MIRZA FAMILY AND THE MUTINY OF 1857
Mirza Ghulam Ahmed of Qadian, District Gurdaspur, the founder of the Ahmadiyya sect was born in 1839. He was descended from a Moghal family of Samarkand, which emigrated the Punjab in 1530 and settled in the Gurdaspur district. For several generations the family held offices of respectability under the imperial Government and it was only when the Sikhs became powerful the it fell into poverty.
MIRZA GHULAM AHMAD’S CLAIMS AND MUSLIM REACTION.
During the reign of Ranjit Singh, however, Mirza Ghulam Ahmed’s father, Ghulam Murtaza, was received back into favour and with his brothers, performed efficient services in the Maharaja’s army on the Kashmir frontier and at other places. On the annexation of the Punjab by the British, jagirs of the family were resumed but a pension of Rs.700 was granted to Ghulam Murtaza and his brothers and they retained their proprietary rights in Qadian and the neighboring village. The family did excellent services during the mutiny of 1857.
Mirza Ghulam Ahmed first came to notice in 1876 when he claimed to receive revelations direct from God. In 1883 he published revelation referring to himself as a messenger and Prophet. In 1891 he declared himself to be the Promised Mehdi or Messiah of the Muslim faith, a claim which led to the issue of fatwas in 1876-1891 condemning him as an infidel by leading ‘ulemas’. Being a skilled theologian and dialectician, however, he soon won over a large number of people to his tenets, though he was of course condemned by all orthodox Muhammadans as an impostor and heretic. The beliefs of the Ahmadis are briefly summarized in Mirza’s decalogue which he called the ten conditions of `Baiat’ (initiation). In them sympathy with all persons, Muslim or non-muslims is enjoined, and it is asserted that the conquest of the world to Islam is to be effected by peace and not by war. Mirza’s speeches and writings and his proselytizing zeal naturally led to some ill-feeling, yet, so far as is known, there is not a single incident on record in which his followers have been denied the use of mosques of Muhammadan praying-grounds or have in any way been molested, except in one case at Cuttack where some convert to Ahmadiyyaism wished to change the form of worship in the principal mosque in the town - a course to which the rest of the Muhammadan population naturally objected.
PROPHESIES ABOUT LEKHRAM AND ABDULLAH ATHIM (1891-97)
Mirza Ghulam Ahmed proved to be a greater danger communally than religiously, owing to his prophecies foretelling the deaths of his opponents. In 1886 and again in 1893 he issued notices prophesying the death of Pandit LekhRam by violence. This "Prophecy" was fulfilled by the murder of (Pandit Lekh Ram on March the 6th, 1897. Ghulam Ahmed’s prophecy naturally aroused suspicion against him of complicity in the murder. Government shared the suspicion and a search warrant was issued for the search of Mirza Ghulam Ahmed’s house at Qadian. Nothing incriminating, however, was found.
Pandit Lekh Ram’s history is not without interest. He was at one time employed in the North – West Frontier Province Police, but owing to immorality and neglect of duty was reduced in rank and eventually resigned In 1884. He subsequently became a prominent Arya Samaj preacher.
The immediate reactions of Lekh Ram’s murder on Hindu-Muhammadan relations were considerable. The first result was reconciliation between the two sects into which, the Arya Samaj had split. The orthodox Hindus and Sikhs sympathized with the Arya Samaj, who, however, somewhat alienated Sikh sympathy by comparing Lekh Ram to Guru Gobind Singh. The situation at the time was further complicated by the fact that five or six murders of Hindus by Muhammadans had recently occurred and appeared to have been more or less due to fanaticism. Agitation, however, was chiefly confined to the educated classes in Lahore, Amritsar, Ludhiana, Hoshiarpur, Ferozepore and Peshawar and especially noticeable among the student class. Ill feeling was stirred up by the Arya Community but no outbreak occurred as a result and the situation gradually returned to normal. A proposal to put Mirza Ghulam Ahmed on security under section 107, C.P.C., was considered but did not materialize.
Mirza Ghulam Ahmed’s prophecies about this time began to attract wider attention. He prophesied the death of Christian opponent Abdullah Athem, who died within the period foretold by Mirza. In 1897 Dr. Clark, a C.M.S.(Church Missionary Society of London) missionary, brought a case against him under section 107, C.P.C., alleging that he had deputed a man to murder him. Mirza Ghulam Ahmed was discharged but at the same time he was warned by the trying magistrate to desist from publishing inflammatory and provocative pamphlets, and was told that unless he adopted a moderate tone he could not fail but bring himself within the reach of the law.
DEATH OF MIRZA 1897 – May 1908
Down to his death in May 1908, Mirza Ghulam Ahmed continued to propagate his faith with remarkably little opposition from orthodox Muhammadans. There was of course occasions when his teachings were actively resented, as for example, at Amritsar in November 1905, when the Police had to escort him from a public meeting to save him from an assault. Orthodox opinion was aroused against him on that occasion by his eating and drinking on the platform from which he was speaking during the Holy Month of ‘Ramzan’. When not carried away by his proselytizing zeal and extravagances in debate, then he often made use of language, which did not really reflect his true opinions or even his teachings. Mirza’s general outlook on other religions appears to have been tolerant, if at times somewhat inconsistent. Thus, while he prophesied the speedy death of his enemies he declared that Muhammadans must allow the members of all other religions to live in peace; and likewise while condemning the whole Christian religion as false and anti-Christ, he nevertheless believed in Christ as a mighty prophet of God, not himself divine, but a divine messenger, who died (according to the old tale believed by Muhammadans and Hindus) in Kashmir. Speaking at a public meeting in Lahore in September 1904, he remarked that he did not consider all non-Muslim faiths false, and added that it had been revealed to him that Ram Chandra and Krishna were true men of God and that he had no patience with those who spoke ill of them. He considered Baba Nanak as a true worshipper of God.
LOYALITY TO THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT
His attitude towards Government was throughout one of loyalty. In 1895 he published a pamphlet explaining his attitude towards the British Government in which he denounced ‘jehad’ and enjoined loyalty and goodwill towards Government.
HAKIM’S NURUDDIN, THE SUCCESSOR (1908 – 1914)
On his death in 1908 he was succeeded by Hakim Nur-ud-Din in opposition to instructions left by him that Ahmadiyya affairs should be controlled by an Anjuman. Nur-ud-Din was born at Bhera in 1841. His father was a well-to-do person, having a printing press of his own in Lahore. His family claimed descent from Omar, the 2nd Khalifa (of Rasoolullah saaw). Nur-ud-Dkin from his boyhood showed a tendency towards religion. At the age of 12 he began to study Arabic with the help of his elder brother, and while still young came to Lahore with his father for further study in Islamic theology, logic and philosophy. He later devoted much of his time to the study of Medicine and afterwards went to Rampur, Bhopal, Rohilkhand and Delhi for a higher course in Arabic and theology. He went to Mecca and Medina and passed a good deal of his time with the `Ulemas’ of the country.
