implied admission that hitherto the speeches possessed that quality. Next, there is noticeable in the D. I. G's note a fear that Government might change its decisions and Mr. Qurban Ali Khan assures him that Government will not change its decision to maintain law and order. But Mr. Anwar Ali's fear was soon realized. We are not thinking yet of the agreement with the Ahrar. We are thinking of the withdrawal of cases in Gujranwala on the 14th or 15th July. When questioned as to these, Mr. Daultana said it was merely a technical decision taken by the officers in respect of two Ahrar leaders who had already been convicted on similar charges in Sargodha. Firstly, if a person commits one act of cheating in Sargodha and another in Gujranwala, it will not be a technical decision to withdraw the case at Gujranwala, and there will be no justification for it. If a District Magistrate makes that foolish suggestion, he should be told that it is foolish. Secondly, the decision related to six persons of whom only two had been convicted in Sargodha. When this was brought to Mr. Daultana's notice, he said he did not recollect having attended the officers' meeting of 15th July at which this decision was taken, as no matter of policy was involved. When, however, his attention was drawn to the following note of the Home Secretary, dated the 18th July:— "The Gujranwala case was withdrawn yesterday. I sent for the D. G. on 15th, immediately after our meeting with H. C. M. and communicated to him the decision of Government when he came to see me on the 16th."—he said he must have agreed to the withdrawal. "My impression is that these persons had been arrested merely for attending a meeting in contravention of section 144, and as there was considerable agitation in the city, the District Magistrate of Gujranwala contacted the Home Secretary." Even if this explanation is correct, Mr. Anwar Ali's fear that Government might change its decisions was realized. But it is not correct, for we have seen in Part II of these Minutes, that no suggestion came from Gujranwala. On the same day when the decision to withdraw the prosecution was taken, Mr. Qurban Ali Khan made a note that the convention of Ulama had a very adverse effect on people, that the Ahrar had gained their object by exciting their sentiments on, religious issues, that there was a race between the Government and the Ahrar, Gujranwala cases withdrawn: 15th July 1952: Mr. Anwar Ali's fears realized. Withdrawal unjustified. Convention of Ulama on 13th July had adverse effect: says I.G. that the Government should be on its toes and let no grass grow under its feet. The Home Secretary wrote to the same effect and Mr. Daultana saw this file on 16th July. He was asked by the Government counsel whether, in the face of these notes, showing as they do that these officers held very strong views about the situation, he still insisted that the decision to withdraw was that of the officers and not his own. The answer was as follows: "This file came to me for information only. The question of withdrawal had nothing to do with it." It was then pointed out to him that in this very file there was a note, dated the 16th July, by the Inspector-General that the subject was discussed at the previous day's meeting. In other words, the subject of Mr. Qurban Ali's note of 14th July was discussed with the Chief Minister in the meeting of 18th July, Mr. Daultana thereupon agreed that he must have been present at the meeting. The answer to the first question, however,—that officers with such strong views could not have agreed to the withdrawal of prosecution—still remains to be given. It is impossible to believe that while on paper Mr. Qurban Ali Khan agitated his mind over the tactical victory which the Ahrar had gained by the convention and warned Government to be on its toes and let no grass grow under its feet, in the conference he advised Mr. Daultana to withdraw the cases because people were upset—as, after all, they had merely defied an order. After all, an order of Government in a democratic set-up is subject to the implied proviso that the execution thereof will not agitate the public mind. We mean, Mr. Qurban Ali Khan, as a police officer, could not have worried about "justifying" the prosecution "before the people who had accepted a democratic form of overnment". This contribution to the meeting must, therefore, have been made by Mr. Daultana himself. Now we come to the actual "assurance". It is well-known. Some Ahrar leaders undertook to make a statement condemning violence and Mr. Daultana in return agreed to with-draw the ban and prosecutions. Mr. Daultana says they told him it was not their intention to break the law, but the movement was an article of faith with them and it was their right to put the issue before the people constitutionally. At the same time, they were convinced that it was their political and religious duty to protect the Ahmadis, their property and their honour. It was understood that after the withdrawal of the ban, they would continue their normal political activities, but do nothing to jeopardise law and order. In answer to a question by