The Ilam Din fiasco and lies about Jinnah

Monday, November 29, 2010

VIEW: The Ilam Din fiasco and lies about Jinnah — Yasser Latif Hamdani

Jinnah’s record as a legislator tells us a different story altogether. He was an indefatigable defender of civil liberties. He stood for Bhagat Singh’s freedom and condemned the British government in the harshest language when no one else would

In the recent debate over the blasphemy law, a group of Jamaat-e-Islami-backed right-wing authors have come up with an extraordinary lie. It is extraordinary because it calls into question the professional integrity of the one man in South Asian history who has been described as incorruptible and honest to the bone by even his most vociferous critics and fiercest rivals, i.e. Mohammad Ali Jinnah. The lie goes something like this: ‘Ghazi’ Ilam Din ‘Shaheed’ killed blasphemer Hindu Raj Pal and was represented by Quaid-e-Azam at the trial who advised him to deny his involvement in the murder. ‘Ghazi’ and ‘Shaheed’ Ilam Din refused and said that he would never lie about the fact that he killed Raja Pal. Quaid-e-Azam lost the case and Ilam Din was hanged.

To start with, the story is entirely wrong. First of all, Jinnah was not the trial lawyer. Second, Ilam Din had entered the not guilty plea through his trial lawyer who was a lawyer from Lahore named Farrukh Hussain. The trial court ruled against Ilam Din. The trial lawyer appealed in the Lahore High Court and got Jinnah to appear as the lawyer in appeal. So there is no way Jinnah could have influenced Ilam Din to change his plea when the plea was already entered at the trial court level. Nor was Ilam Din exactly the ‘matchless warrior’ that Iqbal declared him to be — while simultaneously refusing to lead his funeral prayers. Indeed Ilam Din later filed a mercy petition to the King Emperor asking for a pardon.

The relevant case — in which Jinnah appeared — cited as Ilam Din vs. Emperor AIR 1930 Lahore 157 — makes interesting reading. It was a division bench judgement with Justice Broadway and Justice Johnstone presiding. Jinnah’s contention was that the evidence produced before the trial court was insufficient and the prosecution story was dubious. To quote the judgement, “He urged that Kidar Nath was not a reliable witness because (1) he was an employee of the deceased and, therefore, interested. (2) He had not stated in the First Information Report (a) that Bhagat Ram (the other witness) was with him, and (b) that the appellant had stated that he had avenged the Prophet. As to Bhagat Ram it was contended he, as an employee, was interested, and as to the rest that there were variations in some of the details.”

The court rejected this contention. The judgement continues that “Mr Jinnah finally contended that the sentence of death was not called for and urged as extenuating circumstances, that the appellant is only 19 or 20 years of age and that his act was prompted by feelings of veneration for the founder of his religion and anger at one who had scurrilously attacked him.” The court rejected this contention as well referring to Amir vs. Emperor, which was the same court’s decision a few years earlier. Interestingly, the curious reference to 19 or 20 years deserves some attention. Why did Jinnah as one of the leading lawyers refer specifically to an argument that had been exploded by the same court only two years earlier? That only Mr Jinnah can answer and I do not wish to speculate. Perhaps he was trying to argue what Clarence Darrow had argued successfully a few years ago in the famous Leopold and Loeb case involving two 19-year old college students who had committed the ‘perfect crime’. Clarence Darrow’s defence converted a death sentence to a life sentence.

Another corollary of the argument forwarded by our right-wing commentators is that since Jinnah defended Ilam Din in this murder trial, he favoured the ‘death sentence for blasphemy’. It is an odd derivative even for average intellects that most Pakistani ultra-rightwingers and Islamists possess. First of all, it is quite clear that Jinnah did not defend the actions of Ilam Din. He had attacked the evidence on legal grounds. Second, it is clear that there was no confession and Jinnah did not ask Ilam Din to change his plea. Third, when the court rejected Jinnah’s contentions, Jinnah’s argument was simply that a death sentence was too harsh for a man of 19 or 20, with the obvious implication that sentence should be changed to life imprisonment.

We can only conjecture as to what Jinnah’s reasons as a lawyer and politician to agree to be the lawyer for the appellant before the high court were. In any event, a lawyer’s duty is to accord an accused the best possible defence. Just because a lawyer agrees to defend an accused does not mean that the lawyer concurs with the crime. One is reminded of the famous Boston Massacre in 1770 when British soldiers opened fire and killed five civilians who were protesting against them. The British soldiers hired John Adams as a lawyer, who got five of the accused acquitted, arguing that a sentry’s post is his castle. Does that mean that John Adams was in favour of British rule in the US? If so, it is rather ironic that he was the prime mover and the guiding spirit behind the American declaration of independence. Similarly, when Clarence Darrow defended Leopold and Loeb, was he in any way suggesting that the crime that those two young men had committed was justified?

Jinnah’s record as a legislator tells us a different story altogether. He was an indefatigable defender of civil liberties. He stood for Bhagat Singh’s freedom and condemned the British government in the harshest language when no one else would. In the debate on 295-A of the Indian Penal Code, a much more sane and reasonable law than our 295-B and 295-C, Jinnah had sounded a warning against the misuse of such laws in curbing academic freedoms and bona fide criticisms. I have quoted that statement in my previous two articles.

