A Pacifist Uncovered- Ghaffar Khan

by Amitabh Pal

It’s tragic that India and Pakistan are almost constantly in a state of animosity and are now facing off against each other with nuclear weapons. It’s also ironic, since both countries can claim pacifist pioneers. India has Gandhi, as most everyone knows. But few people know about Abdul Ghaffar Khan, a proponent of nonviolence and social change who lived in Pakistan.

Khan resided in what is now the North-West Frontier Province of Pakistan, and he was affectionately known as the “Frontier Gandhi.” As Gandhi was given the title of Mahatma, meaning “Great Soul,” Khan was given the title Badshah, meaning “Leader” or “King.”

A devout practitioner of nonviolence and social reform, Khan worked to spread his ideals in the region. Eluding at least two assassination attempts and surviving three decades in prison, he remained committed to nonviolence to the day he died in 1988 at the age of ninety-eight.

“For today’s children and the world, my thoughts are that only if they accept nonviolence can they escape destruction, with all this talk of the atom bomb, and live a life of peace,” Khan told an interviewer in 1985. “If this doesn’t happen, then the world will be in ruins.”

Asfandiyar Wali Khan, Ghaffar’s grandson, remembers two basic lessons his grandfather gave him about the superiority of nonviolence.

“He said that violence needs less courage than nonviolence,” says Asfandiyar, who resides in Peshawar, Pakistan. “Second, violence will always breed hatred. Nonviolence breeds love.”

As a young man, Ghaffar Khan started a school for Pashtun children. Soon, he came under the influence of Haji Abdul Wahid Sahib, a social reformer. Before long, he had established contact with other progressive Muslim leaders in India, who urged him to work for the education and uplift of the Pashtuns. But Ghaffar Khan was still searching for answers. In 1914, he performed a fast that lasted for days. The fast strengthened his resolve to dedicate his life to social reform, and he spent the next few years touring the region. Soon he learned about Gandhi and his movement, which provided an enormous boost to Khan and his work.

Khan founded a nonviolent movement in 1929 called the Khudai Khidmatgar–the servants of God. This movement, which eventually involved more than 100,000 Pashtuns, was dedicated to social reform and to ending the rule of the British in then-undivided India.

Khan’s calls for social change, more equitable land distribution, and religious harmony threatened some religious leaders and big landlords. But he toured incessantly, traveling twenty-five miles in a day, going from village to village, speaking about social reform and having his movement members stage dramas depicting the value of nonviolence.

“I visited a really remote village recently and was taking pride in the fact that I was the first outsider to be there,” says Asfandiyar, the central president of the Awami (People’s) National Party, which claims to carry on Ghaffar Khan’s work. “However, I learned that Badshah Khan had been there in 1942. Imagine the conditions at the time. He must have had to walk ten to twelve hours to get there.”

The British treated Ghaffar Khan and his movement with a barbarity that they did not often inflict on other adherents of nonviolence in India. “The brutes must be ruled brutally and by brutes,” stated a 1930 British report on the Pashtuns.

The British thought of Ghaffar Khan’s movement as a ruse. To them, “A nonviolent Pathan [another name for a Pashtun] was unthinkable, a fraud that masked something cunning and darkly treacherous,” writes Eknath Easwaran in Nonviolent Soldier of Islam: Badshah Khan, A Man to Match His Mountains (Nilgiri Press, 1999).

The British thus reacted with a singular ferocity to the Khidmatgar desire for independence from British rule, subjecting Khidmatgar members throughout the 1930s and early 1940s to mass killings, torture, and destruction of their homes and fields. Khan himself spent fifteen of these years in prison, often in solitary confinement. But these Pashtuns refused to give up their adherence to nonviolence even in the face of such severe repression.