On his return he was considered to be the foremost and most learned `moulvi’. For sometime he worked as a teacher in a school at Pind Dadan Khan, but finding this work unsuited to his taste he left it and went to his home at Bhera where he began to practice as a physician. The efficacy of his treatment and his reputation for learning won for him the situation of ‘Shahi Hakim’ in the Kashmir State, which position he occupied for about 10 years. In or about 1881, Nur-ud-Din came in contact with Mirza Ghulam Ahmed of Qadian. He soon imbibed the doctrines and beliefs professed by Mirza Ghulam Ahmed and entirely abandoned himself to religious matters and particularly to the tenets and doctrines of the Ahmadiyya faith. Nur-ud-Din wrote several books of which `Faz-ul-Kitab’ is the most noteworthy. It is a commentary on Christianity and was written under special instructions from Mirza Ghulam Ahmed.
Nur-ud-Din commanded great respect among the Ahmadiyya sect and was considered to be the chief pillar of their faith. It was for this reason that on the death of Mirza Ghulam Ahmed the leading men of the Ahmadiyya sect elected him as their Khalifa, which position he held till his death on the 13th March. 1914. During his Khilifat, Nur-ud-Din spent most of his time in Qadian and confined his sole attention to the propagation of the Ahmadiyya tenets and doctrines, a duty which he performed with great zeal and fervour.
SEPARATIST TENDENCY AND PRO-TURK ELEMENTS (1914)
Some three years before the death of Nur-ud-Din a separatist tendency was noticeable among the educated members of the community who resented the doctrine enunciated by Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud, the son or Mirza Ghulam Ahmed, that any Muhammadan who did not accept the ten conditions of `Baiat’ (initiation) laid down by the late Mirza was `Kafir’. 1 Some of these men, possible to gain popularity among the orthodox Muhammadan public, took part in the pro-Turkish agitation at the time of the Tripolitian and Balkan wars and were actively disloyal. Of these Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din, Dr. Mirza Yaqub Beg, M.Sadr-ud-Din and Dr. Muhammad Hussain were the most prominent in the pro-Islamic movements of the time. They attracted, however, very few followers among the Ahmadis.
HAKIM’S DEATH AND SPLIT (1914)
The death of Nur-ud-Din divided the sect into two parties; one party favoured the succession of Muhammad Ali, M.A., editor of the "Review of Religions", and the other party, which commanded a majority, selected Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud, the son of the founder of the sect. Muhammad Ali’s colleagues formed a separate society in Lahore where they founded the Ahmadiyya Anjuman-i-Ishaat-i-Islam and a college of the same name. The "Review of Religions" was also brought to Lahore. The Labore party consists of the mopre educated Ahmadis, who look upon the founder of the sect as an apostle, not in the literal but in the metaphorical sense, and do not ex-communicate non-Ahmedi Muslims. They regard Mirza Ghulam Ahmed as a religious reformer but not as a Prophet. Their views are in sharp distinction to those of the Qadian sect which rejects the doctrine of the finality of prophethood in Muhammad. The mutual animosity between these two sections has often expressed itself in bitter criticism of each other’s religious doctrines. Of the two sections the Qadiani party has been the more bitter. In 1919 it made a direct attack on the Lahore section and declared that its leaders deserved according to Islamic Law to be murdered. To this attack, Muhammad Ali, the president of the Lahore Anjuman, replied at length accusing the Qadianis of spreading false rumours against the Lahore section. There is little doubt that the two sections are bitterly opposed to each other, but their disputes have so far been settled out of court.
FIRST WORLD WAR
From 1914 to 1918 the Ahmadis were politically quiescent. Their activities, such as they were, were mainly confined to public lectures which were not particularly well attended. Their record during the Great Wear was one of continuous loyalty. They subscribed to Government war loans, and towards the end of the war offered a double company of Ahmadis which, however, was never formed owing to the termination of the war. A territorial unit was subsequently raised.
VIEW ON SELF GOVERNMENT
In 1917 the pronouncement of progressive self-government for India stimulated the interest of the Qadian section in politics and the Khalifa was not slow to seize the opportunity to present the opinions of his sect. He at once protested against the proposal to make India self-governing basing his objections largely on the unrestrained religious intolerance prevalent in India. At the same time he declared himself in favour of racial equality, wider education, industrial progress and increased Indianization. Again in 1921 the Qadian branch presented an address to the Secretary of State for India in which it was stated that India did not stand in need of important and far-reaching reforms but demanded the abolition of racial distinctions and wider education. The address stressed the state of religious intolerance in India and asked that so long as religious prejudice retained its sway over the minds of the people, the British element should predominate in India and in the government of the country.
KHILAFAT, HIJRAT, NON-COOPERATION MOVEMENTS 1919
They took no part in the Muhammadan agitation over the Turkish question beyond expressing the opinion that consideration should be paid to the feelings of the Muhammadan world, and admitted frankly that they owned no spiritual allegiance to the Sultan, but recognized, as their temporal sovereign, the Power under whose rule they lived. They were opposed to the ‘hijrat’ movement, maintaining that the Islamic conditions governing the necessity for ‘hijrat’ had not been fulfilled. The Khilafat and non-cooperation movements found them firmly on the side of Government. The Qadiani section published pamphlets on the "Turkish Peace" and "Non-cooperation and Islam" in which non-cooperation, ‘hijrat’ and ‘jehad’ were un-qualifyingly condemned. Throughout the Punjab disturbances of 1919 they remained loyal.
SHUDDHI MOVEMENT (1923)
In 1923, Ahmadis began to come to notice prominently in connection with their campaign to oppose the spread of the ‘Shudhi’ movement. ‘Tabligh’ organizations had existed for many years before, as for example, the `Anjuman-i-Ishaat-i-Ahmadiya’, Lahore, founded in 1906 by Mirza Ghulam Ahmed and the Anjuman-i-Ishaat-i-Islam of Qadian, but had not attracted much attention until opposition to the late Swami Shardhanand’s ‘Shudi’ work gave the Ahmadis an opportunity which they were quick to seize to pose as the champions of Islam and the antagonists of the Arya Samaj. This antagonism which dates from the murder of Pandit Lekh Ram has subsequently become very bitter.
