Bacha Khan tried to Stop the Great Game by Trying to stop the Wahabization of Pashton Society and he tried to do it with his Love for Education and Social reform of Pashtons .
He Tried to Raise Moral Army of Khudai Khidmat Gars as Soldier of God who were Non Violent and Professing Love for Social Work and also education . He raised 200,000 Army of Pashtons that made the British Un Easy as they had lost a lot of Army power in World War -1 and 2 .and since Pashtons were the ex Rulers of Indian Sub continent , they were Great Threat to British Raj and they did what ever Trick in their Bag to contain the Pashtons
Non Violence and Education was a Threat to British Raj and still continues to be Threat to Punjabi Establishment if it concern Pashtons
By Dr. Sher Zaman Taizi, June 2002.
Written by a former member of the Pakistani Intelligence Services in Afghanistan, this memoir recounts details of Khan’s life in Afghanistan after the partition of India. In addition to its historic significance, it also contains an incisive introduction outlining Khan’s remarkable achievements in rising out of a stagnant society to be a leader of rare spiritual depth.
This Article provides an Insight into the Bacha Khan Struggle for Pashton Reforms and the Pakistan State Obsessed with Strategic Depth Bound to Crush Any one coming in their Path of Strategic Depth / New Great Game , Mission bound to Destroy Afghanistan and Eradicate Communism and work as Client state for New Great Game .
Introduction
Abdul Ghaffar was born into an aristocratic family of Utmanzai, Hasht-nagar, in 1890, according to school records. He grew tall and handsome, inspiring the hopes and ambitions of his family to become a brutal feudal lord and uphold the family’s leading position in the area. He was the second and last son of Bahram Khan who was then known as the Mashar Khan (the great Khan or the Khan of Khans). Bahram’s first son was Dr. Khan Sahib.
Bacha Khan Fakhre Afghan
Pukhtuns form a tribal society living free in nature
In which a family needs men and wealth to defend its properties and keep up its honour, prestige, pride, status and position against neighbouring contenders. The feudal lords heading these families are forced by circumstance to enter into a rivalry for narcissism, vanity, glory and superiority. Impoverished tenants provide all kinds of menial services to them and are also required to produce wealth and manpower to raise and magnify the status of their respective lords.
This type of feudal lordship normally tempts and provides opportunities for the ruling junta to act as arbitrator in feudal affairs. Every lord wishes and strives to belittle the competing rivals who normally fall within the circle of the family. This diabolical trend introduced the term tarboorwali in the Pukhtuns’ traditional life. It means “inter-cousins relationship”–a relationship that is normally strained due to the lords nonsensical struggle for vainglory.
Pukhtun society thus became vulnerable to external intervention and fertile ground for superstitions, mental retardation and spiritual gloom, which ultimately created the parasite strata of pseudo mullahs and pirs.
For the sake of their subsistence and survival, these strata frighten, shock, suppress and numb mental potentialities. These institutions oppose literacy, education and awareness, which pose threats to their wishful and selfish mastery in the field of knowledge.
Pukhtun social life was in danger of being stagnated like the water in a natural pool, which stirs only through the introduction of foreign elements but does not flow out to make its own course and move on to its destination.
“Those leaders are seldom born who raise their society from the ignominious depths of ignorance and obscurity to the heights of enlightenment and glory. Abdul Ghaffar Khan was one of this rare breed of leaders.”
Abdul Ghaffar was the product of that society. If studied in this perspective, one can imagine that his mission was not easy, simple and indulgent, and that his achievements were much more significant than his contemporaries who had risen out of enlightened societies. Leaders normally stand out on the pedestal of their society. Those leaders are seldom born who raise their society from the ignominious depths of ignorance and obscurity to the heights of enlightenment and glory.
Abdul Ghaffar Khan was one of this rare breed of leaders. He blew new life in the dormant people heretofore groaning under the burden of the worst type of feudalism. It was his stamina, struggles, patience, devotion and determined tolerance in the face of suffering that lifted Pukhtuns from the lowest level of serfdom to the high status of nationhood. That was the reason that not only the British and later Pakistani rulers opposed him tooth and nail, but also the feudal lords and parasitic clergy. Therefore, his name will glitter eternally through the pages of Pukhtun history.
While the British rulers were generous in granting different titles to Pukhtun lords and purchasing their loyalties, Bahram Khan lagged behind in that race due to the “eccentricity” of Bacha Khan.
Furthermore, Bahram Khan himself had inherited the spirit of freedom. Bahram Khan father Saifullah Khan had supported the people of Buner in defending their soil against British expansionist designs, having taken active part in the battle of Sukawa.
Obeidullah Khan, father of Saifullah Khan, had been executed by Durrani rulers. Bahram Khan was advised, coaxed and tempted to honours and rewards by the government to dissuade his son from what they considered anti-British activities.
Yet at that time Bacha Khan was concentrating on awakening Pukhtuns–he was concerned more about their education, mannerism, self-respect and self-reliance than he was on directly fighting the British. These activities worried the British rulers who speculated beyond them threats to their presence in the sub-Continent.
The British rulers, obsessed by such fears, dragged Bacha Khan into their politics to find an excuse for his persecution and elimination. However, Bacha Khan defied all their intentions with his selfless devotion and nonviolence.
