SOURCE-MATERIAL ON BHAGAT KANWAR RAM
“ SOURCE-MATERIAL ABOUT THE MURDER OF BHAGAT KANWAR RAM.” Collected,researched and compiled by Dr.Dur Muhammad Pathan.
Sincethe assassination of Bhagat Kanwar Ram, very important books have been writtenand compiled. However, serious research effort is yet to be done in this regards .Such as not any book containsreference to FIR, official correspondence and press reaction in details. I amsharing here-with some material and information so as to add something inSource-Material and to enable Researchers to compile more comprehensive storyof a great tragedy that took place in the land of love and peaceInthe last decade of the British rule in Sindh, Sindhis – Hindus and Muslims –opted for division of hearts and minds for pleasing their political pandits .Theyproved themselves un-capable of solving and resolving their problems andinvited other political and religious parties of All-India level to indulge inSindh affairs. Most of those parties earned their name and fame on the cost ofSindh and Sindhis. The political philosophy of Muslim League was based onreligion. Whereas, Congress was claiming nationalism as spirit of its politicalideology. In Sindh, Khilafat Tahrik had already introduced ‘religious-oriented’politics in the Muslim segment of the society. Muslim League availed thisopportunity and tried to cash this bent of mind of Muslims. It is only way forSindhi Muslim League leadership to make their party more popular in Muslims ofSindh. Hence, stage was set during ‘Sindh Provincial Muslim LeagueConference-1938’ to make issue out of Manzilgah problem. Soon after thatconference, Masjid Manzilgah restoration Committee was formed and agitation wasstarted with exploitation of religious sentiments. Seth Haji Abdullah Haroon,G.M.Syed ; Muhammad Ayub Khuhro and Pir Ali Muhammad Shah Rashidi played their leadingrole in that movement launched in the name of restoration of Masjid Manzilgah.Soomro’s Government initiated dialogue with Muslim League leaders for the resolutionof the issue, but, “ It was only after opposition from Mr. G.M.Syed, MLA, that the RestorationCommittee on the 5th November 1939, decided to accept with certainmodifications the proposal of Government. Mr. G.M.Syed, continued to criticizedthe Sindh Government and was alleged to have said that the Muslims on noaccount surrender the Mosque to non-Muslims and if force was used againstthem, the injuctions of Islam TO TRATOTHERS AS THEY TREAY YOU would be observed, Government being held responsiblefor any disturbances which might occur”. In real leaders of agitation intendedto divide Sindh ideologically on religious lines so as so as Sindh Muslims ownthe political philosophy of Muslim League.
When Sindh stood divided politically andreligiously, ugly events stated taking place. Assassination of Bhaghat KanwarRam was one of them. Government of Sindh, vide its Confidential MemoNo.P-25-H(S)/39, dated 22nd of November, 1939, informs HomeDepartment of the Government of India about the murder of Bhagat Kanwar Ram. Itreads: “ An event of first rate importance which sent a thrill of horrorthroughout the province occurred during the fortnight under report. On thenight of the 1st November a well-known Hindu singer and preacher wasshot and killed in a railway carriage at Ruk Station while the train was movingout. One of his followers was also injured. The victim, Bhagat Kanwar Ram byname, was immediately sent to Sukkur but expired when the train reachedBagerji.The perpetrator of the crime escaped, but it is known that he was armedMuslim, who fired at the Bhagat at point blank range wounding him fatally. Thiswanton and cold-blooded murder has deeply shocked the Hindus, specially thoseof Upper Sindh, who held him in high esteem. Whether or not this dastardlycrime has any communal significance is not at present known, but it is not solong ago that the son of the Pir of Bharchundi was assaulted in Sukkur Bazar byHindus for carrying on proselytizing propaganda, and shortly after there was arumour that the Muslims had, as a reprisal, murdered this same Bhagat KanwarRam at Rauti in Ubauro Taluka”.