MIRZA MAHMOOD’S VISIT TO EUROPE (1924)
In 1924 Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad visited Europe with a party of 12 secretaries. The party visited Rome, Paris, London and Venice. Reports were subsequently received that Mirza had been in touch with communists and German nationalists, but there is no reason to regard them as true. It is of interest to note that the Ahmadis are much interested in Russia as they believe in a prophecy, which promises their predominance in Moscow one day.
AHMADIS KILLED IN KABUL (1924 – 25)
The proselytizing zeal of the Ahmadis abroad has never met with any serious opposition except in Afghanistan. In September 1918, it was reported that the Ahmadiyya movement was slowly but steadily spreading through Kabul and parts of Afghanistan. Information about the same time showed that the Ahmadis as a whole were distinctly anti-Afghan and that they were preaching that Afghanistan was the ‘dar-ul-harb’ whereas India was ‘dar-us-salam’. This attitude was no doubt due to the stoning of two Ahmadi Maulvis a few years previously and to the general attitude of repression adopted towards the Ahmadis by the then Amir of Afghanistan. At the end of August, 1924, an Ahmadi missionary named Niamatullah Khan was stoned to death at Kabul for heresy. His execution was denounced not only by the Ahmadis in India but also by most of the orthodox Muslim press.
In February 1925, two Qadiani shopkeepers in Kabul were also stoned to death for heresy. They had been convicted by the ‘mullahs’ of heresy, and their sentences received the approval of the Afghan official authorities as a Police Superintendent and 15 Constables were present at the execution. Ahmadi meetings of protest were held throughout India. And protests were also raised by the Ahmadis in England. The sensation caused, restrained the Amir as no further executions took place. After these executions there were rumours that the Ahmadis contemplated sending 'jathas’ to Kabul to propagate the Ahmadi faith, but the proposal never materialised. The relations of the Ahmadis with the present King of Afghanistan (Amanullah Khan) appear to be cordial, for on the occasion of his recent visit to England the Ahmadiyya community England presented him with an address of welcome.
ARYA SAMAJ MILITANCY (1927)
In 1927 the Muhammadan agitation arising out of the 'Rangila Rasul’ case gave the Amadis another opportunity of trying to reconcile themselves; with orthodox Muhammadans and of championing Islam. Even before the ‘Rangila Rasul’ agitation, the Lahore sect had gradually come to be regarded as the spokesmen of Islam against the Arya Samaj. Pamphlets issued in which it was stated that they did not regard Mirza of Qadian as their `Nabi’ and that anyone who did so was a `kafir’, but (consider him) merely as a religious reformer and guide, made it easier for the orthodox Muhammadans to follow their lead. Orthodox opinion, particularly that of almost the whole of the educated class in Lahore, veered strongly in their favour and in a short space of time they became the leaders of Muslim opinion in Lahore. During the ‘Rangila Rasul’ controversy the Lahore section took a comparatively small part in the agitation. Its members, however, were interested in the Muslim economic boycott of Hindus and were undoubtedly partly responsible for the opening of Muslim shops in Lahore to cut out Hindu shopkeepers. In August, 1927 the Lahore sect drew much attention to itself by the issue of provocative communal articles in the ‘Light’ of August the 16th, one of its principal organs. The leading article entitled "Fight to the Finish" was a practically undisguised incitement to violence, while other articles were extremely offensive and calculated to spread class hatred. The editor was presented under section 153-A, I.P.C. and convicted.
INFLAMMATORY POSTER (1927)
The communal disturbances at Lahore in May, 1927, and their sequels, the Muhammadan agitation arising out of the acquittal of the author of the ‘Rangila Rasul’ pamphlet ridiculing the Prophet of Islam, the publication of an even more scurrilous article entitled "A trip to Hell" published in an Arya magazine, the Risala Vartman of Amritsar, the conviction of the editor and proprietor of the Muslim Outlook for contempt of court in questioning the integrity and impartiality of the High Court Judge who had acquitted the author of `Rangila Rasul’ Pamphlet and the subsequent unjustified Muhammadan attack on the High Court itself, were all exploited by the Qadianis and made the excuse for communal propaganda. Following the Lahore riots, communal ill feeling was still further intensified in Lahore by the production of inflammatory posters beating the signatures of Mirza of Qadian himself. At other places posters were issued by Mirza advising Muhammadans to keep a ‘lathi’ by them even at prayer time. Publicity, which would certainly not otherwise have been obtained, was ensured for the 'Risala Vartman’ article by the issue of an inflammatory poster by Mirza quoting at length from it. This was proscribed as it gave undesirable publicity to the article itself. The genuine Mohammedan apprehension aroused by the acquittal of the author of the ‘Rangila Rasul’ pamphlet lest the law as it stood was powerless to punish malicious attacks on the founders of religions was subordinated to a desire to seek revenge from the community which had been responsible for attacks on the Prophet, and possibly explained, though it did not justify, the prominence given by the Ahmadis to such attacks.
OUTLOOK CASE (1927)
Meanwhile the prosecution of the editor of the ‘Risala Vartman’ and of the author of the article entitled ‘A trip to Hell’ had been ordered under section 153-A., I.P.C., and the case was referred to a full bench of the High Court. This action satisfied the more moderate and enlightened Muhammadan community but the Qadianis and the Khilafatists continued their attack on the High Court and tried to establish a position as leaders of Muhammadan opinion. Mutual jealousy and disagreement regarding the resolutions to be proposed led to be abandonment of the joint meetings which were to have been held in July to protest against the conviction of the editor and proprietor of the `Muslim Outlook’ and the High Court Judgement in the ‘Rangila Rasul’ case, but public meetings organized by the Qadianis were held at Lahore and Amritsar at which these protests were made in no uncertain language and at the same time the propagation of 'tabligh’ and the economic boycott of Hindus were urged, while posters setting forth these points and also demanding the dismissal of the High Court Judge who had acquitted the accused in the ‘Rangila Rasul’ case, the promulgation of an ordinance to provide for the punishment of vilifiers of the Prophet and the appointment of a Muhammadan Judge to the High Court bench were widely distributed in the Province.
SHARDHANAND ASSASINATED (1927)
During 1927 the Qadian Ahmadi’s were very conspicuous and seized many opportunities offered by the communal unrest in the Province to pose as protagonists of Islam. The indiscriminate condemnation of the Muhammadan community over the assassination of Swami Shardhanand and the widespread hindu belief that the murder was the result of a conspiracy aroused Muhammadan resentment and not unnaturally provoked criticism of the views expressed. In February and March the Ahmadis of the Qadian branch held a series of public lectures in Lahore on Islam and the communal question. The proceedings were generally moderate, but their was at times strong criticism of the Arya Smaj,. Speaking at one of these meetings on March 1st, Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Muhmud strongly condemned Arya methods of propaganda and their abuse of the Prophet.