Bacha Khan was not considered for any title or reward by rulers–British as well as Pakistani. However, his own people gave him three titles
- Fakhr-e-Afghan,
- Bacha Khan,
- and the Frontier Gandhi.
–like the man himself a rare phenomenon in the political history of the sub-Continent.
Khan in Afghanistan
The biography of Bacha Khan is not a mystery for peoples of Pakistan and India in general and Pukhtuns in particular. Besides a number of good and authentic books on his life and struggles, Bacha Khan himself has written a full size autobiography in Pushto.6 Hence, in this paper, I will reveal some reminiscent events related to Bacha Khan’s stay in Afghanistan.
At this juncture, we have to admit that we have no record of events in the form of any type of documents. I, as an Assistant-Translator in the Pakistan Embassy in Kabul, had the opportunity to see Bacha Khan frequently. Syed Fida Yunus was then the Second Secretary, Sher Mohammad Khan the Finance Secretary, Dil Jan Khan the First Secretary and Amir Usman the Cultural Attaché in the Embassy. We invariably reported outcomes of my meetings with Bacha Khan to our respective departments in Pakistan. Bacha Khan knew that and had expressed his satisfaction over my approach to him that enabled us to submit first hand and correct information on him to the government.
After release from detention on 30 January 1964, the government of Field Marshal Mohammad Ayub Khan issued a passport to Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan to enable him to go to England for medical treatment. While there, he received an invitation from a group of Pukhtuns in the United States to go there and live with them. The U.S. government disapproved of that. Bacha Khan himself did not want to live far away from his people and homeland. He received an offer from Jamal Abdul Nadir, President of Egypt, to go there. He refused the offer for similar reasons. However, when he received an invitation from King Zahir Shah of Afghanistan through his Prime Minister Dr. Mir Mohammad Yusuf,7 he readily accepted that.
The Afghan government accorded a warm welcome to Bacha Khan on his arrival in Kabul on 12 December 1964. A large number of people gathered to aggrandise the show.
Bacha Khan visited different parts of Afghanistan, including remote areas, and addressed the people with his typical message of peace and brotherhood.
Pakistan’s One Unit Collapses and continuation of British Policies by Punjabi Establishment
In Pakistan, peoples of smaller provinces, Pukhtunkhwa,8 Sindh and Balochistan continued opposition to the One-Unit of West Pakistan. When the people of Pakistan revolted against Ayub Khan in 1968, he handed over the government to General Mohammad Yahya Khan Qizilbash from Peshawar.
Through his brother Agha Mohammad Ali, President Yahya Khan established contact with Bacha Khan. Agha Mohammad Ali, who was a Police Officer, assigned Arbab Hidayatullah Khan (Assistant Inspector General of Police) from Landi Arbab, Peshawar, for the mission. Arbab Sahib paid several visits to Bacha Khan. He used to call on Syed Fida Yunus before and after the meetings. Both Syed Fida Yunus and I were living in a big house of Abdul Sattar Shalizai in Karta-e-Parwan, Kabul. There we discussed matters relating to dismemberment of the One-Unit and the restoration of old provinces. We proposed that the States in the Frontier Province should also be annexed to the province. Similarly, the tribal belt should be either annexed to the province or given autonomous state as a separate unit so that the tribesmen could get rid of the system of Political Administration.
In the light of the reports and recommendations of Arbab Hidayatullah Khan, the One-Unit was disintegrated and the States were annexed to the Frontier Province. We learned that there were some elements in the bureaucracy and defense forces of Pakistan who did not want disintegration of the One-Unit. They opposed Yahya Khan to the last moment. Some national dailies in English and Urdu also carried out a hostile campaign.
It was in those days that Shakirullah Bacha of Gujar Garhi, Mardan, had visited Kabul. In his informal visit to the Embassy, some officers gathered around the table to offer him tea. During their chat, Colonel Ahmad Khan of the ISI9 asked him about his views on Pukhtunistan. Shakirullah Bacha replied that such queries could best be answered by daily the Nawai Waqt because the office of Pukhtunistan was there.
Bacha Khan was so pleased over the disintegration of the One-Unit that he sought special permission to broadcast a message over radio Kabul and offer his gratitude to President Yahya Khan.
Visit to India
In 1969, Bacha Khan went to India to attend the inaugural ceremony of the centenary of Gandhijee. Before his departure for India, I was directed by Ambassador Hakeem Ahsan to arrange his meeting with Bacha Khan. I accompanied the Ambassador to the residence of Mohammad Ali Lawangin Momand of Kama, an official of the Tourist Department, and held a meeting with Bacha Khan there. The Ambassador conveyed to him a message from President Yahya Khan that he might not say something in India against Pakistan. Bacha Khan received the message with a smile of approval. The house was near the Embassy in Shahr-e-Nao,Kabul. When we left the house, the Ambassador expressed his utmost satisfaction over the response and also uttered something in praise of Bacha Khan.