BODY TAKEN IN A PROCESSION: “The dead body of Bhagat Kanwar Ram wastaken in a procession at Sukkur. The District Magistrate laid down the route bywhich it should proceed but in spite of his orders it was taken through alocality he had particularly wished to avoid, as it was inhabited by the Muslim element. It was with great difficultybthat the procession was shephereded to the place origionally fixed for itstermination. In spite of the District Magistrate’s orders the procession alsowent past the Manzilgah which was still occupied by Muslims. By this time thecrowed had swelled to 10,000 and at one time during the melee the dead bodynearly dropped out of its bier. Hindus claimed this as a triumph and with loudacelamations rushed the body towards the Manzilgah. The leaders of theprocession had vanished by this time andnone or less rebellious crowd shouted slogans and vociferously claimed avictory. However, the occupants of the Manzilgah remained quite.” (SindhGovernment’s Report).
REACTION: A spontaneous hartalwas observed by the Hindus throughout the whole of Sindh on the 3rdNovember. Speaking on this subject at a meeting at Jacobabad, on the 3rdof November, attended by 4 Muslims and 600 Hindus, Mr. Amin Khoso, MLA, allegedthat the murder of Kanwar Bhagat, like all other troubles, had been engineeredby some secret Government agent in order to bring the two communities intoconflict. Communal feelings raised by the murder continue to be given yent tofrom the Hindu platform and press; but prominent Muslim leaders have alsodeplored the crime. Hartals and processions followed by largely attendedmeetings were held at Sukkur and Hyderababad on the 2nd November andat Karachi on 3rd November. At Karachi an Arya Samaj volunteersclothed in black and carrying a spear and pick-axe led the procession. Onespeaker said that the murder of Bhagat Kanwar Ram was a challenge to the Hinduswho should organize themselves to oppose the anti-Hindu element and tosupport the Arya Vir Dal with men andmoney. The Assembly Members were referred to as Patharidars and heads ofgundaism. The Speakers at Sukkur delivered bitter harangues and stonglycondemned the Sindh Ministry for its impotency alleging indirectly that theMinistry was to be blamed for the murder. One exited speaker remarked that theonly way to put a stop to such murders was to end Islam.
At Larkana a meeting was held on 8th November where theHindus condemned the Ruk murder and expressed acute disappointment at theso-called weakness of the Sindh Government. The Hindu General Panchayat ofSukkur resolved to send an All-Sindh Hindu Deputation to wait on HisExcellency, who, whoever, advised them to seek an interview with Premier in thefirst instance. Rohri Panchayat hasstopped Hindus from purchasing fish and meat for a whole month in order to urgeGovernment to unearth the conspiracy responsible for the Ruk murder. Publicsuspicion regarding the murder rests on the Pir of Bharchundi or some of his followers.Hindusall over the province are passing resolutions demanding the grant of armslicences more freely and requesting theauthorities to re-attach Sindh to Bombay and thus safeguard Hindu life andproperty. (Source: Ibid).
PRESS REACTION: The murder ofBhagat Kanwar Ram received prominence in press for so many days. The event wasgiven editorial and first page importance by the Hindu press. The ‘SindhObserver’ and ‘sansar Samachar’ alleged openly that the murder was commited bythe followers of the Pir of Bharchundi. The later newspaper remarked that theBhagat Kanwar Ram was a sacrifice to the policy og Government regarding theSukkur Manzilgah. The ‘Al-Wahid’ said the it was unfortunate that the murder ofBhagat Kanwar Ram is widely commented on in a communal strain, although thedeceased himself was sufi, and as such entirely free from communal sympathies,while his death is deplored by all communities. The incident, regrettable as itis, is unfortunately invoked to makecommunal capital . Other Newspapers those gave full coverage and comments onthe murder were The ‘Congress’, The ‘Karachi Daily’, The ‘Hindu’, and The‘Qurbani’, etc.
Sindh Observer, in its issue of 3rd November 1939, offers itscomments as follow: “ Kanwar Bhagat Ram’s Murder – A Singer, Saint and Sufi – Asimple man with Divine Mission – Why he was killed?”. The paper writes: ‘Several rumours are in circulation as to the cause of this murder. That he wasmurdered by design and not by accident goes without saying. Who conceived thismurder and who executed it? It is the mystery that must immediately be solvednot only for the sake of the reputation of the Sindh Government, but also forthe sake of the peace of this Province. Though, Kanwar Bhagat died a martyr,the long arm of the law should immediately reach the perpetrators of theheinous crime. It is recalled in this connection that there was some trouble atSukkur some weeks ago between a certain section of Hindus and Muslims onaccount of an alleged assault on the sonof an influential Pir, well-known in Sukkur district. It was alleged that someHindus committed the assault though it was not for serious nature. The Pir’sfollowers were incensed, advanced on Sukkur, and decided to take the law intotheir hands. The action of the District Magistrate, the visit of the Premier ofSindh to Sukkur to calm down passions, the willingness of the Hindu leaders ofSukkur to apologize to the Pir for an assault said to have been committed by anunknown person or persons brought down the tension and settled the matter.