ECONOMIC BOYCOTT OF HINDUS (1927)
The most dangerous point in the Qadianis’ propaganda was undoubtedly the incitement to boycott the Hindus economically and socially. Under the pretence of improving Muslim economic conditions this boycott movement was sedulously preached in towns and villages land at first met with considerable success. The Ahmadis showed themselves capable of well-organized propaganda, but the natural economic inter-dependence of Hindus and Muhammadans proved too strong for the organizers of the movement, which by October had spent its force. It left behind it, however, a legacy of ill-feeling in many places previously unaffected by communal trouble.
UNITY CONFERENCE (1927)
In September 1927 a ‘Unity Conference’ of ‘All-India’ leaders was held at Simla to which Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud submitted a memorandum embodying the demands of his community. He claimed interalia, on the social and religious sides, perfect religious freedom for all communities, non-interference in religious and social customs, liberty to work for the economic betterment of Muhammadans, the ostracism of vilifiers of any religion or its founder, while on the political side he demanded the extension of Reforms to the North-West Frontier Province, the conversion of Sind and Baluchistan into one separate Province and the maintenance of separate electorates. The conference broke down without effecting anything. Mirza’s own opinions, on the "cow and music" questions about this time were interesting. He opposed any restriction on the social life of Muslims by the prohibition of cow slaughter but expressed the opinion that cow slaughter should be confined to slaughterhouses. He did not consider the Muslims right in stopping music before mosques.
COMMUNAL PROPAGANDIST (1927)
As communal relations improved towards the end of 1927, the Ahmadis dropped unnoticed out of the picture. Inspite of all their vigorous championship of Islam and attempts to improve the economic conditions of Muhammadans it is doubtful whether they have, to any appreciable extent, won the sympathy and support of orthodox Muhammadans. They have, however, undoubtedly established the fact that in times of communal unrest they are a powerful and well-organized community with considerable initiative and a well-developed system of propaganda.
SIMON COMMISSION (1927)
Politically the Ahmadis remain supporters of government. Neither section has taken any part in the agitation against the Simon Commission, and the Qadianis have openly co-operated with the Commission. In the issue of the ‘Sunrise’ for December 22nd, 1927, Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad advanced, at great length many reasons in favour of co-operation, and a deputation subsequently visited the Commission in Lahore. The main points brought forward were the safe-guarding of the rights of minorities, the uplift of the untouchables, the maintenance of separate electorates, the preservation of Muslim majorities in Provinces where they exist at present, the extension of the Reforms to the North-West Frontier Province, the constitution of Sind and Baluchistan as a separate Province, perfect religious freedom and the unrestricted right of the propagation of any religion. The demands were dictated by communalism but the development of the Ahmadiyya faith depends on communalism.
AHMADYA ACTIVITIES IN INDIA AND ABROAD (1928)
Apart from their communal activities the Lahore and Qadian Ahmadis are a well-organized and financially sound community with missions abroad and in India. Founded in 1914 as the ‘Anjuman-i-Ishaat-i-Islam’, the Lahore section is mainly financed buy regular subscription and by the sale-proceeds of religious books and has an annual income of about three lakhs of rupees. These funds are satisfactorily controlled, and there are capable secretaries incharge of the various funds, such as the ‘tabligh’ fund, the mission fund, the literature fund, the `zakat’ fund, the buildings and books funds. Of their missions abroad the ‘Woking Mission’ is the best known and has made about 1,000 converts in England. The heads of the Woking mission are Khawaja Kamal-ud-Din and M. Abdul Majid. There is also German Mission, which was established in 1922 by Mubarak Ali and Sadar-ud-Din. The construction of a mosque was delayed owing to a rumour that the Ahmadis were pro-British propagandists, but this rumour was subsequently dispelled and a large mosque has been recently erected in Herlin. The mission has not yet achieved the success of the Woking mission and can only claim about 100 converts. There are other missions in Java, Burma, China and Singapore, Mauritius, Durban, Trinidad, Finland and Poland. All these, however, are as yet only in their infancy and can claim only a few hundred converts. In India here are some sixty branches in charge of properly trained workmen. A training and propaganda institution was founded in 1926 where students undergo a course of a study of comparative religions and are trained for missionary work. Commercial and philanthropic institutions have not been forgotten. There are, in Lahore a book depot, a mutual relief fund and co-operative stores, while a guesthouse is maintained for missionaries from abroad. The Lahore party has several papers of which the better knowns are ‘The Islamic Review’, the ‘Paigham-I-Sulah’ and ‘The Islamic World’. The number of their followers is difficult to estimate, but probably does not exceed 15,000. They are more pan-Islamic in their views than the Qadianis, but have never identified themselves prominently with any political movement.
The affairs of the Qadian section are equally well regulated and administered and are in charge of secretaries who direct the missionary, educational, social and political activities of the movement. The financial position of the section is dependent on voluntary contributions and is very sound, the accumulated balances amounting to some four lakhs of rupees. Their missions abroad are not so numerous or prosperous as those of the Lahore party, but they have a mosque in England at Southfields and smaller missions with a few hundred converts in the East and West Africa, Egypt, Syria, Apersia, Sumatra, Ceylon and in the United States of America. They are under the general control of Mufti Muhammed Sadiq and Abdur Rahim ‘Nayyer’. In India they have missionaries at work in the Punjab, the United Provinces, Sind, Bengal, Malabar, Bhopal, Behar and Kashmir. Educational institutions have also received their attention, and in addition to various institutions at Qadian itself they have primary schools in the Gurdaspur, Sialkot, Gujrat, Jhelum, Shahpur, Julundhur, Lyallpur and Hazara districts. There is a special missionary school at Qaidan at which students who have passed the Maulvi Fazal examination are trained in missionary and propaganda work. The Qadian party has several papers of which the Al-Fazl, the Sunrise, the Nur, the Faruq, the Misbah and the Ahmadiyya Gazette are the best known. The number of their followers was given in the Punjab census report of 1921 as 28,856 but this appears an under-estimate and they probably number about 75,000. 2
SIKH-AHMADYA TENSION (1928-29)
1928 and 1929 were quiet years. The Ahmadis temporarily fell out of the picture and little was heard of them till August, 1929, when the Ahmadis of Qadian came into conflict with the Sikhs who demolished a kine slaughter house constructed by the Ahmadis with the permission of the district authorities. Slaughter of kine was subsequently stopped by order in Ahmadi quarters at Qadian but the incident was illustrative of the estranged feelings which subsisted, and still subsist, between the Ahmadi and Sikh communities.