Bacha Khan and Gandhi
Another interesting event that took place was the renewal of Bacha Khan’s passport. Bacha Khan sent his passport through Mohammad Ali Lawangin for renewal. Then, we found that it was only valid for one year and had long expired. We referred the case to the foreign office. Bacha Khan himself sent a letter in Pushto to Sardar Abdul Rashid, then Interior Minister. The embassy received approval and issued a new passport to him. It was signed by Syed Fida Yunus as the Second Secretary. When the news reached Pakistan that Bacha Khan had gone to India with valid travel documents, Ghulam Mohammad of Lundkhwar, Mardan, and some other enthusiastic rivals demanded of the government to take action against the officials in the Embassy who had issued the passport. Later I came across Ambassador Hakim Ahsan on the stairs while he was at the threshold of his office. The Ambassador smiled at me–an encouraging gesture–and said; “Be prepared for action. Lundkhwar has demanded it!” I replied, “Yes Sir, I know it! But it would be a great event for us to be mentioned in a case of the historical figure of Bacha Khan!” The Ambassador enjoyed it and entered the office with a smile.
The visit of Bacha Khan to India followed a communal riot in Ahmadabad in which Muslims suffered heavy losses at the hands of extremist Hindus. Bacha Khan visited that State. He did not give his bundle of clothes to the local governor or any government official and kept it, as usual, under his arm. The State government had planned to hide the scene from him and conduct his visit to some peaceful Muslim quarters. A Socialist Hindu reached Bacha Khan and told him about the plight of Muslims. Bacha Khan followed him to the camp where a number of displaced Muslims were lying helplessly. There, he asked the ruling junta of India ; “Had Gandhijee taught you to treat your people like this?” He blamed Hindu extremists for persecution of Muslims. In protest, Bacha Khan kept fast for three days. He also addressed the joint session of the Indian Parliament, where he protested against the communal riots.
A large number of admirers of Bacha Khan turned up to have a look at him. The government built a place for Bacha Khan to sit whereby a steady stream of people walked past and paid respect to him.
In celebration of the centenary of Gandhijee, the Indian government in 1969 conferred upon Bacha Khan the Jawaharlal Nehru award for International Understanding with 8 million Indian rupees. Bacha Khan brought and deposited that money in the National Bank of Afghanistan. He informed his party in Pakistan to form a committee to restore publication of his weekly the Pukhtoon. For that purpose, he bequeathed 2.5 acres of his land also. He wished to raise a trust and use that money for the development of the Pushto language and the welfare of the Pukhtun nation.
Some names for the committee were considered, but the committee could not be formed the way Bacha Khan wanted. His nephew (daughter’s son) Professor Jehanzeb Niaz–a former member of the teaching staff of Pushto Department, Peshawar University10–later told me that he was considered to head the trust and my name was also considered to be a member. The money was not given to Pukhtoon magazine at all, and its publication was not restored. It was published occassionally by the National Awami Party / Awami National Party.
Confusion Created over Donation
In Pakistan, a cyclone swept East Pakistan in 1970 with disastrous effects. President Yahya Khan raised a president fund for succour of the affected people in that wing. One day, I received a telephone call from Bacha Khan. He told me that he wanted to donate some money to the president fund. Being a government employee I could not take such an action on my own. I reported the matter of Charge d’ Affair’ Shahid Amin. He was of Indian origin. He did not like Bacha Khan. However, he said “OK, better if he gives even ten rupees!” Having got the approval, I contacted Mohammad Ali Lawangin and his brother Mohammad Siddique who was an officer in the National Bank of Afghanistan.
Mohammad Ali Lawangin, Mohammad Siddique and Faqir Baezai, sons of Mohammad Hassan Khan Momand of Kama, served Bacha Khan devotedly. Bacha Khan also loved them. Siddique and I visited Bacha Khan. He disclosed that he wanted to give five thousand dollars as a donation. Siddique and I considered the matter there and decided to take the cheque from Bacha Khan, cash it in dollars, exchange dollars with Pakistan currency at Shahzada market and pay those proceeds to the embassy. When we informed Bacha Khan, he wanted to know the purpose of that process. We explained to him that official rate of one dollar was five Pakistani rupees whereas it was eleven in the market. Bacha Khan expressed astonishment over the difference between the official and the market rates. However, he allowed us to do as we liked. Hence, we deposited 55,000 rupees in the president fund on behalf of Bacha Khan. The embassy issued a receipt for that.
Meanwhile in Pakistan a vicious circle of the so-called patriots led by Z.A. Sulehri tried to create misunderstanding between Bacha Khan and the embassy. Sulehri was then editor of the daily Pakistan, which carried inside single-column news that Bacha Khan had donated 25,000 rupees to the president fund. Arrangement was made to show that news to Bacha Khan, because it was given such an insignificant place that a common reader would not find it. It was clear that someone from the embassy might have leaked out the information that Bacha Khan had given the cheque for five thousand dollars.
Bacha Khan was confused to see that news. He demanded that the embassy return thirty thousand rupees to him. The embassy wrote to the foreign office and the information ministry to issue another statement with a mention of the actual amount, but all in vain. There was no clarification. Bacha Khan therefore insisted on reimbursement. The state of goodwill was thus poisoned by vested interests with their evil designs. Meanwhile, Khan Abdul Wali Khan12 visited Kabul. I told him all about the matter. What followed was not known to us, but Bacha Khan did not remind us again.
Use of British Loyalist Khan Bahudur Titled Qayum Khan Against ANP
During the campaign for general elections in Pakistan, I attended a party at the Tribal Affairs Department in Kabul. The President of Tribal Affairs Masoud Pohanyar and Bacha Khan were there. I joined them. The atmosphere was quite cordial. During the chat, Pohanyar mentioned to Bacha Khan, “Qayum Khan is coming!” Bacha Khan replied “let him come!” And there was no further discussion on the matter.