But it issaid that some of the bolder and reckless spirits among the followers of thePir were not satisfied with the apology of the Hindus and wowed that ‘theseKaffirs should be taught a lesson for daring to assault the Pir’s son. It wasfeared that they marked out Kanwar Baghat for murder and that some policemen had to be sent to his village toguard his life. As any stranger appearing in his village would be easilydetected and traced. These conspirators chose the occasion of his return fromManjhand for this unspeakable crime.
Here aresome clues for tracing culprits. The police of Sukkur and the DistrictMagistrate ought to be in possession of more reliable information as they knewthe LIFE OF THE Bhagat was in danger at one time. How for the Manzilgahagitation has contributed in this murder is also a subject worth investigation.The followers of the same Pir are in illegal possession of the same Manzilgahfrom which they have not yet been ejected. The Pir was scheduled to say prayerwith his followers today in the Manzilgah. The Hindus of Sukkur are in greatferment on account of this murder. It requires all the ingenuity of theDistrict Magistrate of Sukkur to keep the peace and prevent the development ofmany untoward events. This is opinion in Karachi.”
CONGRESS REACTION: Mr. C.T.Valecha, MLA, President of Sukkur CongressCommittee, sent telegram to Dr. Choithram P. Gidwani, MLA and Vice-President ofthe Sindh Provincial Congress Committee inviting him to visit Sukkur tounderstand the situation after the murder of Bhagat Kanwar Ram and see whatcould be done. Dr. Choitram alongwith Prof. Ghanshyam Jethanand, leader ofSindh Assembly Congress Party, visited Sukkur and after holding talks withHindu leaders and the Magistrate, issued statement that was published in The‘Sindh Observer’, in its issue of 10th November 1939. The statementis based on the same hypothesis doubting crime committed by followers of thePir of Bharchundi. Important passages are produced for adding more to readers’knowledge:
“ An special armed guard wasstatined at the house of Bhagat Kanwar Ram and a licence for gun wasimmediately issued in his name. The apprehension about his life was so genuinethat from that time to the day of his murder, the Bhagat was always accompaniedin his travels by two private guards armed with guns.
It is clear that the murder of Bhagat Kanwar Ram was deliberate andpremeditated. In our opinion the authorities should have gone deeper into thematter when reports about danger to Bhagat’s life were made to them and shouldhave taken action against any person or persons from whom there wasapprehension of murder, irrespective of his or their position. We are further ofopinion that the police at the Ruk Station at the time of murder utterly failedin their duty in pursuing the culprits.”
PIR IS ARRESTED: Pir of Bhachoondi was arrested at Sukkur on the 8thof October, 1940, under the Bombay Regulation XXV of 1827 and was brought thesame day to Karachi. His son disappeared in Bahawalpur State The Governmentintended to arrest him also.
His arrest occupied a prominent place in all the newspapers.The ‘Hindu’ remarks that the action of the Government was opportune, proper andjustified, as the Pir had hand in all the murders which were committed in theRohri Division. The ‘Sansar Samachar’ congratulates the Government upon the step. The ‘Qurbani’ is not satisfiedwith the arrest under the Regulation of 1827 and suggests that the Pir should be tried and awarded aheavy sentence. The ‘Shikarpur Gazette’ remarks that although the arrest is belated it has given considerablesatisfaction to the oppressed Hindus and has infused a new life into them. The‘Hayat’ states that the Pir has been arrested to please the Hindus and will beset free when Government wish to please the Muslims.The paper suggested that heshould be tried in an open court. The ‘Bab-ul-Islam’ and ‘Paigham-Sulh’ alsowrite in the same strain. The ‘Al-Wahid’ however, remarks that the internmentof the Pir of Bhachoondi would be futile so long as there is no changeof heart among the Hindus and Muslims. The Hindu press commented at length over the murders which werecommitted in the Rohri Sub-Division duiring last fortnight.