POLITICALLY QUIESCENT (1930)
The history of the Ahmadiyya sect from 1930 onwards is the history of the orthodox Qadian section of the community. The Lahore party, immersed in missionary activities in and outside India, dropped entirely into political insignificance. Only very occasionally did it come to notice for its real, but carefully suppressed, hostility towards Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud and the Qadian Ahmadis generally. Public interest, for the next few years, was concentrated on Qadian, which became the storm center of a grave religious controversy, the full force of which has not yet spent itself.
MUBAHILA CAMPAIGN (1930)
It was in the year 1930 that a party hostile to Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud emerged at Qadian and started a newspaper, called the ’Mubahilla’, for the dissemination of denunciatory propaganda against the Ahmadis. The paper was owned and edited by Abdul Karim and his father Fazal Karim, both of whom had seceded from the Ahmadiyya faith. Infuriated by the anti-Ahmadi propaganda, an attempt was made by an Ahmadi on the life of Abdul Karim but, by mistake, another person, named Muhammad Hussain, was murdered on 23rd April. The publication of a series of obscene articles in the "Mubahilla" ignited the first spark which, fanned by Ahrar ingenuity and unscrupulousness, developed into a general conflagration that, for a time, spread all over the Central Punjab and proved a source of grave anxiety to the administration. It is interesting to note that it was from the dissentions among the Ahmadis themselves that the bitter and long drawn-out Ahrar-Ahmadi controversy arose originally. This controversy took a religious as well as a political form. The Ahrars attacked the Qadian Ahmadis on two main issues. First, on the general question of orthodoxy; and, second, on their treatment of non-Ahmadis in Qadian. On the first issue, they succeeded in stirring to new life the latent hostility to the Ahmadi sect, which has always been present in the breasts of almost all orthodox Muslims. They were able to quote (or, as the Ahmadis claimed, to misquote) texts from Ahmadi writings which were extremely offensive to the orthodox, and they further succeeded in creating the belief that the Ahmadis were a grave menace to Islam. As a result, the Ahmadis had practically no open sympathizers, outside their own sect, among Muslims, and, although feeling did not become generally acute against them among Muslims, it remained throughout the next few years capable of reaching very dangerous heights if any untoward incident had occurred. At the same time, the precious communal activities of the Ahmadis had naturally made them very unpopular with the Hindus, especially in and around Qadian; while their longstanding enmity with the Sikhs had been increased by ill-timed attempts to prove that Guru Nanak was a Muslim. The position was further complicated by the political ambitions of the Ahrars, who saw in the prevailing situation a good opportunity for increasing the political strength of their party. Their campaign was also profitable - a consideration which appealed particularly to some of the Ahrars who were taking part in it. One of the most pronounced features of the contest was the abuse of each party by the others, expressed in sermons, speeches, pamphlets and newspaper articles. At intervals, both sides drew breath and accused the Government of partiality towards the other side. Such, in short, was the general nature of the controversy that raged between the Ahrars and Ahmadis from 1930 onwards and, at times proved a serious menace to the public peace.
MUBALHILA CONFERENCE (1931)
The first move in the game was made in 1931, when a Mubahilla Conference was organized on the 19th and 20th October by the disaffected Ahmadis, instigated by the Ahrars, with the object of enhancing the influence of the Ahrar party among the Muslim community. This conference exacerbated anti-Ahmadi feelings in several parts of the province so that attempts were made to break up Ahmadi meetings at Amritsar and elsewhere in November and only Police intervention prevented a breach of the peace.
On 26th July 1931, an All India Kashmir Committee was established with Mirza Mahmud as its head. The Ahrar launched a massive movement for the Kashmiri Muslims and ultimately Mirza Mahmud resigned.3
AHRARS LAUNCH ANTI-AHMADYA CAMPAIGN (1932-33)
For a time, the Ahmadis, realizing possibly their weakness in numbers, did little to arouse the antipathy of the orthodox Muslims and throughout 1932 and part of 1933, the Ahrars remained quiescent and confined their activities to spasmodic denunciations of the Ahmadi sect on the platform and in the press. On the 4th March 1933, the Working Committee of the Majlis-I-Ahrar met at Lahore and adopted a number of resolutions. The leaders, Ataullah Shah Bukhari, Chaudhri Afzal Haq and Habib-ur-Rehman were present. It was decided to push forward the campaign against the Ahmadis by the formation of a new body, the Dawat-o-Archad, the collection of funds for a newspaper and the organisation of a volunteer corps of one hundred thousand persons. Needless to say, these grandiose schemes did not come to fruition, but it was clear that the Ahrars hence forward meant business. Throughout the summer of 1933 Ahrar’s opinion against the Ahmadis became more and more bitter, and on various occasions resolutions were passed or suggestions made that Ahmadis should be expelled from schools, colleges and all Muslim institutions, that they should be subjected to social boycott and that they should not be admitted to Central or Provincial Legislatures, Municipal Committees and other local bodies. It was in October of the same year that the Ahrars conceived the plan of occupying the building in which the "Mubahilla" newspaper was located and using it as an office from which they could conduct an anti-Ahmadi campaign. The Ahmadis, getting wind of this, promptly demolished the building and built latrines on the site. They afterwards somewhat mitigated this action by attaching small houses to the latrines, but the mischief was done and from the winter of 1933-34 the Ahrar-Ahmadi tension became more and more acute.
QADIANI MILITANCY (1934)
In the meantime, the general attitude of the Ahmadis at Qadian was becoming distinctly militant and aggressive. Reports received in 1934 indicated that there was a marked tendency towards the exercise of autonomy and the establishment of the imperium in imperio by the Ahmadiyya community at Qadian. Some of its local manifestations were the existence of –
Stories of Ahmadi "rule" in Qadian turned the tide of Muslim opinion against the sect and the Ahrars took full advantage of the rising feelings of indignation to continue their anti-Ahmadi campaign with great vigor. A scurrilous pamphlet, entitled "Kia Mirza-I-Qadiani aurat thi ya mard" by Inayatullah of Qadian had to be proscribed by Government. A Committee, known as "Radd-i-Mirzait" was formed at Amritsar in March to denounce the Ahmadis and carry on propaganda against them. A tabligh conference was staged by the Ahrars at Qadian in October, with the object of carrying the war into the enemy’s camp. The conference passed off peacefully but it was found necessary to prosecute S. Ataullah Shah Bukhari under section 153-A, I.P.C, in respect of his speech at the conference on the 21st October. An Ahmadi, Dr. Muhammad Ismail, who had attended the Ahrar Conference in contravention of the orders Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud, was subjected to social boycott by the Ahmadis. The Ahmadis vehemently protested against the grant of permission to the Ahrars to hold their conference at Qadian. Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud, who had summoned a large number Ahmadi volunteers to Qadian on the occasion of the conference, was served with an order under section 3 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932, directing him to cancel the summons. A storm of protests was raised by the Ahmadis all over the world against the action of the government. Feelings continued to run high and Ahmadi indignation was further intensified in November when a young boy vsited Qadian with the alleged intention of attempting to murder the head of the Ahmaddiyya community, but was arrested by the police and later jailed for one year under section 109 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
QADIAN AND THE PUNJAB GOVERNMENT (1935)
The year 1935 was marked by a definite change in the attitude of the Qadian Ahmadis towards the Government. An indication of the change was given by the head of the community in the course of a sermon on the 14th January, when he observed that "until recently the Ahmadis were on good terms with the English, but the rule of nation rested with Providence. Several English officers had shared in the mischief done to the Jama'at … He knows the troubles his followers were undergoing under the present rule, but no law could compel him to respect Government. However, for the time being he wished his followers to abide by the law, but the time would come when he would release them from this restraint."
