A LOST CASE, AN UPHELD CAUSE!
Posted on 25. Dec, 2010 by Raja Mujtaba in Pakistan
By Air Cdre ® Khalid Iqbal
Quaid-e-Azam lost only one case during his entire practicing tenure, that too by choice. He chose to defend a murderer who had been convicted by the trial court, where he had opted for guilty plea and was not interested to defend his act. Quaid-e-Azam urged the accused to enter a plea of not guilty and to say that he had acted due to extreme provocation. The fact that accused was only 19 years old would have also worked in his favour. However, the accused refused to offer such a plea and insisted that he was proud of his actions. This case, cited as Ilam Din vs. Emperor AIR 1930 Lahore 157, was the only one suite that the Quaid ever lost. Given the stance by the accused, technically it was a lost case, yet the Quaid chose to contest it to uphold a cause. It was the case of Ghazi Ilam Din Shaheed.
One Prashaad Prataab had authored a blasphemous book. Rajpal a Hindu book publisher from Lahore took the responsibility of publishing the book in 1923 and pledged not to disclose the author’s real name. Pressure from the Muslim community resulted in the matter being taken to Session court Lahore, which found RajPal guilty and sentenced him. Subsequently Rajpal appealed against the decision of Session Court in the Lahore High court. The appeal was heard by Judge Daleep Singh who acquitted Rajpal on the grounds that criticism against the religious leaders, no matter how immoral, was not covered by S.153 of the Indian Penal Code. Thus Rajpal could not be sentenced as law did not cover blasphemous criticism against religion.
High Court decision was widely criticised and protests were made against it by Muslims of India. Little did anyone expect that one young man’s course of action would bring about a significant change in the law, ensuring that Islam would be covered by blasphemy laws.
Creation of Pakistan was still a distant dream in the hearts of the Indian Muslims. This event was one of the contributory causes that culminated in Allama Iqbal’s proposal for a separate Muslim state in 1930, which resulted in the creation of Pakistan in 1947.
As the noose was put around the neck of Ilam Din, he repeated before the huge crowd: "O people! Bear witness that I killed Rajpal to defend our last Prophet Muhammad S.A.W, and today they are going to hang me. I am sacrificing my life whilst reciting the kalimah shahadah (testimony of faith)."
The young man was buried without any funeral. Mass demonstrations broke out. The inhabitants of Lahore wanted Ilam Din’s body returned in order to give him an Islamic funeral. Allama Iqbal and Mian Abdul Aziz campaigned to have the body of Ilam Din returned to Lahore for the funeral prayer. The British were worried that this would incite unrest. Only after Allama Iqbal gave his assurance to the British that no riots would erupt, permission was given. Around 200,000 Muslims attended the funeral prayer. Maulana Zafar Ali Khan said ahead of the burial: "Alas! If only if I had managed to attain such a blessed status!" Allama Iqbal carried the funeral bier along its final journey. As Iqbal placed the body of Ilam Din into the grave, he tearfully declared: "This uneducated young man has surpassed us, the educated ones."
The martyrdom of Ilam Din on 31st October 1929 had far-reaching repercussions. A provision Section 295A was added to the Indian Penal Code, making insult to the religious beliefs of any class an offence. The Pakistan Penal Code makes it a crime for anyone who "by words or visible representation or by an imputation or insinuation, directly or indirectly, defiled the name of the Muhammad". In 1982, Section 295B was added to the Pakistan Penal Code punishing "defiling the Holy Quran" with life imprisonment. In 1986, Section 295C was introduced, mandating the death penalty for "use of derogatory remarks in respect of the Holy Prophet" in keeping with Ilam Din’s legacy.
Since Jinnah defended Ilam Din in his murder trial at appellate level, it can be inferred that he favoured the ‘death sentence for blasphemy’. Same was endorsed by Allama Iqbal.
