Anti Ahmadiyya Movement in Islam
27th January 1999

Chapter 6

AFTER THE WAR

Political happenings in India gave a new turn and outlook to the nationalist movement after the War. The declaration of the British Government of 20 August 1917, made during the War, recognized responsible Government as the goal of the British policy in India. As a result of it, the government deputed E.S. Montague, the Secretary of State for India, a Jew, with a small committee (the Earl of Dononghmore, Sir William Duke, B. Basu and Charles Roberts MP) to consult the Indian Government and politicians over this issue. The Secretary of State for India received addresses from deputationists and constitutional aspects with individuals and organizations of all political complexions were discussed.1

Qadiani community, a handmaid of Imperialism, got perturbed over the British declaration and felt their existence in jeopardy. Review of Religions, Qadian announced that the Ahmadiyya community was sending a deputation to meet the Secretary of State for India in order to present Ahmadiyya view-point to him. It would also wait on the Viceroy, Lord Chelmsford, at Delhi. The paper also remarked that educated people of India are demanding Home Rule, in the grant of which the Ahmadiyya community sees the ruins of its own interests.2

On 15 November 1917 a 9-man Qadiani deputation led by Zafarullah presented an address to Montague at Delhi. An extreme concern was expressed on behalf of the community over the British policy and the goal of self-government for India was regarded suicidal for religious minorities specially for Ahmadiyya community.3 Mirza Mahmud prepared an address in which he setout his views in details and went to Delhi with a delegation to wait on the Governor- General and the Secretary of State for India. The address underlined the causes, which led the people to demand self-government for India. It stressed the following points:

  1. Maltreatment shown by the English towards their subjects.
  2. A discriminatory policy adopted by the Europeans against the Indians in the sphere of social life such as railway journey, possession of arms, court trails, etc.
  3. Socio-economic problems caused by population growth.
  4. Lack of education specially technical education.4
Sir Zafarullah says that the Secretary of State was much impressed with the address and sought clarification of certain points. He also said that he had taken careful note of the suggestions made in the address, two or three of which he intended to incorporate in his report so that they should not be overlooked when final proposals would be formulated. This was the Khalifatul Masih’s debut in the field of politics and public life.5

Martial Law in Punjab

Indian participation in the War and the Montague Declaration of 1917, led Indians to expect an appreciable measure of independence. But the Mont-Ford reforms that followed in 1919 were disappointing both to the Congress and the Muslim League. To crush the emerging freedom movement, the British Government enacted Rowlatt Act in March 1919, which was based on the Sedition Committee Report. The Act legalized imprisonment without a proper trial of any person suspected of sedition or subversive activities. The arrest of some leaders brought a direct clash between the Government and the masses. A woeful tragedy took place at Jallianwala Bagh, Amritsar, on 13 April 1919. General Dyer ordered the soldiers to fire on the peaceful crowd. It resulted in the death of four hundred men and between one to two thousand wounded. Martial Law was imposed in the Punjab and a reign of terror was let loose in many parts of India.6

Qadianis had no sympathies for the oppressed Muslims of India. During the Martial Law, their missionaries visited the cities and towns of the Punjab and sang the psalm of loyalty for the British. They also spied on freedom fighters and got them arrested. Full cooperation was extended to the Martial Law functionaries7 to restore so-called peace in the country. Mirza Mahmud wrote a letter to the Viceroy at Simla, during the April agitation, explaining him that Qadianis were not involved in the hartals (strikes). He instructed his followers to keep their shops open during the strike. He formed a committee to explain the Rowlatt Act to the people. It was stressed that the Act was essential for the administrative reforms, in India. A pamphlet in Gurmikhi, meant for Sikhs, reminded them of a prophecy of a Guru of theirs, which speaks of the establishment of British Government and of its being a just and equitable government.8 The Punjab Government, in one of its public announcements, extolled the services rendered by the Qadiani community during disturbances in the Punjab.9 In a Friday address, Mirza Mahmud described the services rendered by Ahmadiyya community during the disturbances in the Punjab. In a Friday address, Mirza Mahmud described the services rendered by Ahmadiyya community during the disturbances in the Punjab, after the enforcement of Rowlatt Act in the following words:

"When a strong protest started in India against the British Government it inflamed all sections of Indian opinion. The Hindus demanded the Home Rule and Muslims demonstrated in favour of Turkish Caliphate. There was not a single organization willing to cooperate with the British. At that pervious hour every one felt afraid except the Ahmadiyya Jama'at, which in the capacity of a party, fully cooperated with the British. I remember the disturbance started over the Rowlatt Act. I sent members of my Jama'at to invite the wealthy and influential persons of surrounding villages to Qadian so that I could advise them not to take part in riots… When we requested them to refrain from taking part in Anti-British disturbances, they flew at us like hungry wolves. But we succeeded to make them understand our viewpoint. We very humbly advised them and in a beseeching way convinced them to keep away from these disturbances. That helped to promote peace in this area. Besides we sent our men in whole of the Punjab and actively worked to restore peace. That was such a dangerous time, as the English writers had admitted, that a spark of (uprisings) could have shocked the British a lot. We were, in turn, rebuked and even beaten up by the people but never turned traitors. We lived peacefully and advised others to do so." 10 In his Present to the Prince of Wales, Mirza Mahmud says: "During the period when Martial Law was in force in the Punjab and the situation was fraught with danger, so much so that in certain cases even Government officials were compelled to leave their posts and seek safety elsewhere, the members of this community not only themselves continued loyal, but also induced a large number of other people to do the same. At some places the rioter inflicted loss and injuries on the members of the community but they could not shake them from their loyalty.’11 Sir Michael O’Dwyer, Lt. Governor of Punjab in a letter dated 15 April 1919 wrote the following words to one of Mirza Mahmud’s Secretaries: ‘During the six years terms of his office, the Community under the guidance of its respected Head has throughout shown itself thoroughly loyal to the Government and eager to promote the welfare and progress of the Country. His Honour has pleasure in acknowledging the valuable opinions received from the Community in many important questions bearing on these matters, and their active assistance in connection with the prosecution of War and the maintenance of internal peace, and shall be glad to bring them to the notice of his successor, who, he is sure can rely on receiving from the Community and its respected Head the same cooperation and support."12 Afghan War

During the World War I, Afghanistan remained neutral despite German efforts. In 1919, following the assassination of his father, Amanullah ascended the throne. He sought to terminate British control on Afghanistan’s foreign affairs; this resulted in the Third Afghan War. Since Communist Revolution of Russia had changed the political scene in 1917, the Afghan War had great implication for the British foreign policy.13 The war started on 7 May 1919. The British forces advanced towards Jalalabad but met some reverses. Marshal Nadir Khan seized the Fort of Thal and the British were forced to start negotiations with Kabul. It resulted in the Treaty of Rawalpindi, which was signed in August 1919 and ratified in 1922. The British had to give up their control over the foreign policy of Afghanistan. At the very outbreak of the war, Qadianis announced their full support to the British in men, money and materials because Kabul was the country where their missionaries were stoned to death.

AlFazl Qadian states:

"Kabul has declared war on the British due to its foolishness. It is obligatory for all the Ahmadis to serve the British Government and it is our foremost duty too. Moreover, the Afghan War had a special significance for us; as Kabul is a land where our precious men were executed mercilessly without any reason. It is also closed to Ahmadiyyat and doors of truth are shut on it. For the sake of propagation of truth, it is the religious duty of the Ahmadis to join the British Army and to assist the Government in order to remove the harsh obstructions (in the way of preaching). Thus go on endeavoring to set up those branches which had been prophesized by the Promised Messiah (Mirza Ghulam Ahmad)."14 Similar views were expressed by a Missionary paper in its confidential report on the Afghan war: "Thanksgiving for the breaking down of the stronghold of Islam through the War…That today there are only two lands closed to the Gospel, Arabian and Afghanistan; and of these the former is now being opened up, and that Baghdad is already in our hands; and for the latter, who can tell what will be the result of the War proposed by the Amir of Kabul."15 In an address to Lord Reading, the then Viceroy of India, who was a Jew, Qadiani elders enumerated their services during the Afghan War by stating: "When a war broke out with the Kabul Government our Jama'at extended full support beyond our resources to the British Army. Besides other services, a double company was offered to the Government. The recruitments were stopped due to the end of the War. However more than one thousand persons offered their names for recruitment. Even the younger son of the founder, the brother of our present Imam (Mirza Mahmud), offered his services and had worked in the Transport Corps for six months in an honorary capacity." 16 The Ahmadiyya Jama'at presented an address of welcome to Sir Malcolm Hailey, Governor of the Punjab, in 1924. He, in reply to the address said: "Like my predecessor, Sir Edward Maclagen, I welcome the attitude you have adopted in political matters. You have, as a Community, shown yourself to be disciples of the doctrine that political improvement should be effected by reason and conviction, not by violent agitation or mass movement. You have, as a body, shown by your attitude in the Great War, and in our trouble with Afghanistan in 1919, that you were prepared to make sacrifices in a just cause, you have given hearty and practical support to the Territorial Movement. It would be out of place if I did not pay my tribute to your making an effort in reason in politics, and working for the stability of the society."17 Spying Activities in Russia

The War provided a good opportunity to Mirza Mahmud to send many spies in different countries in the garb of Ahmadiyya missionaries. They were dispatched specially to those countries where there was a dire need to serve the British and Zionist political interests. In close collaboration with the British Political Department, many trained spies went to the Middle East, Afghanistan, Turkey and Russia. Special importance was given to Russia, as the anti-imperialist policies of the Communist regime posed great threat to the British ascendancy in India.

To check the possible Russian advance, Britain tried to increase its influence in strategic parts of Central Asia, which provided a good base to Indian Revolutionaries to carry out anti-British activities. A steady stream of Indian patriots flowed into that region after 1917. Towards the end of 1920 a large number of Muslims migrated to Kabul and then to Tashkent. They acquired arms and military training from Russia to wage an armed struggle against the British.18 Those revolutionaries who subsequently returned to India were arrested by the British Government. They were tried in the Peshawar Conspiracy Case and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment.

In early twenties, Communist Russia embarked on a policy to crush the uprisings of Uzbeks, Turkman and Kara-kalpah dehkans, while the British sent their agents in Central Asia to counter Soviet plans. The American Consul, the French agent, Castagne and the British Col. Bailey of Indian Political Department, backed Ishqabad uprisings, where Babis had established a strong centre. Col. Bailey arrived in Tashkent in 1919. He was threatened with arrest and even execution and had to go underground. After more than a year of hide and seek, he managed to elude capture by delightful ruse of going to Bolsheviks in disguise and offering to pursue and catch him. His offer was accepted and he chased himself with alacrity into Persia early in 1920 under hail of bullets to the last.19

In Khiva and Bokhara a strong anti-Soviet and Pan-Islamist movement persisted. The Muslims waged a holy war against the Russians but did not succeed. In October 1920 Bokhara went under Soviet control. British agents from all sides flocked Central Asia to fulfil their political ends. Turk Generals Enver Pasha and Jamal Pasha were in Bokhara and Afghanistan respectively. Their presence was closely watched by the British. Jamal reached Tashkent in August 1920. He went to Kabul to start an Islamic Revolutionary League for freeing India. He organized armies in Afghanistan. He was, however, murdered at Tiflis on 21 July 1922. Enver arrived in Bokhara in October 1921. His aim was to promote alliance with Bolshevism in the fight for Islamic ideals against the Imperialism. His exploits beyond Oxus caused great anxiety to the British in India. He was killed in an ambush in 1922. 20

In 1921, Mirza Mahmud sent Molvi Muhammad Amin to spy on revolutionary centers in Central Asia. He had already been making statements concerning the setting up of missions in Bokhara, Iran, Afghanistan and other Arab countries.21 Fateh Muhammad Sayal, a Qadiani missionary, gives the brief account of Molvi Amin’s activities in Russia:

‘In 1921, we sent our friend Molvi Muhammad Amin Khan to Russia as a missionary. The relations between the British Government and Russia were constrained after the First War. He, therefore, could not acquire a passport. Molvi Sahib traveled to Iran on foot. He entered into the Russian territory through Iran. As he reached there, the Russian Government arrested him and put him in a prison on the charge of being a British spy. Molvi Sahib underwent imprisonment in different jails for two years. He bore great hardships. Many times the Russians wanted to shoot him dead. During these two years of imprisonment he was released for a few months. It helped him study the moral and religious conditions of the Muslims. He preached them to adhere firmly to the teachings of Islam. After two years when Molvi Amin returned to India our Imam (Mirza Mahmud) again sent him to Russia after a few days. This time he was accompanied by Molvi Zahur Hussain. They again entered into Russia through Iran. 22 A close study of Qadiani activities in Russia revealed that through the active support of the British Intelligence they aspired to set up a strong centre in Central Asia in the name of Ahmadiyya Mission, to sabotage the activities of the revolutionaries of India. This is also confirmed from the writings of Mirza Mahmud, specially his book ‘A Present to the Prince of Wales’ alludes to it.

Mirza Mahmud hints at Russia and Central Asia in the following words:

‘Exalted Prince’! Another prophecy of his (Promised Messiah) concerning Russia is that the Government of that country would in the end vest in the hand of Ahmadees. Other prophecies are that His (Ahmad’s) Movement will spread rapidly in Bokhara, not very long since.’23 This shows the high ambitions the Qadiani Community had nourished for their future political role in Central Asia.

In 1923, Molvi Amin again reached Russia. Many times he was arrested on the charges of spying for the British Imperialists by the Russian Government. He was lodged in jails of Ishqabad, Smarkand etc. and on the completion of his terms of imprisonment was deported to Iran or Afghanistan. But be continued to undertake his sinister missions.

Mirza Mahmud gives the following account of Molvi Amin’s mission in Russia:

‘Since Muhammad Amin Khan had no passport, as soon as he reached the first Railway Station at Qabza, he was held up on the charge of spying for the British. All that he possessed including clothes, books etc., were seized. He remained there for one month after which he was imprisoned at Ishqabad Jail. From there he was removed to Tashkent via Samarkand under the guard of Muslim Russian Police where he was jailed. During his two month's imprisonment, his statements were repeatedly recorded to prove him a British spy. When his statements could not serve their purpose they resorted to threats and tried to allure him. His photographs were taken so that he could easily be recognized and arrested again. At last he was taken to the Afghan border at Goshgi where he was deported to Herat (Afghanistan).   Since this Mujahid had determined to propagate truth in that territory, he preferred death to his return. He, anyhow, again managed to escape from the Russian Police and reached Bokhara. There he freely lived for two months but was, at last, arrested on the charge of spying for the British. He was subjected to torture and a heartrending treatment was meted out to him during his imprisonment. Subsequently under the guard of the Russian Muslim Police he was deported towards Iran.   Even after these events his thirst did not quench. He got an opportunity to escape at Kakan Railway Station from the Police custody and fled to Bokhara. All the way he traveled on foot. After one week he was arrested in Bokhara and was taken to Samarkand via Kakan. He managed to escape from Police this time too and reached Bokhara.’ 24 Molvi Amin, gives an account of his so-called missionary activities in Central Asia: "Although I had gone to Russia for the propagation of Ahmadiyyat yet I served the interest of the British Government also side by side my preaching because the interests of the Ahmadiyya sect and those of the British Government are closely interlinked with each other and whenever I preached my beliefs I must have to serve the British Government. The centre of our Ahmadiyya sect is in India, therefore, during my preaching I had to describe the religious freedom and blessings of the British rule in India." 25 In the second week of October 1924, three Qadiani agents viz, Molvi Muhammad Amin, Molvi Abdul Majid and Molvi Zahur Hussain left Qadian for Russian.26 They were briefed by the British Intelligence at Qadian before they undertook their missions. Molvi Zahur stayed at Mashhed due to his illness and Molve Amin moved to Russia. In December 1924 Molvi Zahur recovered from his illness and marched towards the Russian territory. He was arrested at Arthak Railway Section on the charge of being a British spy when he was about to board a train for Bokhara. Russian Secret Police Chelka recorded Molvi Zahur’s statements and put numerous questions to him on the relationship of the Ahmadiyya sect with the British Government, Molvi Zahur’s account of his activities throws lightly on the role of Qadiani missionaries in Russia. He writes: "The Russian Officer asked me some questions on politics and others in religion. He asked my opinion on the political movement started by Gandhi, Muhammad Ali and Shaukat Ali against the British Government. I answered that we Ahmadis worked under the guidance of our Imam. We did not take part in any movement that disturbed peace in the country and amounted to treason. We actively cooperated with the rulers to maintain peace wherever we lived."27 Molvi Zahur remained in Russian jails for about two years. In 1926, Mirza Mahmud requested the British Government to secure his release from the Communist regime. The British envoy in Moscow was asked to take up the matter with Russia, which he did to save the life of Molvi Zahur.

In an address to Lord Irwin, the then Viceroy of India, Qadiani Community expressed their utmost gratitude for securing the release of Molvi Zahur from the Russian prison:

"On this occasion, we express our gratitude to the British Government for the help which it provided to us. A few days ago, during the time of His Excellency’s Viceroyalty, on of our missionaries Molvi Zahur Hussain, who was under arrest in Russia that had impaired his health; had been released and was safely brought to our religious centre (Qadian). We again extend our thanks on this occasion (for securing his release)." 28 It may, however, be mentioned that in 1937 certain well-informed Qadiani dissidents started a movement against the papacy of Mirza Mahmud Ahmad. They leveled grim charges of immorality against him and furnished very ‘solid proofs’ in support of their allegations. Prominent among them were Fakhar-ud-din Multani and Abdul Rahman Misri. Moulvi Amin had friendly terms with some of them. He threatened to expose those political and clandestine activities of the Jama'at in which he himself had seriously been involved for quite a long time. Fateh Muhammad Sayal, a blue-eyed boy of Mirza Mahmud, picked up a quarrel with him and hacked him to death. No legal action could, however, be taken against him as a parallel Government existed under the dictatorship of Mirza Mahmud in Qadian.29

Turkey

After the 1st War, all that was left for the Turks to rule independently was a small area of the Black Sea. But when with the encouragement of the British, Greece invaded the Mediterranean coast of Anatolia, the resilient spirit of the Turks reasserted itself. Mustafa Kamal, so had fought brilliantly during the war, began to rally the forces of resistance in eastern Anatolia. A new national assembly meeting in Ankara elected him President and rejected the harsh terms of the Treaty of Sevres of August 1920 which would have left Turkey helpless and deprived of some of its richest provinces. The bitter Greco-Turkish War of 1920-22 ended with the decisive defeat of the Greeks. When Mustafa Kamal’s forces advanced towards the Dardanelles to drive the Greeks out of European Turkey, a clash with the British was only narrowly averted.

Mirza Mahmud sent his agents and spies under missionary cover to carry out subversive activities in Turkey. He, in collaboration with the British Intelligence sent Mustafa, the Lesser an Indian Muslim from Benaras along with Miraj Din, a notorious C.I.D. Superintendent of India, to Turkey for the assassination of Mustafa Kamal. He was arrested before he could make any attempt on Kamal’s life.30 He confessed his guilt and gave the names of those Turks who had been won over by the British Government through money. He also disclosed that he had been involved in the assassination of Ata Turk. Muslims greatly resented the British conspiracy. 31

During the post War days when the British influence sharply decreased in the wake of Turkish nationalist movement, Qadiani infitrators landed in Istanbul and other parts of Turkey but were spotted and many of them arrested. Mirza Mahmud deplored the arrests of these Qadianis by the Turkish authorities.32

The Treaty of Sevres (1920) provided for a Kurdish State in the predominantly Kurdish areas of the collapsed Ottoman Empire. When Mustafa Kamal rejected the Treaty, the Imperialist plan of a Kurdish State met its own death. After three years when the Treaty of Lausane was concluded on 23 July 1923 there was a reference to that state. In 1924, Ata Turk abolished the institution of Khilafat.

In February 1925 Kurds rose in revolt against him. They, under the leadership of Sheikh Saad, a hereditary Chief of Naqshbandi order wanted to revive Khilafat.33 Mustafa Kamal got alarmed at the Kurd uprisings and announced that Turkey was in danger because England was behind the Kurd revolt. It took two months to smash the revolt. Special military tribunals-called the Tribunals of Independence were set up. Forty-six chiefs were hanged including Sheikh Saad.

Mustafa Kamal disclosed in the Assembly:

England was behind it all. England had always used Kurds to injure Turkey in the World War. She had sent her agents, Lawrence and Noel to rouse them to stab Turkey in the back, at the Treaty of Sevres they had promised to make them into a separate State; her agents had been found there again this time, arming and inciting the tribes. England wanted Mosul and its oil. The Kurds were the key to Mosul and the oil of Iran. She was using this back handed blow to force Turkey to give up Mosul. Had not Sheikh Saad gone into battle shouting for the Sultan Caliph, for Vaheeddin, the traitor? They all know the connection between England and that old toad. And the opposition leaders had joined forces with this gang to break the Republic and destroy their Turkey. They were traitors, and they had been at work throughout the whole country stirring up the people. The Kurds were beaten, but Turkey was still in grave peril. The danger came from within, the country must be purged.34 In 1958, after 33 years of revolt, Mirza Mahmud disclosed that Sheikh Saad Kurd was in fact an Ahmadi. He says, ‘Saad Pasha, the Kurd leader who rebelled during the time of Mustafa Kamal was an Ahmadi. He was tried in a military court and his statement was published in the Turkish Press from where it was recorded by the Egyptian press.' 35 This proves that Sheikh Saad’s movement was inspired by the British Imperialism and Qadiani agents were actively behind it. There are evidences that Qadiani agents continued to operate in Turkey quite sometime. On 16 August 1926, AlFazl Qadian stated: ‘Upheavals in Turkey had been proving the disloyalty of Turk functionaries and testify to the prophecies of the Promised Messiah, although the erstwhile Ottoman Empire had been completely replaced by a new regime.’ 36 Khilafat Movement

After signing the armistice, the Allies’ hostility toward Turkey took a further militant turn which alarmed the Muslims of the subcontinent. A Muslim Conference was held at Lukhnow on 26 January 1919 under the Presidentship of Maulana Abdul Bari and the Khilafat Committee was formed. A Khilafat Conference was convened at Delhi on 22 September 1919 to chalk out a plan of action for making the movement successful. It was resolved to boycott victory celebrations, hold protest meetings and organize a movement if an unjust treaty was imposed on Turkey.

Qadianis showed increasing interest in the Khilafat movement. Mirza Mahmud wrote a paper for the All India Muslim Conference, which was held at Lukhnow on 21 September 1919 to consider the question of the future of Turkey. In his paper he emphasized that loyalty to the British Government must be maintained as a religious duty since the Muslims had received many favours from the British Government. The Ahmadis were by no means prepared to accept the Sultan as the Khalifa in the true sense of the word. The person rightly entitled to be Khalifa can be no other than 'this humble writer'.37 And ‘The temporal Sovereign of the Ahmadiyya Community of India is His Majesty George V, King of Great Britain and Ireland and Emperor of India’, he added.38

Mirza Mahmud stated that among the Allied powers, the only one expressing any sympathy for Turkey and willing to render any help to her was Great Britain. It was the same Power, which had been advocating the cause of the King of Hejaz in the Peace Conference, as had been more than once admitted by the Kibla a semi-official organ of the Hejaz Government. All these good services of the British Government should always be borne in mind by the Musalmans whatever the course of action they might choose to adopt, lest in their precipitancy they should lose the last friend they have, and be guilty of ingratitude,39 he claimed.

He justified the British callous policy against the Ottoman Empire by stating that it had great sympathies for Muslims. The Muslims should realize, that since Britain had to take account of the military and monetary services of other nations, which were far more than those rendered by the Muslims to bring the War to a victorious conclusion and certain agreements had been entered into by the belligerent states, the fulfillment of which was being pressed upon Britain by the powers concerned, these things had been preventing Britain from advocating the cause of Muslims to the extent the latter would desire. He, in the end, advised that under these circumstances, no agitation should be started or allowed to start as might create impression that Britain had not been dealing fairly with the Musalmans. The Musalmans should do all they could to strengthen the hands of Great Britain and not to create internal difficulties in the country. 40

He then emphasized in his paper:

"It is all the more necessary to remember this, because there are many selfish people, who would like to take advantage of the present situation, and use threat instead, where they should use prayer, and unfriendly pressure instead of friendly request. Since Britain has already been advocating the Muslim cause, the proper course for the Muslims should be to express their gratitude for what it had already done in the past, and request it to make increased efforts in the same direction in the future. There should be no conference, lectures, collection of funds, distribution of pamphlets and books, sending money to the Committee in England but only a standing committee may be appointed to gather arguments in support of proposed prepositions." 41 In mid December 1919, a Qadiani delegation led by Zafarullah waited on Lt. Governor of Punjab, Sir Edward Maclagen. After expressing their utmost gratitude to the British Government and enumerating their services in the 1st World War 42, the address dwelt on the Turkish question: 'Religiously speaking, we do not admit owing any allegiance to the Sultan. We hold that only a successor of the Promised Messiah is entitled to be the spiritual Head of the Musalmans, and for our temporal Sovereign we recognize only the power under whose rule we live'.43 The copies of address were circulated among members of the British Parliament to introduce them with the ‘widely’ spreading Ahmadiyya Jama'at and its political belief. 44

During the hey days of the Khilafat movement, Mirza Mahmud claimed to have received an invitation from Maulana Abdul Bari Farangi-Mahli for participation in Allahbad Khilafat Conference. He, on the one hand, apprehended attacks from Khilafat leaders and on the other hand a love and goodwill for his brethren and an earnest desire to be of some service to Islam, persuaded him to acquaint them with his views on the subject regardless of the manner in which the same might be received. 45

He sent a delegation with a paper giving Qadiani viewpoint on Khilafat. He raised certain political questions about the justice of the mandate system in the Arab world and the Jewish settlement in Palestine. Lavan aptly questions, "Could one imagine such action being taken by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad or by Nur-ud-diin? Qadiani Ahmadiyya participation at Allahbad, even at the possible cost of future persecution from the Sunni Community indicated that the Ahmadis had gone beyond deputations and letters to the government. Now they were ready for direct confrontation with the nationalists, PanIslamic and Khilafatist-Oriented Muslims." 46

Qadianis and Christians, in their private meetings, expressed satisfaction over the subjugation of the Muslim countries. In a Confidential Report, a Chrisitan paper observes:

"Hindu-Mohammadan bond on Khilafat issue are increasing. It is strange to find Hindus and Muslim fraternizing in this way. One wonders how much farther it will go, and whether it is true fraternity or temporary advantage … But further, it appears to most Christians that the time, long foretold, has come when the fall of the great Gentile power, which for long centuries has trodden down the Holy City Jerusalem and the Holy Nation, the Jews, must take place."47 Non-Cooperation

Owing to the most extraordinary events which occurred one after the other, starting with the passing of the Rowlatt Bill, Amritsar tragedy, Treaty of Sevres and Khilafat agitation, the program of non-cooperation seemed inevitable. In August 1920 the non-cooperation movement was at its swing. The people were asked to surrender all titles and honorary offices conferred by the British Government and refuse to attend official and semi-official functions organized by the Government. The withdrawal of students from the Government institutions, boycott of British courts and foreign goods were advocated.

To pacify strong anti-British sentiments, Mirza Mahmud strongly criticized the idea of non-cooperation against the Government and underlined its main implications for the Muslims of India at large.48 He was obviously motivated more by love for his British masters than any sympathy for the Muslims aspirations, otherwise he would have upheld the cause of independence.

Hijrat

Non-cooperation was enforced by the hijrat movement. A section of ulema preached hijrat from the subcontinent to Afghanistan. The Kabul Government, at first, sympathized with the movement but in the end could not accommodate the influx of muhajirs.49 It forced many Muslims to return to India. Some made their way to Russia and became protagonist of Communism. They subsequently formed the Communist party in India and launched certain terrorist movements for the end of the British rule in the subcontinent. Russia set up a large number of training comps in Central Asia for those firebrand revolutionaries.50

During the hijrat and non-cooperation movements, Mirza Mahmud wrote a pamphlet to explain Ahmadiyya political stance. He condemned the idea of Jehad, bitterly opposed the Hijrat and questioned the religious and legal soundness of the fatwas given for such movements. He denounced those who preached crusade against the British and resorted to an abusive language against the Ulema and Hindu leaders for misguiding masses and arraying them against the British Government.51 In the end, he advised the Muslims to adopt peaceful method of expressing their views instead of agitational measures. Sultan of Turkey should only be called ruler revered by many Muslims, he emphasized, and not the caliph of all the Muslims of world. He offered to pay fifty thousand rupees and services of all of his foreign missionaries at the disposal of the Muslims, if his above referred proposal was endorsed.52

Address to Lord Reading

On 23 June 1921 the Ahmadiyya Jama'at presented an address of welcome to Lord Reading, the Jew Viceroy of India, setting forth their utmost and unflinching loyalty to the British Crown and making certain suggestions regarding the internal Government of India. They referred to the Near East question and the future of Caliphate, and pointed out that Muslims entertained misgivings that the freeing of Hejaz from Turkish control might mean the bringing of it under the control of a European power. Mr. Churchill, the Secretary of State for Colonies, had mentioned a scheme wherein "an annual subsidy to Hejaz Government was promised provided the latter should undertake to maintain internal peace and put its foreign policy under the control of Great Britain. It amounted to complete subject, with the difference that Great Britian would rule Hejaz, not directly but through a Muslim Chief."

The address goes on to say: "If the Hejaz Government is not able to take care of itself it may better be put under Turkish control subject to the same conditions under which Mr. Churchill proposes to place it under British Control." 53 Lord Reading paid tribute to the services rendered by Qadiani community during the War and expressed his full satisfaction over their loyality.54

Sawarajist Attacked

In early 20s we see Qadianis denouncing the movements launched by Sawarajist and the Congress. They bitterly opposed Mahatma Gandhi's movements of satyagarah and sawaraj. Their papers came out with sharp criticism of Gandhi and stood staunchly with the Government. To combat mass movement and get the Ahmadis trained to meet future challenges, Mirza Mahmud called on Ahmadi youth to join the British Army. He requested the British to establish a double company of Ahmadi soldiers. This would help create sectarian atmosphere among Ahmadi troops, some of whom, he asserted, were suffering subtle and even overt discrimination because of their religious beliefs.55 The Qadiani press also attacked the use of the political poem, psalm and song as means to express nationalist feeling. They interpreted the concept of sawaraj not in the sense of self-rule but gave a meaning of spiritual salvation to it. It was like the ideas of non-violence and self-determination. Hindu Muslim unity was half-truth. ‘The whole truth was God whose incarnation and manifestation was Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani, only his message (Ahmadiyyat) is based on truth.’ 56

References

  1. Lal Bahdurr, The Muslim League, Book Traders Lahore, 1979, P.123
  2. Review of Religions, Qadian October-November, 1917
  3. Ahmadiyya Address Delhi, 15 November, 1917 Magazine Press, Qadian P.13 See Also Malik Salahuddin MA Ashab-i-Ahmad, Vol XI, Rabwah, 1962 PP.73-75
  4. Review of Religions, December, 1917
  5. Sir Zafarullah, Ahmadiyat, London P.238
  6. Y.B. Mathur, Growth of Muslim Politics in India, P.138
  7. Tarikh-e-Ahmadiyya vol.V p.248
  8. Lavan Spencer. Ahmadiyya Movement, Delhi, 1974 P.132
  9. AlFazl Qadian, 10 May, 1919
  10. AlFazl Qadian 4 April 1938
  11. Mirza Mahmud, A Present to His Royal Highness, The Prince of Wales Qadian, 1921 P.9
  12. Mirza Mahmud Ahmad, Hindu Muslim Problem and its Solution, 1927 P.26
  13. AlFazl Qadian, 10 May, 1919
  14. AlFazl Qadian, 27 May, 1919
  15. News and Notes, Series VIII, No.2, June 1919 (Strictly Confidential)
  16. AlFazl Qadian,4 July, 1921
  17. Mirza Mahmud Ahmad, Hindu-Muslim Problem and its Solution, P.3
  18. Josef Korbel, Danger in Kashmir, Princeton University Press, USA, 1966, P.28
  19. Olaf Caroe, Soviet Empire, MacMillan Co London, 1967 P.115
  20. Alexander Benningsen and Chantal Lemercier Quelquejay, Islam in Soviet Russia, PallMaill Press London, 1967, P. 85
  21. Mirza Mahmud Ahmad's Address, 17 March, 1919 Qadian, P.104
  22. Fateh Muhammad Sayal, Jama'at Ahmadiyya Ki Islami Khidhmat, Lahore 1927, P.30
  23. Mirza Mahmud Ahmad, A Present to H.R.H. The Prince of Wales, Qadian, 1922, P.93
  24. AlFazl Qadian 14 August, 1923
  25. AlFazl Qadian, 28 September, 1923
  26. Tarikh-e-Ahmadiyyat Vol. V, P.443
  27. Molvi Zahur Hussain, Aap Beeti, Qadian, P.34
  28. AlFazl Qadian, 8 March, 1927
  29. See Ch. AFzal Haq, Tarikh-e-Ahrar, P.189
  30. Agha shorish Kashmiri, Terik-e-Khatame Nabuwat, Lahore, 1976
  31. Maulana Imanullah Khan, Kamal Atta Turk Lahore, P.124
  32. AlFazl Qadian 11 April, 1921
  33. Cap. Sheikh A Waheed, The Kurds, Lahore, 1955 P.163
  34. H.C. Armstrong, Grey Wolf, Reprint Gosha Adab Qutta, 1978, PP.264-266
  35. AlFazl Rabwah, 18 February 1958
  36. AlFazl Qadain, 16 August, 1926
  37. Tarikh Vol. V, P.249
  38. Mirza Mahmud Ahmad, The Future of Turkey, Qadian, 1919
  39. Mirza Mahmud Ahmad, The Future of Turkey, Qadian, 1919
  40. Ibid
  41. Ibid
  42. AlFazl Qadian, 22 December, 1919
  43. Spencer, Ahmadiyya Movement P.133
  44. AlFazl Qadian, 12 April, 1920
  45. Lavan, op, cit. P.134
  46. Spencer, op, cit. P.133
  47. News and Notes, Series VIII, No.7 November, 1919 (Confidential)
  48. J.d. Shams, Qayam-i-Pakistan Aur Jama'at Ahmadiyya, Rabwah, 1949, P.17
  49. Dr. Ishtiaq Hussain, Ulema in Politics, P. 263
  50. Josef Korbel, Danger in Kashmir P.283
  51. AlFazl Qadian,3. &7 June,1920
  52. AlFazl Qadian, 4 April, 1936
  53. Spencer op, cit. P.135
  54. AlFazl Qadian 4 July 1921 and Review of Religions Qadian June, 1921
  55. Spencer, op. cit, P. 135
  56. Ibid