NATIONAL LEAGUE (1935)
At a meeting of the Ahmadis at Qadian on the 18th January, a resolution was passed requesting the head of the community to permit the Ahmadis to organise a new body to carry on "political" work. A Week later, the Siyasi Anjuman-I-Ahmadiyya changed its name to National League and announced that one of its objects was to "teach courtesy to the Government and its subjects". Branches of the League were opened at various places. There is reason to believe that the League was intended to instigate the Muslims of other countries in the name of Islam and pan-Islamic principles against the British Government through the preachers of the community already in the field. In practice, the League bore the same relation to the central Ahmadi authority as the Shiromani Akali Dal to the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak committee. Evidence of sympathy of the great majority of orthodox Muslims in the Gurdaspur district with the Ahrars was afforded the same day, when S. Ataullah Shah Bukhari was proclaimed "Amir-e-Shariat" at a mammoth meeting at Gurdaspur. The situation was further complicated by an absurd claim by the Ahmadis that Guru Nanak was a Muslim, which was naturally resented by the Sikhs. The Ahmadis instead of recognizing the dangers in pursuing a course, which could not but fail to alienate the few friends that they had and still further, to embitter their enemies. Several anti-Ahmadi pamphlets, including "Khanchvan Nabi", "Panj Tan Pak" and "Hansi ka Gol Gappa" appeared at this time and were proscribed. Security was demanded from the "Zamindar", Lahore, and the Karimi Press, at which it was printed. Warnings were administered to the "Sadaqat" of Gujrat and the "Al Adal" of Gujranwala for publishing anti-Ahmadi articles.
AHMADIYYA-SIKH TUSSLE (1935)
The situation grew worse towards the end of January 1935, and events began to move rapidly. At an Ahmadiyya meeting at Qadian on the 23rd January, the district officers and the police were abused by the crowd. The meeting created a dangerous atmosphere and non-Ahmadis were in considerable danger of violence, The tension between the Sikhs and Ahmadis became acute on account of the repeated assertions of the Ahmadis that Guru Nanak was a Muslim and that the Sikhs ate beef. Orders were issued under section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code prohibiting meetings or demonstrations within the small town and revenue estate of Qadian. One of the chief difficulties in dealing with the situation was the fact that the Ahmadis were continuously supplying material which their enemies fully used to inflame opinion against them. Obstruction was raised about this time by the National League to the entry of police or civil reporters into their meetings. Objectionable and defamatory speeches were made at a meeting of the National League on the 24th January in which complaints were made against Government’s policy and the local police at Qadian and against the District Magistrate.
SHOW OF STRENGTH (1935)
About this time, Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud was summoned to give "defense" evidence in the case against S. Ataullah Shah Bukhari under Section 153-A, I.P.C. Necessary arrangements were made for his protection, but on both the days on which he appeared as a witness, he brought with him for the purpose of demonstration, about 2,000 Ahmadis by special trains. On the 25th April, S.Ataullah Shah Bukhari was sentenced to six month’s rigorous imprisonment. Soon after, the Ahmadis alienated the sympathies of all the other communities at Qadian by enclosing a large area of common land, known at the "Reti Chhela" where public meetings were frequently held. Bricks were thrown from the houses occupied by Ahmadis at a Hindu Sikh meeting held on a lot of land overlooked by those houses. Complaint and counter-complaints were filed by the various communities of alleged assaults by the Ahmadis on Ahrars and Sikhs. Addressing a congregation at the meeting held in connection with the death anniversary of the founder of the Ahmadi sect on the 26th May, Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud delivered an intemperate speech asserting that even their enemies admitted that the Ahmadis were Masters in ‘Qadian’ and proclaiming that the Ahmadis would not rest until the Ahrars had been completely crushed. On the 31st May, 1935, the police arrested Rozi Khan, an Ahmadi fanatic of the Mianwali district, who declared that he had been ordered by God Almighty to "punish" Inayatullah, an Ahrar leader of Qadian. Rozi Khan was, however, later certified as a lunatic.
KHOSLAS’ JUDGEMENT (1935)
On the 6th June, the Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, delivered judgement on the appeal filed by S. Ataullah Shah Bukhari, held that the offence committed by Ataullah Shah Bukhari was only a technical one and reduced the sentence to simple imprisonment till the rising of the court. The judgement contained certain remarks critical of the Ahmadis who raised a storm of protest against the Judge and moved the High Court to expunge the remarks against them. (Most of the remarks were expunged). Tension at Qadian was further accentuated by the insistence of the two parties on saying their prayers on a disputed piece of land.
CONGRESS OFFERS SUPPORT (1935)
On the evening of the 8th July, Mian Sharif Ahmad, a younger brother of the head of the Ahmadiyya community, was attacked by a person armed with a lathi. Hanif, alias hanifa, the assailant, was arrested and subsequently sentenced to 9 months’ rigorous imprisonment. In October, it was reported that Dr.Gopi Chand Bhargava, Kidar Nath Seghal and other Congress leaders were anxious to enlist the Ahmadis, who were laboring under serious grievances against the Government, as members of the Congress for the furtherance of anti-Government propaganda. The Ahmadis, however, decided to carry on agitation against the Government independently of the Congress.