Qayum Khan visited Kabul for three days, but we could not meet him. The government accommodated him at some unknown place.
Another Muslim League stalwart from Balochistan, Mohammad Khan Jogezai, had also visited Kabul in those days. It was generally believed that Qayum Khan and Mohammad Khan Jogezai sought the blessing and assistance of the Afghan government in general elections.
It was later explained by Khan Abdul Wali Khan in a meeting with the Ambassador of Pakistan at his residence in Kabul that the Afghan government would not liked to have seen the National Awami Party win the elections in Pukhtunkhwa, because she would then have no point to continue her propaganda for Pukhtunistan.
Seeking Peace in East Pakistan
When riots erupted in East Pakistan after the general elections, Bacha Khan offered his services for mediation. He proposed to the embassy that he would go back to Pakistan to lead a Jirgah of a few elders from Punjab, Sindh, NWFP and Balochistan to meet Mujib-ur-Rahman and settle the dispute through negotiations. The embassy conveyed his messages to foreign office but there was no response. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto of the Pakistan Peoples Party and Qayum Khan of the Muslim League, supported by some Army officers, were determined to grab power, although the majority had voted for the Awami Leauge of Mujib-ur-Rahman. Jamaat Islami exploited the Urdu speaking community of Indian refugees to form al-Badr and al-Shams militant groups to terrorise Bengalis. When all these strategies failed to cow down Mujib, Pakistan Army launched an operation in East Pakistan. What then happened is an open secret.
“Bacha Khan always stressed the need of unity, brotherhood and peace.”
Problems on the Border
At that critical juncture, some tribal Jirgahs called on Bacha Khan that they were prepared to fight for liberation if they were supplied arms. Bacha Khan advised them not to create any problem on the western border for Pakistan. The Jirgahs also met King Zahir Shah who took a similar stand. The King passed on a message to Pakistan’s Ambassador that he would not allow any disturbance from that side. The anti-Pakistan propaganda, continuing in the name of Pukhtunistan, was also tuned down.
Thoughts on Pukhtunistan
Normally whenever I visited Bacha Khan at the Dar-ul-Aman guest house, some admirers were there. The majority of them comprised activists from the Afghan Millat and the Parcham faction of Peoples Democratic Party of Pakistan. Bacha Khan always stressed the need of unity, brotherhood and peace. He avoided discussion on the political situation in Pakistan. It was only Pukhtunistan Day,13 following independence-day, that Bacha Khan led a procession from the Pukhtunistan Square to the Ghazi Stadium where he delivered a speech.
He criticised Pakistan’s government for having usurped rights of nationalities and demanded autonomous status for Pukhtunistan (NWFP). In not a single speech did he express any desire for a separate and independent state. His speech was broadcast over Kabul radio that evening. This was a permanent feature during his stay in Kabul.
In a casual meeting with me, Bacha Khan confided that Pukhtuns’ economy and education were backward and their country was landlocked. They could not live a better life in a separate state. He therefore demanded due rights for them within Pakistan.
Role of the Intelligence Services
On one occasion I was embarrassed when, on my arrival, Bacha Khan asked me if I would like to see Mardhula Sarabai, a veteran socialist leader from India. Hesitantly I replied–yes. Then Bacha Khan directed me to go upstairs. It was the first time that I explored the first floor of the guest house where an old lady in typical Pukhtun dress of shirt and trousers with Peshawari chapli was standing with Anwarul Haq Gran.
Still smart in old age with silver-white hair, she was graceful, cheerful and upright. When we exchanged greetings, she turned to Gran and exclaimed, “How fluent do Afghans speak Urdu!” Gran, hailing from Dir district and already known to me, laughed and told her that I am a Pakistani and was serving in the Pakistan Embassy. “Does Pakistan’s Embassy keep contact with Bacha Khan!,” she expressed with surprise enhanced by that revelation.
Gran introduced me to her in clear and plain words that I was working for an intelligence agency of Pakistan. Sarabai appreciated that such a direct approach being used by workers of intelligence agencies would avoid and remove many misunderstandings. Gran told her that Bacha Khan was well aware of my position and had expressed satisfaction with my contacts with him that led to improvement of relations between him and the government of Pakistan.
“We discussed the affairs in East Pakistan. Bacha Khan repeated his proposal that Pakistan should not use force there and try to settle the matter through negotiations. During discussion, Bacha Khan mentioned that there were some selfish people who did not like peace in the country.”
Selfish People
One day, Syed Fida Yunus and I went from Kabul to Jalalabad. Accompanied by Pakistan’s Consul at Jalalabad, Rab Nawaz Khan, we visited Bacha Khan at his residence at Sheesham Bagh. When we reached there, Bacha Khan was busy in his home garden. He received us and led us to his drawing room–a simple room with ordinary furniture. His personal servant Ahmad Kaka placed some fresh fruit before us. We discussed the affairs in East Pakistan. Bacha Khan repeated his proposal that Pakistan should not use force there and try to settle the matter through negotiations. During discussion, Bacha Khan mentioned that there were some selfish people who did not like peace in the country. Rab Nawaz Khan asked him in a way of satire, “Bacha Khan! You blame what you call the selfish people. But if Pakistan were destroyed, wouldn’t these selfish people suffer humiliation! Will they like it?” Bacha Khan just smiled to say “The selfish has no sight!” It means that selfish people are driven so rashly by their selfish designs that they do not see the gloom and doom ahead.
