Non-Violence and Baacha Khan
Dr. Khurshid Alam
A very close friend asked me to write on this subject. Many great scholars have already sprinkled a lot of ink on this topic, for me it is a very difficult task whatever I am going to write is what I heard from Baba and what I deduce from it. I am afraid there will be a lot of subjective component. It will be my perception of his teachings and my understanding of what he told me. But my intentions are definitely based on honesty but perception is definitely challengeable.
I am very clear about one idea that his political alliance or merger with Indian congress was compulsion of circumstances. It was the use of brute force by British against GOD SERVICEMEN (Khudai Khidmatgars), the contemptuous attitude of Ali brothers towards Pakhtuns, the Pro British stance of Muslim League that left him with no alternative. Whether it was a right step in right direction or not, is questionable.
Secondly that his option for non-violence was the under the influence of Gandhi is totally wrong. He did study and concluded that it is in conformity with Islamic Ideology.
Once Maulana Azad asked him that why does he recite only Sura ´´ALKAFEROON” every time before a meetings? He replied´´I do it intentionally to tell the people that it is basically an Islamic philosophy. It is further proved by the nine clauses included in the oath of God Servicemen.
The question may be asked that whether the perception of Gandhi and Bacha khan about non-violence was the same or not? The answer is simple that Gandhi used it as a political tool, he was honest to realise that his nation is non violent and any other strategy to gain freedom may not suit the temperament of his people. To Bacha khan it was a code of life. I would request the readers to go through his nine points, which covers almost every aspect of life.
Bacha khan told me unambiguously that he considered non-violence extremely important and the only treatment of all the ills that were prevailing in the society of Pakhtuns. He explained further that geography and the brainless traditions have divided Pakhtuns in tribes and the ridiculous violence has introduced individualism in them.
To my question that should we really turn our other cheek to inhuman insult by these barbaric people. He replied, ´´Did I condemn when an Indian shot at the speaker of Gujarat or have I ever condemned Habib Noor for shooting at an English Assistant commissioner?´´
Non-violence is for braves not cowards. You don’t have to offer your other cheek but have to resist your emotions and speak up truth loudly and show logic in your response. Make the enemy unarmed by non-responsiveness. He emphasized that one must differentiate between cowardice and non-violence. He asked me whether I have read a short story´´Nishan”? That is a true portrayal of non-violence.
After my long discourse at different occasions and in different political situations I have never noticed any change in his basic views. If I am not wrong I have deduced one thing from his teachings that he always dreamt how to teach Pashtuns the benefits of non-violence amongst them. To him faith was a sacred battle and violence was a beastly extinct. I cannot imagine of Bacha Khan that he would expect a humane attitude to a beast. It was against his logical nature. Suppressed nation has no rights but a mission to get freedom irrespective of its price. ´´Irrespective of its price” is up to the readers how they interpret.
He narrated a story of a God Serviceman from Kohat who committed suicide because he did not want to resort to violence in response to the torture at the hands of Qayum Khan. Bacha khan was really bitter about it.
When Wali Khan told him that non-violence could be shown to a human being but not to an attacking dog or an animal. Violence cannot be avoided in case the attacker is an animal. But a proportionate response to protect yourself and not to harm the other disproportionately.
He categorically told me that this is his to dream to teach non- violence to Pukhtoons. It is the most important philosophy for Intra-Pukhtoons social evils. His emphasized on this point and did not give me the slightest clue that to him despot and a political opponent was the same. My assumption may be wrong but my dilemma is worse that I don’t have any other explanation for it.
When he returned from Kabul after the creation of Bangla Desh, he showed his unhappiness with Pakhtuns in a huge gathering of a million people that was presided by Sardar Shawkat Hayat. I leave it to the readers to deduce for them what he said to in that meeting?
A person who refused to be slaving whiles in chains how he could be expected to accept a savage slavery instead of freedom. It does not need a high degree of intelligence that how can it be achieved?
The main difference between now and then, they were free in chains and we are slaves without chains. Our imaginations, dreams and mind are in chain, so invisible.
His passive and some time active resistance to the illiterate clergy is another proof of my perception. He said God does not like Mufsideen, (Anarchist). He was forcefully asking me to know the difference between freedom fighters and gangster. Did he not contribute to Palestinians struggle? What does it show?
To him the suppression of the greed and luxuries were also a part of non-violence. To him it was a fight against personal wishes and he used to say that it gives strength to your inner man and make you less dependent on others.
Even he showed very strong resistance to his own father. To him to stand for a right cause against any one was battle and so was his faith. In a battle complete negation or condemnation of resistance cannot be perceived. But different people can interpret perception differently.
25th/02/ 2011- Lelowni, Shangla, Pukhtoonkhwa