There cannot be any question that Jinnah the legislator would have balked at the idea that his defence of a murder convict is now being used by some people to justify a law that is ten times more oppressive and draconian than the one he had cautioned against. To this day, I have only found him alone to have had the courage to state in the Assembly on September 11, 1929: “If my constituency is so backward as to disapprove of a measure like this then I say, the clearest duty on my part would be to say to my constituency, ‘you had better ask somebody else to represent you’.”

The writer is a lawyer. He also blogs at http://pakteahouse.wordpress.com and can be reached at yasser.hamdani@gmail.com

URL: www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010\11\29\story_29-11-2010_pg3_5

Chenab Nagar Ahmedis terrified of ‘hate campaigns’

Thursday, November 25, 2010

Chenab Nagar Ahmedis terrified of ‘hate campaigns’

By Afnan Khan

LAHORE: Thousands of Ahmedis of Chenab Nagar (formerly Rabwah) are living in a curfew-like situation while awaiting another disaster, as extremists keep pressurising them by running “hate campaigns” through anti-Ahmedi conferences, distribution of provocative material and inviting participants from terror-ridden areas like Waziristan, in their events.

The over 66,000 people living in this small town have been subjected to persecution and deadly attacks since the 1970s when the then parliament of former premier Zulfikar Ali Bhutto initiated a move to declare them non-Muslims.

However, the situation worsened after the killing of over 85 Ahmedis in a terrorist attack on their worship places on May 28 in Lahore this year. Community representatives in the area told Daily Times that extremist clerics were boosting their hate campaign against the community and their insecurity had reached to a record high because the so-called anti- Ahmedi conferences now comprised a large number of participants and seminary students from terror-ridden areas like Waziristan and other parts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.

They also added that the strength of these religious seminaries was increasing, as the participants from KP and southern Punjab were promoting extremist religious ideologies they were receiving from these special conferences in Chenab Nagar and its surrounding cities, including Chiniot, Jhang, Faisalabad and Sargodha.

The community members told Daily Times that the extremist seminaries were also purchasing more and more property in the surrounding localities and such a situation had made it very difficult for the Ahmedis to move around, as target killings, violence and persecution were increasing by the day.

“We used to live in harmony and respect with the members of other communities in the surrounding areas, but now it has become very suffocating for us and our children, especially after the recent terrorist attacks on our worship places in Lahore. They (extremists) are allowed by government and local authorities to launch a hate and violence spree against us in broad daylight as posters, stickers and pamphlets against us are being distributed everywhere and there is nobody to stop them,” Usman Ahmed, a resident of Chenab Nagar, stated.

He added that the government was equally responsible for what the Ahmedis were going through across the country, as they had never taken any concrete steps to end this vicious cycle of hatred in the name of religion.

“People from all classes and walks of life are living in Chenab Nagar and are waiting for another bolt from the blue after the terrorist attacks in Lahore because the hatred against us is in full swing and at the worst degree right under the nose of the authorities,” he said.

The residents also said that the teachers in schools had started singling out Ahmedi students, and a number of potential students were even being denied admissions in various government schools and institutions of the area. They said that 2010 was the most violent and tragic year for Ahmedis in the country as the number of those who had been killed this year was 99.

“This single indicator along with the increasing number of violent cases, presence of so many religious seminaries in the area and the full-throttle hate campaign against us is enough to realise that terrorists wanted to wipe us from the face of the Earth and our government’s silence over the situation is criminal,” Amir, another resident of Chenab Nagar, said.

Residents of the area said that there were several hardliner seminaries in the area but those most actively against the Ahmedis and posed a direct threat to them included Jamia Usmania, Muslim Colony, Madrassa Masjid Khatam-e-Nabuwat, Muslim Colony, Madrassa Jamia Ahrar Kot, Wasawa and Jamia Masjid, Nalka Adda.

However, the chief of Jamia Usmania, Qari Shabbir Usmani, told Daily Times that the allegations levelled against the seminaries, including Jamia Usmania, were “a bunch of lies made up by the Ahmedis”.

He said that they organised conferences only to sensitise people that the Ahmedis were non-Muslims and nobody should consider them a Muslim, adding that they neither distributed any hate material against them nor convinced anybody to kill Ahmedis or use violence against them. Qari Shabbir added that if they were really doing something illegal against the Ahmedis, then they must have faced action by the government or law enforcement agencies by now, and since they had not received any complaints, it proved their (seminaries) point. However, he alleged that the Ahmedis themselves were terrorists and if law enforcement agencies peeped into their colonies, they would find several terrorists and weapons hidden inside the residential areas. He added that Ahmedis were the real enemies of Islam and they were not only conspiring against the state but also blasphemed against the Holy Prophet (PBUH) and his followers. The Punjab government spokesman could not be reached for comment despite repeated attempts.

URL: www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010\11\25\story_25-11-2010_pg7_25