On 5thNovember four dacoits attacked the village of Sumar, killed one Hindu andinjured four others. events of same nature took place in the length and breadthof Sukkur District. Rumours were currentin Karachi that large scale trouble involving raids from Baluchistan andBahawalpur by the followers of the Pir of Bharchoondi were to be concertedduring the Ramzan Eid gathering and theDistrict Magistrates of Sukkur, Larkano, and upper Sindh Frontier were warnedto keep a close watch on the situation and take the maximum precautions. TheEid, however, passed off peacefully.
The Report/Letter of 6th of November, 1940 by the Governor of Sindh to the Viceroy of India to apprise him of theSindh situation, also includes this subject. It throws light on un-told aspectsof the story. He writes: “ The actual arrest was easily effected, but we havenot succeeded yet in capturing his son, who is really the more active agent forevil. The trouble is that not only is the country extremely difficult, butescape is easy into Bahawalpur and also on the south-east towards Rajputana. Wehave been told at different times that his son has been in hiding in Jaipur and Jaisalmir, but we have noconfirmation of that. The Bahawalpur authorities had no desire to sheltereither Pir or his son and in fact they have expressed themselves as ready toco-operate.
The Muslim League under the guidance of Sir Abdullah Haroonand Pir Ali Muhammad Shah Rashdi firsttook up the line that there was no case of any sort against the Pir and heshould not have been arrested. As, however, the series of murders on very muchthe same pattern continued after the arrest and it becomes increasingly evidentthat these were being carried out by theadherents of the Pir, the authorities of the Muslim League found themselvessome what embarrassed. So also did two of my Ministers, namely the ChiefMinister (Mir Bandah Ali) and G,M.Syed,who had shown themselves unduly sympathetic towards the Pir of Bharchoondi andhad tried to get me to take into consideration a proposal that he should bereleased from jail but required to live in a house in Karachi. I told them veryfrankly that until I had got the Pir’s son in jail and until I was satisfiedthat we had got on top of this trouble, I would not give any consideration toany proposal for releasing Pir from his present custody. Three of my Ministerswent to visit the Pir in jail and first I heard of it was after the visit hadtaken place:; but I do not think I couldhave taken objection to their paying a visit, because it was easy for them tosay that they were anxious to induce the Pir to realize the folly andwickedness of his ways and exercise his undoubtedly vide influence for therestoration of peace. Mr.G.M.Syed, however, has created a very bad impressionamong the Hindus by his action in taking to the jail a present of fruit andsweets for the Pir.
The next move came three or four days ago from Sir AbdullahHaroon, who now appears to have reached the conclusion that the Pir and his sonand their followers are responsible for these outrages on Hindus and moreoverthat if these outrage continue it would be difficult for the Muslim League Ministryto servive. He was allowed twointerviews with the Pir and claimed tobe convinced that the Pir was prepared to co-operate in stopping the murders.My Ministers agreed with him and we got as far as bringing down to Karachi oneof Pir’s Khalifas who was underpreventive arrest under the Sindh Frontier Regulation. The idea underlying this plan of the MuslimLeague was that Pir should give an autographed letter to each of three of hisKhalifas at present under detention and that Sir Haji Abdullah Haroon himselfshould proceed to Sukkur and offer security to the District Magistrate, Sukkur,for the good behaviour of these three persons if released. On release, thesepersons were to proceed to three centers,(1) the Pir’s own home, (2) in theJacobabad District and (3) in Baluchistan, and convey the message of the Pircontained in the autographed letter that the murders were to cease. One of theKhalifas was produced here yesterday, but the arrangement broke down becauseSir Haji Abdullah Haroon announced that he was unable to leave Karachi forSukkur owing to his agitation over an incident in a mosque which had takenplace the night before. He subsequently sent a second letter giving furtherreasons why he was unable to leaveKarachi, to effect that only one of the Pir’s Khalifas had been brought downand that he would not be sufficient for that purpose. Actually, it ispretty clear that he decided that he cannot carry on the terms of his offer andthat he does not wish to be in any way responsible……………(The letter is lengthy,hence three paragraphs are left because of their less importance)………
That is all that I can say at present. I have it in mind ifany further trouble occurs, to convey a message to Pir of Bharchoondi that heis running the risk of being transferred to the Andmans or some equallyunpleasant place. I trust that there may be no need to make any such proposalto you and I am having that law on the subject examined.”
No comments:
Post a Comment