In the single worst incident, the British killed at least 200 Khidmatgar members in Peshawar on April 23, 1930. Gene Sharp, who has written a study of nonviolent resistance, describes the scene on that day: “When those in front fell down wounded by the shots, those behind came forward with their breasts bared and exposed themselves to the fire, so much so that some people got as many as twenty-one bullet wounds in their bodies, and all the people stood their ground without getting into a panic. . . . The Anglo-Indian paper of Lahore, which represents the official view, itself wrote to the effect that the people came forward one after another to face the firing and when they fell wounded they were dragged back and others came forward to be shot at. This state of things continued from 11 till 5 o’clock in the evening. When the number of corpses became too many, the ambulance cars of the government took them away.”

The carnage stopped only because a regiment of Indian soldiers finally refused to continue firing on the unarmed protesters, an impertinence for which they were severely punished.

With his commitment to Hindu-Muslim unity, Ghaffar Khan was firmly opposed to the creation of Pakistan, which was founded as a homeland for the Muslims of the Indian subcontinent. He also thought that the rights of the Pashtuns would be better respected in a large, decentralized, united India rather than in a smaller, more centralized Pakistan. After Pakistan’s creation, he started demanding a separate region, or Pashtunistan, for the Pashtuns. He left it deliberately ambiguous whether he wanted this area to be within Pakistan or a separate country.

All this gave the Pakistani authorities the opportunity to accuse him of anti-national activities. They jailed and killed some of his followers. Khan was imprisoned again for more than a decade. The Pakistan government banned the Khidmatgar movement and razed its headquarters, but Khan continued his work…

"The Khidmatgar movement was one of self-reform and introspection," says Mukulika Banerjee, author of The Pathan Unarmed: Opposition and Memory in the North West Frontier (School of American Research Press, 2000). "It involved two crucial elements: Islam and Pukhtunwali (the Pashtun tribal code). Here nonviolence becomes an ideological system very compatible with Islam and Pukhtunwali, since these are reinterpreted."

The movement had "first of all, a religious basis," writes nonviolence scholar Joan V. Bondurant in Conquest of Violence: The Gandhian Philosophy of Conflict (Princeton University Press, 1988). "It took as its objective both local socioeconomic reform and political independence. . . . Its adoption of nonviolence was more thorough than that of the Indian National Congress inasmuch as the Khudai Khidmatgar pledged themselves to nonviolence not only as a policy, but as a creed, a way of life."

Khan stressed the compatibility of Islam and nonviolence.

"There is nothing surprising in a Muslim or a Pathan like me subscribing to the creed of nonviolence," Ghaffar Khan is quoted in Easwaran's biography. "It is not a new creed. It was followed 1,400 years ago by the Prophet all the time when he was in Mecca." For Khan, Islam meant muhabbat (love), amal (service), and yakeen (faith).

Khan once told Gandhi of a discussion he had with a Punjabi Muslim who didn't see the nonviolent core of Islam. "I cited chapter and verse from the Koran to show the great emphasis that Islam had laid on peace, which is its coping stone," Khan said. "I also showed to him how the greatest figures in Islamic history were known more for their forbearance and self-restraint than for their fierceness. The reply rendered him speechless."

Khan interpreted Islam as a moral code with pacifism at its center.

"Badshah Khan told people that Islam operates on a simple principle--never hurt anyone by tongue, by gun, or by hand," says Begum Nasim Wali Khan, Ghaffar's daughter-in-law, who is the provincial president of the Awami National Party. "Not to lie, steal, and harm is true Islam."

But the movement was nonsectarian. When Hindus and Sikhs were attacked in Peshawar, 10,000 Khidmatgar members helped protect their lives and property. And when riots broke out in the state of Bihar in 1946 and 1947, Khan toured with Gandhi to bring about peace.

"Although the character of the movement was intensely Islamic . . . one of the objectives of the organization was the promotion of Hindu-Muslim unity," Bondurant observes.

In the early 1990s, Banerjee, a lecturer in anthropology at University College London, spent months in the frontier region with Khan's family and interviewed seventy surviving Khidmatgar members. She says that while people initially joined the organization due to Khan's charisma and persuasiveness, later on it was due to the excitement of becoming part of something larger than themselves. And their commitment to nonviolence was stronger than their allegiance to Khan. When Gandhi asked some of them in 1938 if they would take up violence if Ghaffar Khan told them to, they replied with an emphatic no.