ourselves, Mr. Daultana said that it was implied on his part that in the past the Ahrar's normal political activity was accompanied by acts of violence, but that he was not sure if the Ahrar also admitted this position. This accounts for our earlier observation that while they promised to keep the peace, they did not promise to be of good behaviour. The Ahrar said in their statement that neither had they in the past committed any act in breach of law and order nor did they intend committing such act in the future. This takes us back to Mr. Anwar Ali's insistence on an apology and Maulana Sarhaddi's insistence that there was no case for an apology. But we have no intention of devoting any time to the merits of the agreement. With Mr. Anwar Ali's exception, the officers are all agreed, for different reasons, that it was the best course to adopt under the Ahrar's "Assurances": 19th July 1952. circumstances. Mr. Qurban Ali Khan said it exposed the Ahrar to the criticism that they had no liking for the prison, Hafiz Abdul Majid said that as an administrator he would give them a chance. Mr. Ghias-ud-Din Ahmad said that on a religious question a prohibitory order could not remain effective for long. He also said that although the decision had already been taken by Mr. Daultana, when it was put before the meeting, everybody agreed. Mr. Anwar Ali said that it was due to the wholesome effect produced by the prosecutions that the Ahrar came in a deputation to the Chief Minister and gave a written undertaking to keep the agitation within legal limits. "They did not, however, abide by the promise. If I had been consulted, I would have said that the withdrawal of these prosecutions and the release of these persons was injurious, because I knew the Ahrar to be unreliable." III. After The "Assurance". "The undertaking by the Ahrar was followed by a lull and then again a spate of objectionable speeches started. After calling off this action, if action had been taken to prosecute all the people who were delivering objectionable speeches, or if preventive action had been taken against some of them, then the agitation could have been curbed further."—Mr. Ghias-ud-Din Ahmad. With these remarks of the Home Secretary in mind, we can now start examining some incidents following the 19th of July 1952 and test the good faith of the decision to let the Ahrar carry on the agitation in a "constitutional" manner. (1) At Qasur, on the 25th July 1952, after Juma prayer there was a meeting, and one of the speakers was a "bad character", Alam Shah. Thereafter a procession was taken out, with beating breasts. One man shouted "Zafrullah Kanjar" and others joined in chorus of "Hai, hai". Then Alam Shah and another procured a she-ass and wrote on it "Begum Zafrullah", seated a man on it and garlanded him with shoes. He wore a top-hat with "Ghulam Ahmad Mirza" written on it. The procession halted in front of an Ahmadi's factory and shouted: "Destroy Mirzaeeat", "Zafrullah Kanjar", "Zafrullah Kutta", "Zafrullah Soowar" for about fifteen minutes. Mr. Anwar Ali noted on the diary relating to Qasur that fanatical elements and Maulvis had gained strength and that hooligans had jumped into the arena. Mr. Qurban Ali Khan said: "This is the outcome of all agitations in defiance of law. One lawlessness breeds another lawlessness and unless some preventive method is possible, it ends in a revolution. This is a lesson of history which may be delayed but cannot be belied." The Chief Minister initialled the note on 12th August 1952. Acceptance of "assurance" not per se objectionable. At Qasur: 25th July 1952. D. I. G. and I. G.'s remarks. But we are not going to put any more faith in these notes. They seem to be intended to make good reading. They do not say: "But where is the Ahrar's promise?" They don't propose any action, and Mr. Daultana says he was not taking any action where no action was proposed, unless it was a glaring case of inaction. This certainly was not a glaring ease! Again, we have lost faith in these notes because if Mr. Daultana holds another conference, they will all agree with him in holding that this is not a democratic approach to the problem. The Foreign Minister has been grossly insulted, true enough, but unless the Central Government decide whether the demands are to be accepted or rejected, how can one say whether the abuse is or is not justified? On 31st July, the D. I. G. made the following note on a source report: "The movement is no longer canalised, but has got into the hands of the riff-raff * * * * I am not sure about the bona fides of the Ahrar." So far we had not heard that Government intended "canalising" the movement, and therefore do not know which way the canal was to be directed. But this word may be borne in mind. (2) On 24th July 1952, the D. I. G. informed Government that mock funerals of the Foreign Minister had been taken out at several places in the province and that this constituted an offence under section 23, Public Safety Act. The Home Secretary said that the Safety Act should not be used, but that the Chief Minister might talk to the Ahrar leaders to abide by the undertaking, as parleys with them at