Abdul Ghaffar Khan, Islam and non-violence
Abdul Ghaffar Khan, Islam and non-violence
Ishtiaq Ahmed
Courtesy to “Daily Times”
Abdul Ghaffar Khan was a man of peace. He approached Islam in the
hope of finding a complementary message to Gandhi’s interpretation of
Hinduism as Ram Raj and ahimsa (non-violence) and he found it
A question that keeps popping up in
discussions
on violence, terrorism and the Taliban is the following: is the use of
force and violence intrinsic to Pakhtun culture? Superficially it seems
that it must be so because the Pakhtuns, known as Pathans in the rest
of the South Asian subcontinent, have been bearing firearms since a
long time. They were producing firearms much before the Afghan jihad
started. Many invasions of India were launched from the north-western
mountain passes by the Afghans belonging to Pakhtun tribes and clans.
Therefore, in popular memory a proclivity towards violence has been
associated with the Pakhtuns. This, however, is a myth derived from an
essentialist understanding of any culture.
Against such
‘evidence’ is the fact that apart from the mass civil disobedience
movement that Mahatma Gandhi started from 1919 onwards, the most
organised movement of peaceful resistance to colonial rule was put
forth by the Pakhtun leader Abdul Ghaffar Khan (1890-1988) and his
Khudai Khidmatgars or Red Shirts. In Pakistani official narrative Abdul
Ghaffar has been portrayed as a traitor because of his close
association with the Indian National Congress. Such association found
him opposed to the partition of India, and later when the partition did
take place, he and the Khudai Khidmatgars came under a cloud. They were
incarcerated for demanding Pakhtunistan — an entity that was conceived
from complete independence to substantial autonomy. The problem was
further complicated by the fact that the Pakhtuns did not recognise the
Durand Line as an international border dividing the Pakhtun tribes
between Afghanistan and Pakistan. That problem remained unresolved even
when the Taliban were in power in Afghanistan (1996-2001). It is still
a sticking point between the Karzai and Pakistani governments.
Here,
we are not interested in the politics that drove the Khudai Khidmatgars
and the Muslim League away from each other, except to note that in 1929
Abdul Ghafffar Khan approached both the Muslim League and the Indian
National Congress for closer relations. However, while Gandhi responded
to his overtures with warmth and sympathy, the Muslim League rebuffed
him. The reason was that the Muslim League was opposed to mass-based
politics till at least 1937, and even when it became a mass-based
party, it was never involved in any anti-colonial agitation. Only on
January 24, 1947, the Punjab Muslim League resisted inspection by the
police of its office in Laxmi Building, Lahore, and some of their
leaders were arrested for a few days.
On the other hand, the
story of the Khudai Khidmatgars was entirely different. They were
constantly getting into trouble with the British for protests and
agitations that were carried out in the NWFP in coordination with
similar initiatives of the Congress. Civil disobedience remained
peaceful, but police repression against the Khudai Khidmatgars was
severe. Torture was often employed against the leaders and cadres who
bore the pain and humiliation with great dignity and stoicism.
It
is important to mention that the Khudai Khidmatgar movement started
initially as a social reform initiative that sought to promote modern
education and opposed tribal vendettas among the various tribes and
clans. It was a great success and at one time it had more than 100,000
cadres who were always at hand to carry out social services. The same
cadres continued to work in the anti-colonial agitations, courting
arrest and punishment.
Abdul Ghaffar Khan derived his
inspiration from the Holy Prophet (PBUH) and Islam. He particularly
emphasised the formative period in Makkah when the Prophet (PBUH) and
his devoted followers had to face persecution but did not hit back at
their oppressors. For Abdul Ghaffar Khan, violent confrontation with
the British was counterproductive because the colonial state always
succeeded in defeating armed resistance. Therefore, peaceful resistance
was the only effective method to protest colonial domination.
The
question then is: how come the Taliban and al Qaeda interpret Islam as
a militant ideology that sanctions the use of naked terror? Are there
two Islams? This is the most difficult question to ask but we must try
to answer it if ever some new level of awareness is to be achieved.
While teaching at Stockholm University, I would often be asked by my
students the following question: what is the true or real message of
the Quran? The question was being asked in the background of the 9/11
terrorist attacks.
I came up with an answer and explanation,
which I believe is honest and true. I told them that all religious
scriptures are amenable to a variety of interpretations; hence also the
Quran and indeed the life of the Prophet (PBUH). Therefore it depends
on the enquirer what support he seeks from the sacred sources. For
those who are convinced that violence is the way forward for Muslims,
they can select those portions of the sacred sources that seem to
sanction violence. On the other hand, those who believe in peaceful and
civilised ways of conducting their affairs can find plenty of material
in the same sources that confirms their standpoint as well.
Abdul
Ghaffar Khan was a man of peace. He approached Islam in the hope of
finding a complementary message to Gandhi’s interpretation of Hinduism
as Ram Raj and ahimsa (non-violence) and he found it. The Taliban and
al Qaeda arbitrarily emphasise the wars fought during the lifetime of
the Prophet (PBUH) and indeed allusions to the use of violence against
non-Muslims in the Quran. Similar things can happen in other religious
traditions. I suppose when the Pope ordered the crusades against the
Muslims, he surely was not interested in Jesus’ idea of offering the
other cheek. Similarly, fundamentalist Jews cannot be serious about the
8th of the 10 Commandments, “You must not steal”, when under one
pretext or another they keep confiscating Palestinian land in the
occupied territories.
Even secular-minded individuals who do
not subordinate their reason and conscience to religious authority have
to make a choice. There is secular humanism that accepts all human
beings as part of the same family, but there have been secular
ideologies justifying racism and ultra-nationalism as well. Ultimately,
it is the singer not the song that is important. In the higher court of
history, nobody takes notice of the sources and motivations behind
actions. It is the deeds that count. In any event, those who want to
find practical guidance on the Islamic philosophy of non-violence in
contemporary times should study the life of Abdul Ghaffar Khan and the
activities of the Khudai Khidmatgar movement.
Ishtiaq Ahmed
is a Visiting Research Professor at the Institute of South Asian
Studies (ISAS) and the South Asian Studies Programme at the National
University of Singapore. He is also a Professor of Political Science at
Stockholm University. He has published extensively on South Asian
politics. At ISAS, he is currently working on a book, Is Pakistan a
Garrison State? He can be reached at isasia@nus.edu.sg
In : Ishtiaq Ahmed
Notes