Return from Exile
Following the general elections and bifurcation of Pakistan, in 1971 the National Awami Party and Jamiat-ul-Ulema-e-Islam formed coalition governments in the NWFP and Balochistan. Governor Ghaus Bakhsh Bizenjo of Balochistan and Governor Arbab Sikandar Khan of NWFP were from the National Awami Party.
Bizenjo invited Bacha Khan to return to Pakistan via Balochistan. Before his return, Bacha Khan went on a tour of western parts of Afghanistan. He was somewhere in Zabul or Hilmand, when Ambassador Gen. Rakhman Gul asked me to go and tell Bacha Khan that Bhutto did not like him to return to Pakistan.
I was surprised. I had to obey the order. But I tried to tell the Ambassador that such a message to Bacha Khan from a government functionary would annoy him. The Ambassador wrote back to the government. Then Ajmal Khattak was deputed to convey the message.
Arbab Sikandar Khan sharply reacted to the stand of Bhutto and sent a delegation to Kabul to invite Bacha Khan. The delegation included Afzal Khan Lala, then Information Minister, and Maulana Badshah Gul from Akora Khattak. They were accommodated at the Kabul Hotel. I had a chance to have my first meeting with Afzal Khan Lala there.
On the 25th of December 1972,16 Bacha Khan returned to Peshawar. A large number of people, mostly young activists with red flags of the Peoples Democratic Party of Afghanistan, accompanied him to Torkham. Similarly, a large number of Khudai Khidmatgars in red uniforms and carrying red flags from Pukhtunkhwa also converged at Torkham.
The chain was lifted and the procession from Peshawar greeted their great leader in the foot of Shamshad hill on the Afghan side. Thousands of young flag bearers spread over in the foot of the hill to display fluttering flags. Khan Abdul Wali Khan was also there.
Return to Afghanistan
Bacha Khan went again to Kabul on the 2nd of April 1978, just a few weeks before the Saur Revolution that took place (26 April 1978). He stayed at his residence at Jalalabad. He invited Fazal Rahim Saqi to help him compile his autobiography. In 1980, he went from Kabul to Delhi for medical treatment.
Sheikh Abdullah extended an invitation to him to visit Kashmir. Bacha Khan accepted the invitation but could not go there.
Bacha Khan visited the Soviet Union from the 1st of September to the 31st of October 1980 for medical treatment. He returned to Peshawar on 2nd April 1982.
The Government of India awarded Bacha Khan the prestigious Bharat Ratna Award in 1987.
For much of 1987, Bacha Khan was almost unconscious in bed for lengthy periods. He was in India for a time and then at Lady Reading Hospital Peshawar where he breathed his last. Bacha Khan died aged 98 on the 20th of January, 1988, and was buried in Jalalabad on the 22nd of January.
He had spent 30 years of his life in prison, and fought against oppression, intolerance and violence for more than 70 years.
Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan, 1890-1988 , was a nonviolent soldier who fought for freedom and justice for more than 70 years. Incredibly, he raised a large nonviolent Muslim army to fight British colonial rule from the midst of a proud and largely tribal people, the Pathans (also referred to as Pashtoons or Pakhtoons), who had a renowned history of fighting using handmade guns, daggers, and at times outrageous cunning.
This army, called the Khudai Khidmitgars (“Servants of God”), remained resolutely nonviolent in the face of severe repression and humiliation from British colonial rulers.
The British violence was of similar savagery and intensity to that which the Taliban has dished out in the last few years, except it lasted for many decades. There were no pretensions of “civilized” warfare for the British: in the words of one of their 1930 reports, “The brutes must be ruled brutally and by brutes.” The British regarded the area, the North West Frontier Province, as being of great strategic significance, as it was the gateway to India, and they wanted their crown jewel colony to remain under their control. The last thing they wanted to see were organized, unified Pathans.
The Pathans, meanwhile, had a burning desire for freedom. So the British cut down the Khudai Khidmitgars with ruthless violence, and tried to sow dissension among the Pathans through divide and rule, using their usual methods of bribery and coercion.
Khan’s achievements in leading the Khudai Khidmitgars are not easy to overstate. It was astonishing not only that they could remain nonviolent in the face of such horror, but also that they should do so to begin with, given their warlike way of life and easy access to weapons. As British violence like mass shootings, property destruction, and torture (including genital torture) was inflicted, the Khudai Khidmitgars’ numbers increased, swelling to around 100,000. Jawaharlal Nehru, who later became India’s first prime minister, was stunned by the Khudai Khidmitgars’ nonviolence, and found it incredible that “the man who loved his gun better than his child or brother, who valued life cheaply and cared nothing for death, who avenged the slightest insult with the thrust of a dagger, had suddenly become the bravest and most enduring of India’s soldiers.”
One striking characteristic of Khan throughout his lifetime was his dogged determination to represent the truth, even at great personal expense. As an old man, flying in the face of official propaganda he declared the war in Kashmir was not a Jihad but a façade, hardly endearing himself to the many thousands of Pakistani families who lost their sons in the war.