a lower level had proved futile. The Chief Minister signed the note on 30th July. In his statement in Court, he said he took no action because he agreed with the Home Secretary. But the Home Secretary, when he discouraged the Safety Act, was apparently thinking of section 3, by which a person is detained without trial. Section 23, however, is on the same footing as any section of the Penal Code, and if Mr. Daultana agreed with him because Mr. Daultana also had section 3 in mind, then it is very fortunate indeed for the law-breakers that both the Chief Minister and the Home Secretary had the same conception of section 23 as they had of section 3. But even Mr. Daultana admitted that in 1952 there were ninety persons detained under the Safety Act and that none of them was a political detenu. He added that so far as the Home Secretary's note recommended that the Ahrar be reminded, he did not consider any further interview with them necessary as in his speech of the 27th or 28th July to the Muslim League Council he had clearly asked the Ahrar leaders to adhere to their undertaking. We think this is what they call an explanation. We come across them in press conferences, but not in law Courts. (3) On the 26th or 27th July, there were demonstrations on a wide scale outside the Muslim League office when a meeting was being held; stones were thrown at motor But no action. D. I. G., says movement is in the hands of riff-raff. Mock funerals of Foreign Minister. Action not approved under Safety Act. Because Safety Act is a bugbear. But no warning either: cars; quite a number of policemen and some members were injured. Begum G. A. Khan had to be carried away in an injured condition. The police had to use tear gas and lathis. (4) A pamphlet entitled ( مرزائيوں کے ناپاک عزايم ) came to the notice of the C. I. D. on 4th August 1952. In the first chapter, relating to fundamental beliefs, there are quotations from the writings of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. "Those who do not believe in me are swine and bitches", is an illustrative quotation. In the second chapter it is stated that the Ahmadis still believe that Pakistan will reunite with India, In the third chapter it is stated that Chaudhri Muhammad Zafrullah Khan is opposed to the establishment of Pakistan. The objects or at least the effect, of the pamphlet clearly was to rouse and maintain bitter feelings between two sections of people. The Assistant to the D.I.G. recommended proscription. The D.I.G. said on 3rd September 1952, that a month had passed since the pamphlet had first come to notice and that no useful purpose would be served at this stage by proscription. The Home Secretary agreed and the Chief Minister initialled the note. (5) On the 21st August 1952 there was a meeting at Multan at which public servants were particularly castigated. The D.I.G. noted on the daily situation report that inflammatory speeches against public officers undermined their morale, that the leaders had been released in order that they should tell their colleagues to keep within the limits of law, that they should be called now and administered a warning, that they were utterly unreliable, though it was worthwhile warning them a second time, that the meeting which they proposed on 29th August at Multan to celebrate a "Martyr's Day" should be banned, that since according to the report of Kayani J. on the Multan firing the officials were not at fault, if the Ahrar, still hold them up to criticism, it was against all principles of decency. The Chief Minister did not approve the proposal to ban the meeting, but agreed to a warning being issued that they should behave at the meeting. The Deputy Secretary, Home, had proposed that press notes be issued about warnings having been administered. This also was not approved. The local leaders were warned through the Commissioner. The Home Secretary inquired whether a general warning should be administered to Ahrar leaders also, adding, in his own handwriting (the rest of the note is in type), "I think we may wait for a little longer". The Chief Minister said on 31st August: "I don't think we need bother about a general warning at this stage." An objectionable pamphlet—4-8-52. No action. Multan: 21-8-52. D.I.G. suggests warning. Warning to local leaders only. General warning unnecessary. - 328 - Report Of The Court Of Inquiry Constituted Under Punjab Act Ii Of 1954 To Enquire Into The Punjab Disturbances Of 1953 We have referred to the Multan firing elsewhere. It occurred on the 19th July 1952, when the police station of Kup found itself surrounded by a threatening mob. After the firing, as a concession to public feeling, the Government directed a judicial inquiry which was conducted by one of us. It was held that the firing by the police was justified as a measure of self-defence. That should have satisfied all right-minded people, if they had any regard for judicial independence and the dignity of a judicial finding. The celebration of a Martyr's Day thereafter implied a disapproval of that finding, and Mr. Anwar Ali rightly laid stress on decency. This point was lost on Government. The law of contempt