MUBAHILA CHALLENGE AND RETREAT (1935)
In a rash moment, Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud challenged the Ahrars to a religious debate in which he was prepared to take a personal part. Mazhar Ali Azhar, the Ahrar leader, accepted the challenge, but later the Ahmadis tried to extricate themselves from the predicament in which the challenge had placed them by claiming that the conditions of the "Mubahilla" had not been properly settled by the Ahrar leaders. Defiant speeches, however, continued to be made from Ahmadi platforms making it clear that the passive attitude adopted by the Ahmadis during the previous year’s Ahrar conference would not be repeated. In the circumstances, in the month of November, the District Magistrate, Gurdaspur, found it necessary to promulgate orders under section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, directing the Secretary of the Qadian branch of the Majlis-I-Ahrar to abstain from convening or attending any meeting, debate or discussion at Qadian. Orders under section 3 of the Punjab Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1932, were served on a number of Ahrar leaders directing that they would not enter, reside or remain within the district of Gurdaspur, or take part in organizing any gathering of adherents of the Majlis-I-Ahrar to be held at any place within a radius of 8 miles of the town of Qadian. A few Ahrar Leaders, including S. Ataullah Shah Bukhari, Bashir Ahmad of Alipur, Muhammad Qasim Shahjahanpuri, Ghulam Nabi Janbaz and Qazi Ihsan Ahmad defied the orders and were sentenced to four months’ imprisonment in December.
AHRAR’S ONSLAUGHT (1935-36)
The high watermark of Ahrar-Ahmadi tension was reached in 1935, but there was no real diminution of acerbity and mutual recriminations. In January, picketers were posted by the Ahmadis at the entrances to the "Reti Chhela" at Qadian and action had to be taken under section 107/151 of the Criminal Procedure Code to prevent a breach of the peace. The appearance of an Ahrar publications, entitled the "Mazhabi Daku", caused considerable resentment among the Ahmadiyya community and the pamphlet was proscribed by Government. Propaganda against the Ahmadi community was intensified during March and resolutions were passed that no Ahmadis would be given burial in a Muhammadan graveyard. The atmosphere at Qadian in May was less strained, but at the Ahrar Tabligh Conference at Pathankot the same month, Pir Faiz-ul-Hassan Shah declared that any claimant to Prophethood or the Khilafat after the Prophet of Islam was liable to assassination.
RECEPTION FOR NEHRU (1936)
A few days later, at a meeting of the National League, Shaikh Bashir Ahmad announced that it was essential for the Ahmadis to take an active part in the political life of the country. With this object in view, he said, the Ahmadiyya jama'at would be prepared to co-operate with Jawahar Lal Nehru if a suitable program could be prepared. Under instructions issued by the National League, some Ahmadi volunteers participated in the reception accorded to Pandit Jawahar Lal on his visit to Lahore in May- June 1936.
NO BURIAL NO ENTRY INTO MOSQUE (1937)
Early in 1937 there was trouble at Batala in the Grudaspur district over the burial of an Ahmadi in a Muslim graveyard and the local police had to intervene to maintain the peace. Under instructions from Jaji Abdul Ghani, the local Ahrar leader, sign-boards were affixed at graveyards forbidding the burial of Ahmadis, while the Ahmadis engraved names on tomb-stones so as to be able to produce proof of burial should the dispute be taken to a court of law. In March the Ahrars affixed notices at the local mosques at Batala prohibiting the entry of Ahmadis.
A serious dispute occurred over the burial of Ahmadi children in the old Muslim graveyard at Qadian on the 16th June, when a non-Ahmadi was soundly beaten by the Ahmadis before being rescued by the Police. Nineteen Ahmadis were subsequently prosecuted under section 326/147 of the Indian Penal code and eleven of them were sentenced to payment of fine. A month later, a party of Ahrars attempted to prevent the burial of another Ahmadi in a Muslim Cemetery in the suburbs of Amritsar.
CONFLICT WITH SIKHS (1937)
In June, the relations between the Sikhs and Ahmadis became still further strained as the result of the mortgage to the Ahmadis of certain property attached to the Dharamsala by the Pujari of Dharmsala Udasian at Qadian. The Pujari fled after making over the building to the Ahmadis but the Sikhs brought two priests from Amristsar who broke open the locks and took possession of the place. The Ahmadis wisely, dissolved the mortgage, but ill-feelings between the Sikhs and Ahmadis were revived soon afterwards as a result of the publication of an Ahmadi poster headed "Hazrat Baba Nanak Sahib Rahmatullah Alaih Ka Din Dharam" claiming that Guru Nanak was a Muslim.
MISRI-MULTANI CHARGE SHEET AGAINST MIRZA MAHMUD
Serious dissensions broke out in the Ahmadi community in June 1937. Two disaffected Ahmadis, Fakhr-ud-Din Multani and Abdul Rehman Misri, published posters containing serious allegations against the personal character of the head of the Ahmadiyya community and Abdur Rehman Mirsi, who was the Headmaster of the Ahmadi School of religious teachings, started a rival organization called the "Majlis-I-Ahmadiyya Qadian," with himself as President and Fakhr-ud-Din Multani as Secretary. The Lahore Ahmadi Party, the Arya Samajists, and the Ahrars, all took sides with the secessionists. The two rebels were excommunicated and threats of violence were held out against them by Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud in his speeches. The threats led an Ahmadi fanatic to stab Fakhr-ud-Din Multani and another Ahmadi secessionist on the 7th August. Fakhrud-din died of his injuries a week afterwards. His assailant was arrested and sentenced to death by the High Court early in the following year. Security proceedings under section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code were taken against several prominent Ahmadis, including Khan Sahib Farzand Ali, an important member of the Ahmadi hierarchy, who was, however, subsequently acquitted by Court. In September, a report was made to the Police that a boy servant of Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud had been told by the affected Ahmadis to poison Mirza Bashir-ud-Din on promise of payment of a small reward. On enquiry the matter proved to be false. Following the auditing of the "Bait_ul-Mal" accounts of Qadian, a report was lodged that Abdul Rehman Misri has been guilty of defalcations during his tenure of the Headmastership of the Ahmadiyya School (This case failed in court in May 1938.) About this time a number of complaints were made by the Qadian Branch of the Ahmadi community on the one side and the Lahore branch on the other, charging each other with the publication if provocative articles in the press and thereby creating a situation likely to result in the commission of violent crime. The "Al Fazl" and "Paigham-I-Sulah", the respective organs of the parties, were warned to desist from, publishing objectionable matter on pain of legal action. In December, efforts were made by the Ahrars and excommunicated Ahmadis of Qadian to create trouble by publishing posters demanding an open enquiry into certain allegation against Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud. Five pamplets entitled. "Ahmadi Arbab Ki Khidmat men ajzana guzarish aur faisla ke asan tariq". "Bara Bol", "Janab Khalifa Sahib Ke dono pesh karda tariq faisla manzur", "Azal-e-Khalifa" and "Kiya tamam khalilfe Khuda hi banata hai?", which were circulated at this time, were found to be objectionable. The printer of the first poster was warned and of the remaining four pamphlets was fined. Internal dissensions among the Ahmadis continued. Strict disciplinary action was taken by Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud against the dissentients, who were invariably excommunicated and subjected to rigid surveillance by Ahmadi volunteers. Altogether nineteen Ahmadis had been excommunicated by the end of September 1938.