As a young man, when looking for opportunities to serve his people, he began by opening schools and organizing people socially. He was arrested, and brought before a deputy commissioner who wanted to know why officials had allowed him to return to the country after he had gone on pilgrimage to Afghanistan. Khan replied, “First you take our country from us and now you won’t even let us live in it?” For this, he was imprisoned three years at hard labor. He was to endure a total of 15 years in British prisons before partition, and a further 15 years in Pakistani prisons after partition, more than one-third of his adult life (and more than Nelson Mandela).
Khan took on not only British imperialism, but looked with a critical eye at his own society, and encouraged reforms. He rallied against the privilege and power of the big landlords and worked to dismantle the local caste system, saying ordinary, working people such as craftsmen should be able to own land. He was almost killed by resentful landlords for doing so. He directly confronted religious ignorance, like the belief that children who attended school would go to hell. He wanted to see women play their rightful role in society, instead of being crushed by the burden of tradition and neglect.
The Khudai Khidmitgars were formed from a largely illiterate society, so in addition to publishing a journal, the Pakhtun, in the early years Khan spread his message of sacrifice, work and forgiveness by personally visiting 500 Pathan villages. While his people may not have been educated, they could recognize selfless action when they saw it. Khan valued selfless service to others as a foundation of religious action. He wrote, with the authority of his life’s example, “Religion is also a movement. If selfless, undemanding and holy men and women join this movement and dedicate themselves to the service of their country and the people, this movement is bound to be successful. Such people will be a blessing to mankind. Through their contribution their country and their people will flourish and prosper.”
Most of all, Khan directly challenged the role of revenge in society. The culture of the Pathans was tribal, and as Eqbal Ahmad points out, “The tribal code of ethics consists of two words: loyalty and revenge. You are my friend. You keep your word. I am loyal to you. You break your word, I go on my path of revenge.” Pathans were long adherents to taking revenge to uphold honor, being somewhat notorious for engaging in bitter family and tribal feuds that could last generations. Khan directly appealed for his people to forgo revenge, and adopt nonviolence. It was an explicit precondition of joining his army. In a society where not to take revenge, and therefore lose one’s honor, was considered worse than death, this was a stunning achievement.
Lessons for the Present
What lessons can we learn from the lives of General Akhtar and Abdul Ghaffar Khan and the movements they were associated with if we are to take peace seriously? That is, what do their respective approaches to resolving conflicts and achieving justice tell us about how we can move forward in the present situation?
Combating Communalism
The first, and most obvious lesson to be learned is that when religion is viewed as being communal, it can be rapidly be turned into a highly destructive force. “Crowd psychology is a blind force,” wisely remarked renowned Indian literary figure Rabindranath Tagore. “Like steam and other physical forces, it can be utilized for creating a tremendous amount of power. And therefore rulers of men, who out of greed and fear, are bent upon turning their peoples into machines of power, try to train this crowd psychology for their special purposes. They hold it to be their duty to foster in the popular mind universal panic, unreasoning pride in their own race, and hatred of others.”
While the same communal forces that almost killed Akhtar at the time of India’s partition were overwhelming much of Northern India, the Khudai Khidmitgars patrolled their communities protecting people who belonged to minority religions, saving many lives.
Communalism builds on the belief that one religion is superior to another, or the belief that religious truths are mutually exclusive between religions. These beliefs are in fact the official doctrinal positions of many religious institutions, all of which claim to be speaking with divine authority. For many believers, they are a common sense truth about their beliefs. Khan specifically opposed such brazen foolishness. He proclaimed, “My religion is truth, love, and service to God and humanity.” It was his “firm belief” that all religions are based on the same truth, and should be given equal respect. He remained a devout Muslim while eager to learn from other religions. Regarding those who promote communalism–of which he saw a great deal in his life, and the vast suffering it inflicted–he commented “those who are indifferent to the welfare of their fellowmen, those whose hearts are empty of love, those who do not know the meaning of brotherhood, those who harbor hatred and resentment in their hearts, they do not know the meaning of Religion.”
The fact is, beliefs of religious superiority are a prime target for extremists to expropriate and twist into their terrible logic. If instead religious believers held a common notion that beneath the surface, all religions teach much the same–naturally with differences reflecting temperament, culture and time–then it would be nonsensical for extremists to claim that alleged divine wrath is on their side. Only fools would take them seriously.
Rejecting Revenge
As we have already noted, Akhtar was unable to forgive Hindus and Sikhs when they massacred Muslims (just as many Hindus and Sikhs were unable to forgive Muslims when they were likewise massacred). Instead he worked to strengthen institutions that depend fundamentally upon revenge, just as the U.S. and British governments are currently doing. The leaders of the Taliban do the same themselves.
Much of the time the U.S. and British governments hide their vengeful focus behind language like “retaliatory strikes,” or “bring the perpetrators to justice,” and so forth, but revenge is essentially their focus. Ditto for the Taliban. The three are determined to convince respective recipients of their propaganda that this path is the only effective way forward to provide security and make up for the death of their people, irrespective of their falsehood.