On his vision of Pakistan, the Quaid had said: ‘The tolerance and good will Emperor Akbar showed to all the non-Muslims is not of recent origin. It dates back to thirteen centuries ago when our Prophet not only by words but by deeds treated the Jews and Christians after he had conquered them with the utmost tolerance and regard and respect for their faith and beliefs’.
Quaid was an inexorable defender of civil liberties. He stood for Bhagat Singh’s freedom and condemned the British government in the harshest language when no one else dared.
His landmark speech before the Constituent assembly of Pakistan on 11 August, 1947 envisaged equality for all Pakistanis, irrespective of religion, cast and creed: ‘…Now, if we want to make this great State of Pakistan happy and prosperous, we should wholly and solely concentrate on the well-being of the people, and especially of the masses and the poor. If you will work in co-operation, forgetting the past, burying the hatchet, you are bound to succeed. If you change your past and work together in a spirit that everyone of you, no matter to what community he belongs, no matter what relations he had with you in the past, no matter what is his colour, caste or creed, is first, second and last a citizen of this State with equal rights, privileges, and obligations, there will be no end to the progress you will make…We should begin to work in that spirit and in course of time all these angularities of the majority and minority communities, the Hindu community and the Muslim community… will vanish….You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place of worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed that has nothing to do with the business of the State….We are starting with this fundamental principle that we are all citizens and equal citizens of one State…Now I think we should keep that in front of us as our ideal and you will find that in course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State’.
L K Advani, Indian politician, who was once named in a police report for an alleged assassination attempt on Jinnah's life, while visiting Pakistan, stoked off a huge scandal in India, when he referred to Jinnah as a great leader. At Quaid’s Mausoleum, he wrote: ‘There are many people who leave an irreversible stamp on history. But there are few who actually create history. Quaid-e-Azam Mohammed Ali Jinnah was one such rare individual.
'The constitution of Pakistan has yet to be framed by the Pakistan Constituent Assembly. I do not know what the ultimate shape of this constitution is going to be, but I am sure that it will be of a democratic type, embodying the essential principle of Islam. Today, they are as applicable in actual life as they were 1,300 years ago. Islam and its idealism have taught us democracy. It has taught equality of man, justice and fair play to everybody. We are the inheritors of these glorious traditions and are fully alive to our responsibilities and obligations as framers of the future constitution of Pakistan. In any case Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic State to be ruled by priests with a divine mission. We have many non-Muslims –Hindus, Christians, and Parsis –but they are all Pakistanis. They will enjoy the same rights and privileges as any other citizens and will play their rightful part in the affairs of Pakistan'
Issue of blasphemy law has to be seen in the spirit espoused by the great Quaid. Blasphemy has no place in a liberal and tolerant society offering equal opportunities and liberties to each citizen. Blasphemy breeds polarization, hence destabilises the society through mistrust, and hatred. Blasphemy needs to be curbed through harshest capital punishment while ensuring essential safeguards against miscarriage of justice.
Air Cdre Khalid is Masters in Political Science along with War and Strategic Studies. He has also done Air WarCourse, Fellow of Air 
War College. Instructor’s Course. Senior Command & Staff course. Combat Commander’s Course. He has been a Directing Staff at various institutions of Pakistan Air Force. Presently he is a visiting faculty at:
- PAF air War College (Staff Wing &War Wing).
- School of Army Air Defence.
- Naval War College, Lahore.
- Quaid-i- Azam University (DSS Department).
- He is a regular contibutor to Opinion Maker and Member Board Of Advisors
loading...