Mubarak Awad, a Palestinian American who is the director of Nonviolence International, has derived inspiration from Ghaffar Khan and has translated his speeches and work into Arabic.

"I was so happy to learn about him and meet some of his followers," he says. "He practiced Islam and nonviolence and showed that it was not only for the weak. He came from a group of people--the Pathans--who were warriors."

Awad says Khan was an eye-opener for a lot of Muslims. "He was a soldier of Islam but in a nonviolent way," he says. "He showed that even a strong person could be nonviolent."

Khan believed in equality for women and was emphatic about female education, Asfandiyar says. "If we achieve success and liberate the motherland, we solemnly promise you that you will get your rights," he pledged to women. "In the Holy Koran, you have an equal share with men. You are today oppressed because we men have ignored the commands of God and the Prophet."

The movement encouraged equal participation of women from the start. "Pathan women participating in nonviolent action campaigns would frequently take their stand facing the police or would lie down in orderly lines holding copies of the Koran," Bondurant writes.

Like Gandhi, Khan lived a simple life, and due to his extensive political activities and lengthy bouts of imprisonment, he often neglected his family. "He was a person who denied the luxuries of life first to himself and then wanted you to deny them to yourself," Asfandiyar says.

Hiro Shroff, an Indian journalist who met Ghaffar Khan in the 1950s, observed in a recent article for the web publication Sawaal.com that "his total belongings did not weigh more than a few pounds. His belongings consisted of a bed sheet, a towel, and, I think, a spare set of salwar and kameez [clothing]. That was all."

Professor Satti Khanna of Duke University met Khan when he visited India in 1985 at the age of ninety-five for the centennial celebrations of the Congress Party, with which Khan and Gandhi were associated. Khanna interviewed him for a 1987 documentary he made on India's partition, entitled Division of Hearts.

"He was a presence rather than a person," Khanna remembers. "He had an emanation of profound integrity."

So why is Khan almost unknown? For one thing, he has gotten a raw deal in South Asia itself. Due to his differences with the Pakistani authorities, Khan's name does not appear in official Pakistani history. Hence, he is little known in Pakistan outside the frontier area. Indeed, some of my Pakistani friends are barely aware of him.

"There's been a complete erasure of the man and the movement from Pakistani historiography," Banerjee says. "The younger generation even in that region hasn't heard of him."

If he is recognized at all, it is as a Pashtun nationalist, rather than as a proponent of nonviolence and social reform.

In India, Ghaffar Khan has also been handled unfairly. Most often, he is portrayed as an adjunct of Gandhi (hence the term "Frontier Gandhi").

But Ghaffar Khan started forming his project of nonviolence and social reform before he came into contact with Gandhi. And his nonviolence drew its inspiration from the Koran and the Prophet Muhammad, in contrast to Gandhi, whose ideals were largely based on the Hindu holy book the Bhagavad Gita, the Bible, and the writings of Thoreau and Tolstoy.

There are other factors that contribute to Khan's obscurity.

"Gandhi left behind an enormous amount of written work," Banerjee says. "With Khan, the whole thing dies with him, apart from his autobiography."

In addition, Khan chose to spend his life in Pakistan and Afghanistan, rather than visiting the West, as Gandhi did.

But this shouldn't keep us from recognizing the remarkable journey embarked upon by Khan and his fellow Pashtuns--a community that the Taliban has recently given a terrible name.

Nonviolence, religious tolerance, women's rights, and social justice--certainly Khan could have done a lot worse than to spread these ideals. And he did it while deriving his inspiration from a religion some vilify as intrinsically intolerant.

Khan deserves a better fate than to languish in obscurity. He has a lot to offer, not least to the leaders of India and Pakistan.


Amitabh Pal is Editor of the Progressive Media Project, an affiliate of The Progressive magazine. In this 1947 photo, Khan is the tall man in the center. Gandhi is to his left.