is a law of decency. (6) Fortnightly Report from the Provincial to the Central Government for the first half of August 1952. It was stated in this report that a certain Maulvi Ahmad Khan of Sargodha, speaking at Samundri, criticised the Pakistan Army because its officers were given to dancing and drinking, and charged high officers of Government with corruption and favouritism. The Central Government was naturally perturbed, and asked for a report, inquiring what action, if any, had been taken by the Province: The reply was that although the Maulvi had used defamatory language and endeavoured to spread hatred against the Army, since he was an unknown entity, it was better to ignore him. (7) At an Ahrar meeting on the 25th August 1952, at Montgomery Maulvi Muhammad Ali Jullundri told his audience that the Government was compelled to give way and withdraw section 144. Mirzaeeat was no religion but a farce, and Mirzais were worse than sweepers or cobblers. The Ahrar no doubt were deadly against the creation of Pakistan, but they are loyal now, while the Ahmadis are still trying to reunite with India, The Mirza of Qadian was immoral: many murders were committed as a result of his haram sara affairs. Mirzais should not be allowed water from water taps or to sit with you in the same tonga. They should be forced to embrace Islam. It is true that Chaudhri Muhammad Zafrullah Khan's reply to the Prime Minister's communique of 14th August was objectionable, but he had to squeal because he got it in the bottom." The Chief Minister saw this report on 18th September 1952. Perhaps even "at this stage" it was unnecessary to bother about a general warning. But where was the law of the land? Did nobody feel ashamed of this speech? But we are forgetting that no action could be taken by Government because no action had been suggested by the C.I.D, or the Home Secretary. And as for the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police, we suppose they were occupied with other duties which have fallen to them since the Partition—"reception of dignitaries", as the District Magistrate of Lahore said. "Martyr's Day" meeting constituted a protest against judicial finding. Criticism of Pakistan Army: August 1952. The speaker was "an unknown entity". Montgomery speeches: 25-8-52. No suggestion, no action. At least we know now what the Ahrar themselves thought of the "Assurance" they had given. According to Maulvi Muhammad Ali Government had been compelled to give way. Maulana Daud Ghaznavi put the same thought, in a different form when he stated in the Lyallpur Convention of 26th—28th September that the lifting of the ban was evidence of the fact that Government had submitted. (8) On 29th August 1952, Mr. Nazir Ahmad, S.P.(B), on a reported split between Master Taj-ud-Din's group and Sheikh Husam-ud-Din's group, recorded an opinion that "the Council of Action was showing signs of decadence and disunity". This was regarded by Mr. Daultana as "interesting", and he asked the C.I.D. to inform the Central Government "of these developments and their likely consequences". In the report, however, S.P.(B), mentioned a fatwa given on 14th October 1952, by Maulana Daud Ghaznavi and three other Ulama to the effect that those who regarded Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as a prophet or even a mujaddad or imam were murtadd, liable to be killed according to Islam, and that a Government which does not execute this injunction should be boycotted. This was to be put up for ratification before certain Ulama who were expected from Karachi but who did not turn up. He also mentioned objectionable speeches at Jhang, Lyallpur, Tulamba, Montgomery, Barana and Rangu (Campbellpur), winding up with the opinion that the agitation was "practically dying and the leaders were trying to keep it live for maintaining their importance and collecting money". The contents of the report do not leave any scope for complacency, and it seems that Mr. Nazir Ahmad was misled by the reported split between the two groups. The other police officers were not so happy. Mr. Anwar Ali said on this note that although the Ahrar leaders were "a bit tired", there was no reduction in the number of meetings and that the agitation had dangerous potentialities. The Inspector-General said on 23rd October 1952: "If it is allowed to go on in this fashion, we shall one day be faced with serious troubles and It may become difficult to control it. He sent up the note to the Governor, not the Home Secretary or Chief Minister. Mr. Anwar Ali says this was probably done in the belief that the Governor might bring the matter to the notice of the Central Government. It was because we also had that feeling that we put the question to Mr. Anwar Ali. Mr. Qurban Ali Khan apparently did not think that the Provincial Government's treatment of the situation was satisfactory, and he took the unusual course—perhaps objectionable from the Ministerial point of view—of trying to interest the Governor. But the Governor merely initialled the note. (9) Between 19th August and 9th September 1952, S.P.