It is wise, however, to learn from the experts on revenge before confidently asserting this to be true and proceeding to kill people. The Pathans are experts on revenge. They practiced it fearlessly for hundreds of years, against outsiders and amongst themselves. They celebrated it in their poetry, sang of it in their songs. Presumably all cultures are familiar with husbands taking revenge against adulterous wives and their lovers by killing them, but how many have tales of women rallying their menfolk to take revenge long after the men have been exhausted by it? The huge numbers of Pathans who joined the Khudai Khidmitgars did not give up revenge simply because they admired their leader. They did so because they appreciated the grueling cost of revenge to their society, how it tore apart their families and tribes, and in the context of outside domination, made them susceptible to divide and rule. The Khudai Khidmitgars renounced revenge not from a position of weakness, but one of strength and courage. They held strongly to this belief in the face of severe humiliation and destruction. As outsiders, we can choose to learn from them, and apply the universal insights they worked with to our own lives, or we can ignore them and inflict the consequences upon others and ourselves.
What are these universal insights? Revenge occurs when those who hold onto their hate, and have the ability to channel it into action, do so. Hatred and resentment prosper where there is no forgiveness. To seek protection from violent revenge, a person, family or country can try to suppress it through further violence, or work to create conditions for forgiveness. Essentially, there is no alternative to these two. The consequences of further violence are often quite certain: more violence. As Gandhi once famously remarked, “an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.”
These insights have already been demonstrated in Afghanistan since September 11. As soon as retaliatory violence in Afghanistan was initiated, bin Laden’s followers immediately threatened further violence in return. The U.S. and its allies will try to crush them, but as many observers have tirelessly pointed out, a terrorist operation is extremely difficult to crush, and the violent response is an ideal recruiting drive for more terrorists. Terrorism in fact, thrives on revenge.
A counterargument to all of this, of course, is that the bin Laden’s of this world are so extreme, that their view of their religion or ethnicity is so deranged, that only war will keep decent people of the world safe from such rogues. This is where it becomes vital to remember the forces that created bin Laden to begin with. Pakistani and U.S. intelligence services masterminded the war in Afghanistan, the same war bin Laden was recruited for and sharpened his teeth in. It is not important whether bin Laden received training directly from American, British or Pakistani officials (he certainly interacted with them), but what is important to acknowledge is that the type of resistance towards the Soviets aggressively promoted by the U.S., British and Pakistan governments was not the only choice. Yes, the Soviet invasion was a brutal one, but no more brutal than that of the British in the region not so long before. As the Khudai Khidmitgars proved, war was not the only possible response: a more protracted, nonviolent resistance could have saved a lot more lives on both sides, and done much to improve the future development of Afghanistan.
Of course, institutions like the CIA and ISI do not include nonviolent soldiers among their soldiers of choice. This is not a reflection of the effectiveness of nonviolence. Rather, it is merely another indication of the danger of the narrow mindset that is nurtured by such institutions, and if these institutions cannot change their approach, a call for their replacement.
Spiritual Struggle
Rational, detached arguments against the follies of war and revenge are all very well, some claim. But people are profoundly angry, they point out: enraged in the United States, and enraged in the Middle East. Their anger is justified, so the argument goes (a point claimed by all sides in the conflict). Justice must be done.
Now, remarkable as it may seem to some people, religion actually has something rather useful to say about this (Richard Dawkins, are you listening?). It is perhaps most eloquently expressed by Gandhi: “I have learnt through bitter experience the one supreme lesson to conserve my anger, and as heat conserved is transmuted into energy, even so our anger controlled can be transmuted into a power which can move the world.”
The struggle to contain and transform anger is an inner struggle. Through the centuries, inner struggles like this have been the specialized domain of the spiritual dimension of religion. It is worthwhile spending a little time pondering this, for in this matter, religion itself is confusing and contradictory.
We can start by taking another look at Khan’s statement about those who do not know the meaning of religion. By Khan’s reckoning, people like Akhtar are religious only in the sense they identify themselves as belonging to a religion, and perhaps carry out its rituals and customs, and believe in its dogmas. But they have failed to undertake the arduous task of transforming natural feelings of fear and anger, and the desire to retaliate, into positive forces that genuinely contribute to life, rather than take away from it. In short, they identify as religious, but are not spiritual.
When Khan was talking of people whose hearts are empty of love, he was signifying something more than an intellectual or rational struggle. These are absolutely necessary, of course. However, he was talking of a demanding spiritual struggle, of taming forces that can overwhelm us with their intensity: burning anger, seething resentment, and jealous hatred, just to name a few.
“It is my inmost conviction that Islam is amal, yakeen, muhabat [work, faith, and love] and without these the name Muslim is sounding brass and tinkling cymbal,” Khan said. He would have fully agreed with the Buddha’s statement, “Hatred can never put an end to hatred. Love alone can.”
To talk of love in a time of war may seem preposterous and hopelessly idealistic, but this is what Khan and others like him did during their lives, and they were on the front lines. They did this not as part of a post-war reconciliation process, but in the thick of devastating conflict. They went through tremendous suffering fighting tyranny, and despite this they never clamored for revenge. Instead, they called on us to undertake a war within the mind, so that our highest aspirations will be better reflected in our daily realities.
Spirituality itself is nothing other than the interplay between humanity’s very highest aspirations and the demands of daily living. With it is an awareness of a dialogue that takes place deep within our minds, urging us to make wise choices, based not on often-tempting short-term satisfaction, but lasting goodness. To be spiritual is to reflect these aspirations in one’s thought and actions, very often an arduous and sometimes thrilling undertaking. Spiritual people engage in this noble duty with a sense of purpose; often failing, they pick themselves up after their inevitable mistakes, and encourage others to do the same by their own example.