He made mistakes..but he is a person worth admiriation...but I dislike the term Sarhadi Gandhi..why? Well making thousands of gun loving warrior pashtuns give up their blood feuds and battles against the British for a Jihad through non violence was something I doubt even Gandhi could do...

A traitor he was!

Can you please elaborate on the mistakes he made.

Thanks

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Zakk: *
He made mistakes..but he is a person worth admiriation...but I dislike the term Sarhadi Gandhi..why? Well making thousands of gun loving warrior pashtuns give up their blood feuds and battles against the British for a Jihad through non violence was something I doubt even Gandhi could do...
[/QUOTE]

Suri: Ghaffar Khan made mistakes a fact best reflected by Dr Khan Sahibs actions ...his biggest was his blind faith in Gandhi and the Congress party. The Khudai Khidmatgar movement was a unique social reform movement in the pakhtun belt..what changed was when it turned into a secular political wing of the Congress party. The Congress Party's goals were not in the interest of pashtuns or Muslims. ...even so key chances were missed..for example the attempted reconcilliation meeting between him and Jinnah..the COngress provincial government in NWFP could have been saved..and he could have accepted a deal with Iskandier Mirza..who had great respect for the "Khan" brothers.

However it is to his credit despite all provocations he never resorted to violence as a means of promoting his cause...

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Islamabad: *
A traitor he was!
[/QUOTE]

Why do you regard him as a traitor, would you care to explain?

http://www.dawn.com/weekly/books/books12.htm

REVIEW: Bacha Khan and his politics

Reviewed by Dr Sher Zaman Taizi

The most controversial figure in Pakistani politics but the most revered
personality among the Pakhtoons, Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan (popularly known as( Bacha Khan), has left an indelible mark on the history of the subcontinent
in general and his own clansmen in particular.

In the field of politics, he was the main target of criticism in Pakistan.
The information service of the central as well as the provincial governments
of Pakistan made all out efforts for almost forty years to belittle his
position due to his uncompromising stand against the roughshod policies of the governments, particularly those he believed were detrimental to the cause of the Pakhtoons. But, he stood fast to face heavy odds.

In fact, Bacha Khan was not much interested in politics for name and gain. He concentrated earnestly on awakening and reforming the Pakhtoon society, which was floundering through the marsh of its own blood. It was exploited brutally by the Malik-Mullah combination for its own narrow gains. He fought against many forces, i.e. Khan, Malik, Mullah, Pir and the government. Naturally all these elements turned against him.

It is significant that the intelligence agencies of the British government
of India and its successor - the government of Pakistan - could not find any weakness in Bacha Khan’s character which they could exploit for almost 80 years of his political career. Hence, they attacked Bacha Khan and his Khudai Khidmatgar movement’s allegiance to the All India Congress Party, which was dominated by the Hindus. But he was not the only Muslim figure in that party. Many reputable Muslim scholars were members of the Congress. But the ‘dark forces’ of the government singled out Bacha Khan to cast doubts on his faith and convince the ignorant masses that he was a friend of the Hindus. Bacha Khan was a Muslim - an adherent of the Hanafite creed - who performed all his religious duties regularly, including the tahajjud prayer
(two rak’as preceding the early morning prayer). However, unlike the
protocol-type religious figures, he did not demonstrate his religious
leaning and piety. The late Shorish Kashmiri had once asked him, in an
interview, why when he had performed Haj he did not write Haji with his
name. He replied that it was a religious obligation and not a label.

Of the issues in which Bacha Khan was closely involved, Pakhtoonistan was probably the most contentious. This not only bedevilled relations between Pakistan and Afghanistan but also attracted ‘hostile’ powers like India and the late Soviet Union which tried to take advantage of the situation to embarrass Pakistan.