(B), thus reviewed the situation, with reference to its effect on the Ahmadis: One hundred and fourteen Ahmadis had forsaken their faith since July 1952, principally in Multan, Lyallpur, Montgomery and Jhang. What the Ahrar thought of the "assurances". Was the agitation dying? I. G. sends a note to the Government, not to Chief Minister. Review of situation: August-September 1952. Eleven Ahmadis had left residence, apparently with families. Two male and four female Ahmadi teachers had been discharged by the Wazirabad Municipality on 25th July 1952. The Deputy Commissioner had suspended the order. Mr. Anwar Ali remarked: "Pakistan has returned to the Middle Ages". Mr. Daultana signed the note on 17th September 1952. These conversions remind us of Sardar Abdur Rab Nishtar's observation that, while Governor of this province, he had no apprehension of a breach of the peace from the Ahmadiyya community, because it is a small community. Therefore, if threatening speeches are made against the Ahmadis, there is no fear of a breach of the peace, for they can always renounce their faith. (10) All Muslim Parties' Convention at Daska on 21st and 22nd September 1952.—The following is a resume of the objectionable portion of the speeches made at this convention: M. Ghulam Nabi Janbaz: Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was a juggler ( مداری ) a wretched person, a womaniser. Maulvi Muhammad Ali Jullunduri: Chaudhri Muhammad Zafrullah Khan is responsible for the stalemate in Kashmir. Sahibzada Faizul Hasan: Just as a jackal cannot be trusted with melons and a cat with meat, so Zafrullah and other Mirzais could not be trusted with Pakistan, as they were traitors. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was "nonsense". He used gur for latrine use, mistaking it for clay. If Mirzais do not embrace Islam, we shall do all in our power to achieve that end. In that case they will lose their allotments of land, factories and bungalows and also Rabwah. Sayyad Muzaffar Ali Shamsi: Mirzais are base, mean, lacking a sense of honour. Sheikh Husam-ud-Din: Zafrullah had underhand links with India and had occasioned the division of Palestine to give a stronghold to Jews, in the interests of the Anglo-American bloc. Sayyad Ataullah Shah Bukhari: They are a band of spies (Then there is something about Queen Victoria and the present Queen which had better be left unsaid). (11) The "Ehsan" of 25th August 1952, referring to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as a "banaspati Nabi", advertised "Janbaz Pocket Book", containing indecent matter in relation to the religious controversy, first published in February 1952. (12) Convention at Sheikhupura on 9th October 1952 and Chuharkana on 10th October 1952. Sahibzada Faizul Hasan: A man who could not save the honour of Nubuwwat and the Prophet's daughter could not protect Pakistan. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad said those who did not accept him were the progeny of prostitutes. The Punjab Ministers and Khwaja Nazim-ud-Din also did not accept him. They should protect their mother's honours at least, if they did not protect the Prophet's honour. Daska speeches: 21-9-52. Sheikhupura speech 9-10-52. Mirza Ghulam Nabi Janbaz: This snake of straw—Zafrullah—was more dangerous than external enemies. We are fighting constitutionally. Buy my books: Sayyed Muzaffar All Shamsi: Khwaja Nazim-ud-Din and Daultana should respect the feelings of the people, who had given them "chairs" and could take them back. Gurdaspur was lost through Zafrullah. Mirzais did not hesitate to offer girls to achieve their object. Sheikh Husam-ud-Din: Zafrullah was a spy and a traitor. The D. I. G. wrote on this report that the Ahrar continued spreading bad blood. The Chief Minister initialled the note. URL: http://www.newageislam.com/NewAgeIslamBooksAndDocuments_1.aspx?ArticleID=2724 |
--
Asadullah Syed
The Romance of Gauhar Jaan
| Islamic Culture | |
| 19 Apr 2010, NewAgeIslam.Com | |
| The Romance of Gauhar Jaan | |
| By Vikram Sampath In December of 1911, at the famous Delhi Durbar, Emperor George V was crowned the paramount power of British India in the presence of Indian princes and aristocrats. While the announcement by the emperor that the capital of his Indian territories would be shifted to Delhi from Calcutta might have cast a pall of gloom in "the second city of the empire", the durbar itself brought unprecedented glory to one Calcuttan—the legendary Hindustani vocalist Miss Gauhar Jaan. Pop sensation: (clockwise from top) Gauhar Jaan in a recording studio; a nautch performance under way in the early 1900s; a Singer record of Gauhar Jaan's; a portrait of young Gauhar; and a 1905 drawing of her on a matchbox that was made in Austria. At that glittering ceremony, in the presence of the emperor and his queen and all of India's royalty, Gauhar Jaan, along with her contemporary Janki Bai, were bestowed the rare privilege of presenting a song specially composed for the occasion Yeh jalsa taajposhi ka mubarak ho mubarak ho! They were escorted to the emperor after the concert and he praised them profusely for their talent and presented them with a hundred guineas as a token of his appreciation. Such was the fame of the first