Spirituality is why Gandhi said to a world focused primarily on the external, “turn the searchlight inwards.”
Reforming and Revolutionizing Religion
Religion is the social manifestation of spirituality, the attempt to take the lessons of spiritual traditions and give them institutional status. People are not equal in their spiritual inclinations. We learn from others by example. Spiritual truths, by their very nature, are difficult to communicate. When spirituality is institutionalized into a system of religious thought, and when structures are erected to promote that thought, the very essence of that thought is often lost. Lessons are codified into rules, experiential discoveries transformed into hardened declarations of fact, and questioning and innovation is replaced by a mass of customs and institutions.
Religion may have spirituality for its heart, but all too often creeds and dogmas have been its clenched fist. Throughout history religion has been used to fervently justify staggering levels of violence and social decay. It may often seem that religion is doomed to perpetual failure, trafficking mystery posed as unchallengeable fact, rationalizing authoritarianism, and at best acting as a battered ambulance for the wounded and distressed.
Perhaps Tagore had this in mind when he continued his discussion on crowd psychology by saying, “Therefore I do not put my faith in any new institution, but in the individuals all over the world who think clearly, feel nobly, and act rightly, thus becoming the channels of moral truth. Our moral ideas do not work with chisels and hammers. Like trees, they spread their roots in the soil and their branches in the sky, without consulting any architect for their plans.”
For religious believers, Tagore’s observations, however accurate they might be, are not an excuse to give up the fight to make their religious institutions relevant to contemporary needs. Without significant structural reform and changes of focus, religious institutions will continue, by and large, to pose a threat to genuine peace. Their spiritual basis must be manifested in their institutional outlook. Religious institutions should be participatory, where members and formal representatives are partners in exploring their inner and outer worlds together–all interested parties right there on the edge, participating and learning from one another. The great ambassador of the unity of religions, Swami Vivekananda, made the point powerfully: “[Y]ou must remember that freedom is the first condition of growth. What you do not make free, will never grow. The idea that you can make others grow and help their growth, that you can direct and guide them, always retaining for yourself the freedom of the teacher, is nonsense, a dangerous lie which has retarded the growth of millions and millions of human beings in this world. Let men have the light of liberty. That is the only condition of growth.”
For skeptics of religion, the Khudai Khidmitgars are not evidence justifying religion. They can point out, truthfully, that just as religious believers hold fast to wildly diverse opinions on violence and nonviolence, so do the nonreligious. They can argue that religion is not necessary to practice nonviolence. Yet skeptics must acknowledge that religion was not some kind of optional attachment for potent nonviolent movements like the Khudai Khidmitgars; it was integral. When religion identifies, names and connects forces within the mind and society that contribute to peace and justice, it can be an empowering moral force. Skeptics as well as believers can learn from the universal spiritual insights these nonviolent movements and their religions have to offer, even as they discard the rituals, ceremonials, dogmas and creeds.
The Task Ahead
Abdul Ghaffar Khan is not a respected name for many Pakistanis outside of his home province. The level of hatred and contempt for Khan among elder generations, who heard little but sensationalized propaganda about him from despotic rulers, is significant. To an outsider, it may seem surprising that a man and an entire movement who fought bravely and truthfully could be so successfully demonized. However, this kind of aggressive ignorance towards good people who profoundly challenge society is not found only in Pakistan. “Fear not the path of truth for the lack of people walking on it,” advises a traditional Arabic saying. These are fighting words, appreciated by anyone who engages in the struggle to make our world a more peaceful place in which to live.
Stakes at the moment are high indeed. Millions of Afghans are on the brink of starvation, and many are surely dying, an entirely avoidable tragedy. Pakistan has nuclear weapons, and while its current leadership is not extreme, it is not inconceivable that extremists could seize power, and decide that they ought to give Americans a dose of their own nuclear medicine. Likewise, there are sure to be many in the Islamic world who fear the use of nuclear weapons by either side.
“The present-day world can only survive the mass production of nuclear weapons through nonviolence,” Khan said not long before his death. “The world needs Gandhi’s message of love and peace more today than it ever did before, if it does not want to wipe out civilization and humanity itself from the earth’s surface.”
Selected Bibliography
- Ahmad, Eqbal. Confronting Empire: Interviews with David Barsamian. South End Press, 2000.
- Ahmad, Eqbal. Terrorism: Theirs and Ours. Address given at University of Colorado, Boulder, 12 October 1998. Institute of Race Relations.
- Eknath, Easwaran. Nonviolent Soldier of Islam: Badshah Khan, A Man to Match His Mountains. Petaluma: Nilgiri Press, 2000.
- Hussain, S. Iftikhar. Some Major Pukhtoon Tribes Along the Pak-Afghan Border. Area Study Center Peshawar and Hanns Seidel Foundation, Univ. of Peshawar, 2000.
- Khan, Abdul Ghaffar. My Life and Struggle. Delhi: Hind Pocket Books, 1969.
- Shah, Sayed Wiqar Ali. Ethnicity, Islam and Nationalism: Muslim Politics in the North-West Frontier Province 1937-1947. Islamabad: Oxford University Press, 1999.
- Top Abdul Ghaffar Khan Image: D. G. Tendulkar.
- Khudai Khidmitgars Image: Nehru Memorial Library.
Great Game Pashton's History. 