Afghanistan exploited this issue with irredentist claims. Pakistan used it
to suppress the Khudai Khidmatgar movement. In fact, Bacha Khan demanded renaming of the NWFP as Pakhtoonistan with full provincial autonomy. He made this demand in his address as a member of the first Legislative Assembly. Although Field Marshal Ayub Khan made a distinction between the two brands of Pakhtoonistan in his book Friends Not Masters, separating the Kabul brand of Pakhtoonistan from the Utmanzai brand in Pakistan, this confused the mind
of the common man.

In his book, Syed Fida Yunas has brought out some relevant facts, which lead to the conclusion that Bacha Khan wanted an autonomous province of Pakhtoonistan within Pakistan, whereas Afghanistan adhered to its irredentist claims with ambiguous shifts - from ‘annexation of the land once ruled by Ahmad Shah Abdali (1747-1773) to the right of self-determination to the peoples of what it called occupied Pakhtoonistan.’ ** The most ardent advocate of Pakhtoonistan was Sardar Daud, who himself, at one time, admitted that no leader of the National Awami Party (successor of Khudai Khidmatgars and predecessor of the Awami National Party), including Khan Abdul Wali Khan, was in favour of secession. As quoted by his deputy foreign minister, Abdul Samad Ghaus, “Daud mentioned that NAP leaders had been
accused of secessionist designs. ‘While nobody can know what is in a man’s heart’, he said, ‘to us none of the ones with whom we have spoken, including Wali Khan, said that they wished to separate from Pakistan.’” (The Fall of Afghanistan - An Insider’s Account) **

Whereas the people were made to believe that Bacha Khan was a ‘traitor’ the government of Pakistan (then headed by General Ziaul Haq) had directed Syed Fida Yunas, then Chargi d’affaires of Pakistan in Afghanistan, to represent Pakistan at the funeral of Bacha Khan at Jalalabad. In Afghanistan, Dr Najib, then President, provided a special helicopter to him with due protocols to enable him to attend the funeral rites.

The author was fortunate to have established personal contact with Bacha Khan while he was serving in the Pakistan embassy in Kabul He has candidly put the information he had in this book. Some of this was not publicly known heretofore.This is a valuable treatise and should make a reliable source of information for future scholars.

Abdul Ghaffar Khan: Pushtunistan and Afghanistan

By S. Fida Yunas

Self-published. Available from 31-A, Sector D-5, Phase-1, Hayatabad,
Peshawar.

100pp. Rs100

It's impossible to find in any culture a people who do not revere their warrior leaders. The most famous barbarian King was Genghis Khan ..he killed proportionately more people than any ruler in history..yet he is is a national hero in Mongolia.

What's funny is that the one man who people should have the least complaints (because of his non violent creed) about Ghaffar Khan is called a traitor.

I remember a few years back when Nelson mandel was visiting Pakistan he made an effort to meet one of Ghaffar Khans closest lieutenants and expressed his admiration for him...

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Zakk: *
What's funny is that the one man who people should have the least complaints (because of his non violent creed) about Ghaffar Khan is called a traitor.

[/QUOTE]

In Pakistan all polictical leaders who fought for provincial autonomy are considered traitors, whether Bacha Khan or GM Syed. The whole sinn of Bacha Khan was that he wanted to rename NWFP as Pakhtunkhwa and wanted more rights to be shifted to the provinces.

[QUOTE]
In Pakistan all polictical leaders who fought for provincial autonomy are considered traitors, whether Bacha Khan or GM Syed. The whole sinn of Bacha Khan was that he wanted to rename NWFP as Pakhtunkhwa and wanted more rights to be shifted to the provinces.
[/QUOTE]

The case of the two is quite different. It is one thing to fight for provincial rights, it is quite another to burn the national flag at rallies.

Not to disagree with that, but one can say that GM Syed was pushed into that position when he was jailed and had his self dignity taken away from him by the establishment.

From being the strongest support of Pakistan movement to being made into a traitor. Only in Pakistan can this happen and no one speaks out on why it happened.

[QUOTE]
Not to disagree with that, but one can say that GM Syed was pushed into that position when he was jailed and had his self dignity taken away from him by the establishment.