ASSASSINATION OF AN AHRAR LEADER (1938)
Minor incidents continued to take place during 1938. In February, Haji Abdul Ghani, President of the Majlis-I-Ahrar, Batala, died in suspicious circumstances of a wound on the head, and it was falsely alleged that he had been murdered by the Ahmadis for his anti-Ahmadi activities. Actually, the Haji had sustained fatal injuries after attending a drunken dinner. The case remained untracked. A pamphlet entitled "Yad-I-Raftgan", is said to have been published by the Ahrars in this connection, was proscribed by the Government. A number of Ahmadis interfered in the burial of a non-Ahmadi in the common graveyard in March when the police had to intervene to restore order. In June, the Ahmadis attempted to revive the agitation in connection with the Idgah at Qadian, which they claimed to be their exclusive property. Special police precautions had to be taken to prevent a breach of the peace. In August at Batala, Hara, a lad of sixteen, narrated how he had been unsuccessfully trying to kill Mirza Sahib for the past three months, but the story was probably false. The same month a fight took place between four Ahmadis and three Ahrars of Qadian as the result of a minor quarrel between little boys. The Police had to intervene to prevent another conflict between the Ahmadis and Ahrars in September, when about 350 Ahmadis under the order of their leaders decided to put up a comp on the Idgah and level the ground. During the year the Ahrars showed little signs of renouncing their hatred of the Ahmadis but their political credit was low and their were, therefore, unable top do much more than give occasional violent to their feelings by declaring at public meetings that the Ahmadis were outside the pale of the Muslim community.
In the long conflict between the Ahmadis and their opponents, it must be admitted that the Ahmadis came out with remarkably little immediate damage to themselves. This was primarily due to the extremely well regulated and efficient administration of Ahmadi affairs at Qadian. The machinery set up by Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud and his predecessors stood the strain extraordinarily well. But on a long-range view, the Ahmadis must be considered to have lost in prestige and materially impaired the future prospects of their missionary work. Some time must elapse before the Ahmadis are able to rehabilitate themselves in the eyes of the general public and to take up once again their proselytizing activities – the most important Ahmadi objective – with the same zeal and success which has characterized those activities in the past.
QADIAN AND LAHORE ORGANIZATIONS IN (1938)
The present organization of the Qadian section of the Ahmadis may be noticed briefly. The controlling authority of the movement is the Khalifa, who is, in theory, elected and holds office for life. The principal instrument of his authority is a central organization, known as the Sadr Anjuiman-e-Ahmadiyya, which is a registered body. The Anjuman is divided into a number of departments, each under the direct control of one or more Nazirs or Secretaries, At present (1938), there are nine important departments, viz, Amur-e-Ama, Bait-ul-Mal, Dawat-o-Tabligh, Talif-o-Tasnif, Talim-o-Tarbiyyyat, Ziafat, Jaidad, Jama-e-Ahmadiyya wa Maqbara Bahishti and the National League. These Departments are under the respective charge of Syed Zain-ul-Abdin, K. S. Farszand Ali, M. Abdul Mughni, M. Sher Ali, Mirza Bashir Ahmad, Mir Muhammad Ishaq, Mirza Muhammad Ashraf, M. Sarwar Shah and Shaikh Bashir Ahmad. Besides the central departments, there are a number of other institutions under the general control of the secretaries. The annual budget of the Sadr Anujuman-I-Ahmadiyya is approximately twelve lakhs of rupees. In addition, the Anjuman has a "Reserve Fund" amounting to Rs.25,00,000 and it is at present raising a Khilafat Jubilee Fund of Rs.3,00,000 which will be utilized in celebrating the completion of twenty-five years of the regime of Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud in Mrach, 1939. Outside India, the Ahmadis have twenty-two missionary centres in London, Rome, Belgrade, Budapest, Chicago, Buenos Aires, Lagos (South Nigeria), Gold Coast Colony, Mauritius, Nairobi, Egypt, Sierra Leone, Kobe, Pairum (Australia), Sumatra, Java, Ceylon, Rangoon, Singapore and Hong Kong. In India, there are about 1,000 Ahmadiyya Anjumans of which 536 are located in the Punjab, 50 in Patiala and Kashmir States, 7 in Mysore, 4 in Hyderabad (Deccan), 35 in Orrisa, 28 in Baluchistan, 9 in the United Provinces, 7 in Bombay, and 6 in the Madras Presidency. The Ahmadis claim a membership of approximately fifteen lakhs of persons throughout the World. The Ahmadi papers and periodicals published in India are the "Al Fazl", the "Faruq", the "Nur", the Al-Hakam", the "Misbah", the "Review of Religions" and the "Sunrise". Foreign publications include a Chicago edition of the "Sunrise", the "Muslim Times" (London), the "Al-bushra" (Egypt), the "Message" the "Dotan" (Ceylon) and "Al-Islam" (Java).
The organization and general position of the Lahore Party is comparatively less strong. The head of the party at present (1938) is Maulvi Muhammad Ali (who, in theory, does not hold office for life but is elected every year) and he is assisted by a general secretary, a financial secretary and an executive council. Mirza Mahmud Beg and Maulvi Aziz Bakkhsh are at present working as secretaries and the executive committee includes Maulvi Sadr-ud-Din, the famous Ahmadi missionary. The annual budget of the Anjuman-I-Ishaat-I-Islam, Lahore, is about two lakhs of rupees and its existing membership does not exceed 5,000 persons. The Anjuman has a number of branches in India and six missionary centres in London, Berlin, Java, Fiji, and West Africa. It publishes the "Paigham-I-Sulah", the "Light", the "young Islam", and the "Islamic World" in this country and the "Islam Review" and the "Woking Muslim Mission Gazette" in England. The Lahore Party is also collecting a Jubilee Fund to celebrate next year the completion of twenty-five years of the establishment of the Anjuman-I-Ishaat Islam, Lahore since its secession from the Qadian Party.4
SECOND WORLD WAR 1939-455
1. That was not the reasons. Actually Mirza Ghulam, the founder of Ahmadiyya Jama'at, had already in his lifetime labelled all those who do not accept his prophethood as Kaafirs, infedils, bastards and out of the fold of Islam.
2. Report by E.W.C. Wace, Assistant to DIG Police, CID Punjab Simla, 2nd June 1928.
3. Punjab CID Secret Report on Majlis-i-Ahrar, 1938. (NDC Islamabad)
4. Secret Report of the Punjab CID, Lahore, 15th Oct 1938.
5. Events relating to 1939 - 1947 are based on following main sources: