..
How the 1963 Hazratbal theft of Muhammad’s hair led to the
genocide of Hindus in what is today known as Bangladesh
Note: this is less than 60 years ago and also, note how easily Muslims are raised to hysterics. They are no different today than they were 60 years ago or a thousand years ago. (Farkhunda, Martyr to Islamic Madness, the Rest of the Story)
NOV 4, 2022 1:00 PM
BY SHIVA KASHMIRI
Narrated Usayd ibn Hudayr: “AbdurRahman ibn AbuLayla, quoting Usayd ibn Hudayr, a man of the Ansar, said that while he was given to jesting and was talking to the people and making them laugh, the Prophet poked him under the ribs with a stick. He said: ‘Let me take retaliation.’ He said: ‘Take retaliation.’ He said: ‘You are wearing a shirt but I am not.’ The Prophet then raised his shirt and the man embraced him and began to kiss his side. Then he said: ‘This is what I wanted, Messenger of Allah!’” —Sunan Abi Dawud 5224
Abu Musa said: “The Prophet asked for a tumbler containing water and washed both his hands and face in it and then threw a mouthful of water in the tumbler and said to both of us (Abu Musa and Bilal), ‘Drink from the tumbler and pour some of its water on your faces and chests.'” — Sahih al-Bukhari 1.4.188
Narrated Al-Miswar bin Makhrama and Marwan [an excerpt from a long hadith]: “Urwa started looking at the Companions of the Prophet. ‘By Allah, whenever Allah’s Messenger spat, the spittle would fall in the hand of one of them (i.e. the Prophet’s companions) who would rub it on his face and skin; if he ordered them they would carry his orders immediately; if he performed ablution, they would struggle to take the remaining water.’” —Sahih Al-Bukhari 3.54.2731, 2732
Historically and traditionally, Muslims have had a rich history of the veneration of relics, especially those attributed to the Islamic prophet Muhammad. The most genuine prophetic relics are believed to be those housed in Istanbul’s Topkapı Palace, in a section known as Hirkai Serif Odasi (Chamber of the Holy Mantle). There exists historical evidence that some of the earliest Muslims practiced the veneration of relics, and the practice continued to remain popular in many parts of the Sunni Islamic world until the eighteenth century, when the reform movements of Salafism and Wahhabism began to staunchly condemn such practices, linking them with the sin of shirk (idolatry). As a result of the influence of these perspectives, some contemporary Muslims influenced by these ideologies have rejected the traditional practice of relic veneration altogether.
The traditional Sunni attitude towards relics is concisely summarized in the words of the fourteenth-century hadith master Al-Dhahabi, who passionately sermonized: “Ahmad ibn Hanbal was asked about touching the Prophet’s grave and kissing it and he saw nothing wrong with it. His son ‘Abd Allāh related this from him. If it is asked: ‘Why did the Prophet’s Companions not do this?’ We reply: ‘Because they saw him with their very eyes when he was alive, enjoyed his presence directly, kissed his very hand, nearly fought each other over the remnants of his ablution water, shared his purified hair on the day of the Greater Pilgrimage, and even if he spat it would virtually not fall except into someone’s hand so that he could pass it over his face. Since we have not had the tremendous fortune of sharing this, we throw ourselves on his grave as a mark of commitment, reverence, and acceptance, even to kiss it. Do you not see what Thābit al-Bunānī did when he kissed the hand of Anas ibn Malik and placed it on his face saying: “This is the hand that touched the hand of the Messenger of God?” Muslims are not moved to these matters except by their extreme love for the Prophet, as they are ordered to love God and the Prophet more than their own lives.’”
One must understand this Islamic perspective in order to grasp the events of late December 1963, which began as simply bizarre incidents and then gradually became events of spine-chilling terror. After the theft of Muhammad’s alleged hair relic from the Hazratbal shrine in Kashmir at that time, India’s first Premier Jawaharlal Nehru engaged in brazen appeasement of Muslims. India’s entire state edifice, ranging from parliament to federal investigative and intelligence agencies, as well as to the military and the foreign office, were all entirely consumed with finding a single strand of the alleged hair of a man whose historical existence is itself a matter of extreme doubt.
Within less than two weeks, the thieves who stole the alleged “Moi e Muqaddas” (holy relic), Abdul Rahim Bandey, Abdul Rashid and Kadir Butt, were caught. But the shameful and appalling display of subservience and appeasement on the part of the Indian state over this incident did not simply give fodder to Pakistan to agitate at the United Nations Security Council against India; it also emboldened Muslims to initiate a pogrom of Hindus in a region where Hindus constituted about 32% of population at the time. Now they are merely 8%.
In the erstwhile East Pakistan, Abdul Hai, a member of the Advisory Committee of the Islamic Board, declared jihad against Hindus and other non-Muslims of East Pakistan. While returning to Islamabad, the President of Pakistan, Ayub Khan, made a statement at the Dhaka airport, saying that he wouldn’t be responsible for any reaction to the Hazratbal incident in Pakistan, even though Kashmir is about 2000 km from Bangladesh, and at that point neither East Pakistan nor Bengali Hindus had any knowledge of it.
The Pakistan Muslim League declared “Kashmir Day” on January 3, 1964. On January 4, 1964, the relic was discovered and the miscreants were arrested. However, the next day, Pakistan Radio described the recovered relic as fake. The stage was set for a pogrom against the Hindu citizens of Pakistan. This resulted in waves of Bengali Hindu refugees fleeing the nation, heading for neighboring West Bengal and Tripura in Bharat (that is, India). Refugee rehabilitation became a national problem in Bharat, and hundreds of refugees were resettled in Dandakaranya in Madhya Pradesh. The chaos, however, turned out to be a boon for local Muslims, who used it as an opportunity for their personal interests in exploiting the Hindus. Among many such incidents, the most notable happened regarding Rupchand Biswas, a Bengali Hindu. In 1960, Abdus Sabur Khan, the Communications Minister of Pakistan, had forcibly occupied 30 bighas of land from Biswas, a Hindu landowner from Matikhali, and erected a three-storey building in it. Biswas filed a suit against Khan, which Khan lost. The court ordered Khan to pay Biswas 135,000 rupees. Khan, however, then met Biswas and offered him an out-of-court settlement, which he refused. Meanwhile, Majid Mian, the nominee of Abdus Sabur Khan lost in the district council election. Following that, Khan and his party members, including the Chairman of their Union Board, held the Hindus responsible for the defeat and threatened them with dire consequences.
On January 2, 1964, Hindus were barred from wearing shoes, using umbrellas or riding a rickshaw, as a mark of mourning for the loss of the Islamic prophet’s hair. That afternoon, there were processions in Khulna mourning the loss. Later, there went out a call for annihilating Hindus. A riot broke out. After a few hours, curfew was imposed in in the city. At around 4 pm, attacks on Hindus began in earnest. Abdus Sabur Khan addressed a huge rally at the Daulatpur industrial area on the outskirts of Khulna. Thousands of non-Bengali Muslims assembled there, many armed with primitive weapons. Khan delivered a venomous anti-Hindu and anti-Bharat speech, describing the Kashmir incident as a Hindu conspiracy.
Soon afterward, several Muslim mobs, which included mainstream Muslims of the area, many of whom were neighbors to many Hindus, began to loot Hindu properties and set them on fire. Many Hindus were brutally attacked and stabbed. A portion of the mob marched towards the city, disrupting rail and road traffic, and reaching the town at sunset. For the next four days, pandemonium prevailed in the city, featuring rapes, abductions, looting and the slaughter of Hindus. The violence against the Hindus was led by the Muslim workers of Khulna Shipyard, Dada Company, Ispahani Company, etc. The Chairman Union supplied the attackers with firearms. About 200 to 300 Bengali Hindus were shot dead at the Khulna Launch Ghat. All nearby Hindu villages were set aflame. Khan addressed three more meetings. Leaflets were distributed, warning Hindus to leave Pakistan immediately. At Loppur Bazar, Khan addressed another gathering, at which he said that he would make shoes out of Hindu skin, torn from their back. Once the violence escalated, Khan became preoccupied with the wedding of his niece. The wedding was attended by Abdul Moniem Khan, the Governor of East Pakistan, and Kazi Abdul Kadar, a member of National Assembly and former member of the East Pakistan legislative assembly. Arvind Bhattacharjee, a reputable attorney in Khulna, repeatedly called Khan to ask him to take necessary action to stop the violence, but every time, Khan excused himself by citing his unavailability due his niece’s wedding.
Even after the relic was found, the violence didn’t stop. On January 13, 1964, a meeting was held at the Dhaka stadium regarding the Hazratbal incident. On January 14 and 15, Hindu passengers on the mail trains arriving at Dhaka from Chittagong and Sirajganj were asked to get off at Tongi and Tejgaon. Those who refused to get off were slaughtered. Subsequently, in Dhaka city, Hindu temples were razed and Hindus shot dead. Hindu temples, six or seven properties, hostels, studios, and other property owned by Hindus were destroyed. At Bangladesh’s most famous engineering college, Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology (BUET), then called the East Pakistan Institute of Technology (EPUT), the Hindu boy’s hostel was pelted with stones and bricks every night. Hindu students were termed Indian spies. On January 16, two Hindu bank employees were fleeing in a car after hiding in the bank premises for two days. Their car was stopped and they were killed. Schools, the public library, Vivekananda Physical Club and the Hindu Charitable Hospital were burnt. Truckloads of dead bodies were brought to the hospitals, from which they were sent to burial grounds.
Numerous Hindus were buried with military escorts. Many women were raped and many young girls were abducted. The area was ethnically cleansed of Bengali Hindus and renamed Zafrabad from Rayer Bazar (Roy’s market). The Hindu boy’s hostel was razed and looted. Walls were painted with slogans such as “Kill Hindus” and “Kill Marwari Hindus” in the vernacular language. On January 18, a 24-hour curfew was imposed, with troops patrolling the streets. The curfew was later extended till 8 am on January 19.
Villages were burnt. On January 18, The Daily Ittefaq reported that 95% of the ruined houses belonged to Hindus in old Dhaka; about 100,000 Hindus were rendered homeless in Dhaka city. On January 23, The Hindu, quoting the Pakistan authorities, reported that around 1,000 persons had been killed in communal violence in Dhaka during the past week. However, an American Peace Corps nurse stated that on January 21 alone, there were 600 dead in Dhaka Medical College and Hospital.
At Narayangunj in East Pakistan, Adamjee group was a powerful business group in the heart of the city, owning jute and cotton mills. Their competitor was Dhakeswari Cotton Mills, which was run by a Hindu management. A rumor spread that the brother of Adamjee group’s manager had been killed in Calcutta in Bharat. On the night of January 13, the workers of the Adamjee Jute Mills attacked the Hindu quarters, which were mostly inhabited by the workers of Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills, and set the Hindu houses on fire. Satyen Roy, the Manager of Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills, called the Managing Director at 3 am and reported that the mill was on fire; he asked for police and military protection. By the next morning, about twenty thousand Adamjee workers had razed the Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills compound and resorted to indiscriminate looting, arson and murder. About a thousand Hindu workers were killed; their wives and daughters were abducted.
Still there was hardly any relief for the unfortunate ones. About a few thousand helpless Hindus with their children rushed to the compound of Lakshminarayan Cotton Mills. This mill was still safe. But a few hours later, several thousand Muslim attackers, upon learning about the Hindus congregating there, razed it also. Professor Richard Novak, an American priest at Notre Dame College in Dhaka, went to Narayanganj to take photographs of mass violence. He was stabbed to death at Lakhadgola, near the Adarsha Cotton Mills.
The erstwhile landlord Hindu families of the British era, who lived in the adjoining area, had perhaps the worst fate. Their families were uprooted overnight. The men were slaughtered and the women raped in front of their children. Young boys and girls were either carried off to camps or shot on the way.
The violence eventually spread eastwards towards the Rajshahi district, where the Hindu lower caste tribal people were burnt alive.
In Sylhet, the district bordering Bharat’s Assam, tea workers were made to sit for mass conversion to Islam at gunpoint. A Hindu preacher was force-fed beef in front of his followers, which is considered a cardinal sin in Hinduism, akin to consuming pork in Islam.
The Pakistani government imposed the Disturbed Persons (Rehabilitation) Ordinance, which prohibited the sale of immovable property by any Hindu, making the only option for Hindus to leave their properties and flee to India. Their assets were subsequently misappropriated by Muslim leaders. The ordinance was challenged at the Dhaka High Court by Chittaranjan Sutar, a Hindu; the government lost. This triggered further anger, and Manoranjan Dhar, a Hindu advocate at the Dhaka High Court, along with many other Hindu leaders, was put into jail on fabricated charges. Puleen Dey, a Hindu professor and former member of legislative assembly and Secretary of Pakistan Socialist Party, was arrested as well, in Chittagong.
The press reports were censored and photography was banned. Censorship was imposed on The Daily Ittefaq and Pakistan Observer for their honest coverage. In protest, five dailies stopped publication. When reports surfaced that over 1,000 people had been killed in the capital Dhaka alone, government lodged an immediate protest.
More than 75,000 refugees fled from the beginning of the genocide. The refugees took refuge in Garo Hills in Assam. Lakshmi Menon, the Deputy Foreign Minister of Bharat, stated at the Lok Sabha that about 1,000 refugees were fired upon by the Pakistan Rifles while they were crossing over to Bharat. By March 28, around 78,000 tribal refugees had migrated. But the forced migration of the tribal Christians created a great deal of uproar in international community. A cornered Pakistani government made an effort to bring the Christians home, ignoring the Hindus, merely in order to improve its image before the West.
The Magistrate appealed to the Christian refugees to return. The Archbishop of Dhaka met with President Ayub Khan and wrote a letter asking the Christians to return home. The Indian authorities announced the appeal of the Pakistan government and the Archbishop of Dhaka to the refugees in the camps, and offered them free transportation to the border. However, the Christian tribal refugees rejected the appeal and declined to go back to Pakistan. Back in India, the refugees were provided relief in temporary camps in Assam, West Bengal and Tripura. Later they were provided rehabilitation in different parts of Bharat. 6,000 Chakmas were provided shelter at a relief camp in Silchar in Assam. Twelve provisional camps were set up at Tura in Garo Hills to shelter around 50,000 Garos and other refugee tribals.
No comments:
Post a Comment