From being the strongest support of Pakistan movement to being made into a traitor. Only in Pakistan can this happen and no one speaks out on why it happened.
[/QUOTE]

Imdad many other people were jailed but all of them did not resort to this. It is sad that we caused some of the strongest believers in Pakistan to turn against it. Let us hope and pray that we the new generation can make all the skeptics believe again.

The reason for why some did not resort to this lies in the ethnic imbalance that paksitan inherited from the british. Sadly this divide has only grown over time due to reasons that we all know, or should know anyway.

Another point Ghaffar Khan was amnesty Internationals Prisoner of Conscience in the 1960's.

G.M Syed is another case altogether..he was responsible for making Sind vote in Support of the Pakistan resolution..his personal break with the idea of Pakistan only happened around the time of ZAB's murder.

On another point I have always found it surprising that despite being accused of being traitors ( he was never convicted of any charge of treason) Ghaffar Khans supporters or family were always the first people approached by Army governments for advice!

Imdad that is not correct. Khar said "We will come riding on Indian Tanks" a lot of people notably Hanif Ramay and Fakhar Zaman (who now runs around holding punjabi congresses) as well as a host of Tiwanas tried to foment Punjabi nationalism which failed. I was talking in a more general sense. There were people from all the provinces who were victimised, yet they did not turn against Pakistan.

Edit: The guy's name is Fakhar Zaman not Qamar Zaman

[QUOTE]
On another point I have always found it surprising that despite being accused of being traitors ( he was never convicted of any charge of treason) Ghaffar Khans supporters or family were always the first people approached by Army governments for advice!
[/QUOTE]

Zakk the army has a policy of approaching the most volatile elements first. They know that if they can satisfy/pacify/convince/blackmail these people then the rest are in the bag.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by mufakkar: *
Imdad that is not correct. Khar said "We will come riding on Indian Tanks" a lot of people notably Hanif Ramay and Qamar Zaman (who now runs around holding punjabi congresses) as well as a host of Tiwanas tried to foment Punjabi nationalism which failed. I was talking in a more general sense. There were people from all the provinces who were victimised, yet they did not turn against Pakistan.
[/QUOTE]

That's the point I was making. Punjabis never had to suffer the level of humiliation that sindhis, pashtuns, balochs or mohajris had to. Because when all is said and done, punjabis are still in majority and can run things indirectly through islamabad.

[QUOTE]
That's the point I was making. Punjabis never had to suffer the level of humiliation that sindhis, pashtuns, balochs or mohajris had to. Because when all is said and done, punjabis are still in majority and can run things indirectly through islamabad.
[/QUOTE]

What got unsaid was that Khar was obviously imrpisoned, so was Ramay and Zaman as well as Khuda Bakhsh Tiwana, the young Jehangir Badar, Aitzaz Ahsan etc etc. There was this one guy, a dwarf in Lahore I don't know what his name was but he was called "chota". The police would on several occassions put him in an empty oil drum and roll him down the street. Moreover, one of the largest protests and strikes at the time of Bhutto's execution took place in Lahore. My point being that these guys went through just as much suffering as anyone. Some of them went against Pakistan and others didn't just like in other provinces. You really ought to visit parts of Lahore (Misri Shah, Baghbanpura, Mozang areas) or some of the Chaks starting in District Gojra southward and you can talk to Urdu speaking neighbourhoods and villages about the "humiliation" they had to undergo first hand.

Zakk the army has a policy of approaching the most volatile elements first. They know that if they can satisfy/pacify/convince/blackmail these people then the rest are in the bag.

That's one way of looking at it..but in Musharrafs own words he only wanted to meet clean politicians of integrity so his first choice was an ANP one...so was the case of many other of Ghaffar khans closest followers and himself..they lives austere lives...

p.s: While Punjab has shown sparks of revolt against the centre..it has never as a whole province gone against the federal government..except in one case when it was supported by the presidency and ISI against Benazirs PPP govt..so thats not a fair comparison.