Indian and woman to record on the gramophone, Gauhar Jaan. Born Eileen Angelina Yeoward in Azamgarh, in what was then the United Provinces, in 1873, Gauhar was a woman of exceptional beauty, talent and grace. She seemed to symbolize the secular ethos that Indian classical music is known for—her grandmother was Hindu, grandfather British and father Armenian Christian. Gauhar embraced Islam and remained a devout Muslim all her life, though most of her compositions are replete with Krishna bhakti. The marriage of her parents ended in a bitter divorce when she was barely six years old. Angelina and her mother Victoria then moved to Benaras, where they converted to Islam and took on the names of Gauhar Jaan and Badi Malka Jaan, respectively. In the culturally vibrant atmosphere of Benaras, Gauhar's innate talents in music, dance and poetry blossomed. Fortunes turned for the mother and daughter as they moved to Calcutta and established themselves in the court of Nawab Wajid Ali Shah. They were counted as among the most famous baijis of Calcutta. No wonder then that in 1902, Frederick William Gaisberg, the Gramophone Company's first India agent, chose Gauhar as the first Indian artiste whom he wanted to record. When recording technology came to India in the early decades of the 20th century, it was the women who accepted this very novel and unfamiliar medium and adapted to it. Disregarding several superstitions (recording on evil English instruments would displease the gods and make one lose one's voice) that were floated by men, they went ahead and recorded. This not only helped democratize music and bring it out of the confines of the kothas (brothels) and courts, but also liberated these performing women from the clutches of their exploitative patrons. To Gauhar goes the credit of devising a unique template of presenting something as expansive as Hindustani music in just 3 minutes, which was all that a single disc could record at the time. The end of a recording was usually marked by the high-pitched and sometimes flirtatious announcement "My name is Gauhar Jaan!". This was of course a technical necessity because record masters were sent to Hanover in Germany for pressing, and these announcements helped the technician identify the singer. In her illustrious career, Gauhar recorded close to 600 records in over 10 languages. Her repertoire was vast and ranged from the weighty khayal and dhrupad to the supposedly lighter forms of thumri, dadra, kajri, hori, chaiti and bhajan. But what set Gauhar apart as a star of her times was her feisty nature and flamboyant lifestyle. She became notoriously famous for throwing a lavish party that cost Rs20,000 when her cat produced a litter of kittens. She was among the few people in Calcutta who flouted government regulations and went around in a four-horse-driven buggy, for which she even paid a fine of Rs1,000 a day to the viceroy. Despite all the fame and adulation, Gauhar pined for true love all her life. After several unsuccessful and short-lived romantic escapades, including one with the famous Gujarati theatre actor Amrit Keshav Nayak in Bombay, Gauhar chose the most unlikely of suitors—her secretary Abbas, who was much younger than her. Sadly their courtship ended in a bitter legal tangle after she realized that Abbas was embezzling her money. She won the case but lost all her money in the process of funding her high-profile lawyers and was reduced to a state of near beggary. That was when she was invited to Mysore by the Maharaja Nalvadi Krishnaraja Wodeyar as a state guest and court musician. But by then Gauhar had lost the will to fight and in 1930 breathed her last in Mysore, lonely and forlorn, with none by her bedside. In her lifetime, Gauhar attained a celebrity status that few women of her era could even dream of. For someone whose photograph appeared on picture postcards and matchboxes during her time, sadly today Gauhar is almost forgotten and largely unacknowledged even by the world of Hindustani music. This is what made researching her life for her biography an immensely challenging, yet enjoyable task. In a culture where the art is always perceived to be bigger than the artiste, and where documenting their personal lives is seldom considered important, it was quite an exercise to exhume this marvellous artiste from her grave and place her in a historical perspective, bringing her memory and contributions to Hindustani music in the public discourse. The CD that comes along with the book of her digitized and mastered soundtracks from original 78 rpms, seeks to immortalize Gauhar Jaan for readers and lovers of Hindustani music. As an Urdu poet had once said: Hum to markar bhi kitabon mein rahenge zinda Gham unhi ka hai jo mar jaayen to guzar jaate hain (Even in death I will remain immortal in the books that are written about me, Pity those who don't just die, but 'pass away' into oblivion). Vikram Sampath is the author of 'My Name is Gauhar Jaan!' The Life and Times of a Musician. Write to lounge@livemint.com Source: The Live Mint, New Delhi URL: http://www.newageislam.com/NewAgeIslamIslamicCulture_1.aspx?ArticleID=2722 |
--
Asadullah Syed