Rehmat
26. Dec, 2010
Syed Ahmad Khan (born 1817) witnessed the brutality with which the British forces crushed natives, especially the Muslim whose forefathers ruled Hindustan for 1000 years during the Resistance War (Jung-e-Azadi) of 1857. He realized that the time was not on the natives’ side to win the war against the British imperialism. Though he tried to cultivate a friendly relation between Hindus and Muslims, he eventually came to the conclusion in 1866 that due to the emerging Hindu extremism among the western educated elites – it would be impossible for the two communities to live together peacfully in the long run and Muslims would need some form of protection to preserve their language (Urdu) and culture because many Hindus, being in majority, were adamant in replacing Muslim heritage from the Indian society. By 1890s Muslims were pressured to yield to the Hinduization of India and accept Hindu majority rule without exceptions by Hindu extremists leaders such as Tilak, Lala Lajpat Rai, Bipin Chandra Pal, etc. who openly preached the annihilation of Muslim minority. Under these anti-Muslim communal conditions, a group of Muslim elite under the chaimanship of Nawab Sir Salimullah Khan met in Dacca (now in Bangladesh) on December 30, 1906 and laid the foundation of All India Muslim League to represent the Muslim subjects of the British Raj. Sir Agha Khan (1877-1957) was appointed party’s first President, a position he kept for six years.
Another prominent young Muslim leader who supported a Hindu-Muslim unity – was Muhammad Ali Jinnah (1876-1948). In 1916, Jinnah was elected to serve as President of the Hindu-dominated All India National Congress (founded 1885). However, after being frustrated by the anti-Muslim stand of Congress leadership (Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, his father Motilal Nehru and Gandhi) he quit the Congress Party in 1920.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/03/27/pakistan-bangladesh-the-unfulfilled-muslim-dream/
YLH
07. Jan, 2011
I am afraid the Air commodore is completely off on his facts. I have quoted the actual transcript of the case.
VIEW: The Ilam Din fiasco and lies about Jinnah —Yasser Latif Hamdani
In the recent debate over the blasphemy law, a group of Jamaat-e-Islami-backed right-wing authors have come up with an extraordinary lie. It is extraordinary because it calls into question the professional integrity of the one man in South Asian history who has been described as incorruptible and honest to the bone by even his most vociferous critics and fiercest rivals, i.e. Mohammad Ali Jinnah. The lie goes something like this: ‘Ghazi’ Ilam Din ‘Shaheed’ killed blasphemer Hindu Raj Pal and was represented by Quaid-e-Azam at the trial who advised him to deny his involvement in the murder. ‘Ghazi’ and ‘Shaheed’ Ilam Din refused and said that he would never lie about the fact that he killed Raja Pal. Quaid-e-Azam lost the case and Ilam Din was hanged.
To start with, the story is entirely wrong. First of all, Jinnah was not the trial lawyer. Second, Ilam Din had entered the not guilty plea through his trial lawyer who was a lawyer from Lahore named Farrukh Hussain. The trial court ruled against Ilam Din. The trial lawyer appealed in the Lahore High Court and got Jinnah to appear as the lawyer in appeal. So there is no way Jinnah could have influenced Ilam Din to change his plea when the plea was already entered at the trial court level. Nor was Ilam Din exactly the ‘matchless warrior’ that Iqbal declared him to be — while simultaneously refusing to lead his funeral prayers. Indeed Ilam Din later filed a mercy petition to the King Emperor asking for a pardon.
The relevant case — in which Jinnah appeared — cited as Ilam Din vs. Emperor AIR 1930 Lahore 157 — makes interesting reading. It was a division bench judgement with Justice Broadway and Justice Johnstone presiding. Jinnah’s contention was that the evidence produced before the trial court was insufficient and the prosecution story was dubious. To quote the judgement, “He urged that Kidar Nath was not a reliable witness because (1) he was an employee of the deceased and, therefore, interested. (2) He had not stated in the First Information Report (a) that Bhagat Ram (the other witness) was with him, and (b) that the appellant had stated that he had avenged the Prophet. As to Bhagat Ram it was contended he, as an employee, was interested, and as to the rest that there were variations in some of the details.”
The court rejected this contention. The judgement continues that “Mr Jinnah finally contended that the sentence of death was not called for and urged as extenuating circumstances, that the appellant is only 19 or 20 years of age and that his act was prompted by feelings of veneration for the founder of his religion and anger at one who had scurrilously attacked him.” The court rejected this contention as well referring to Amir vs. Emperor, which was the same court’s decision a few years earlier. Interestingly, the curious reference to 19 or 20 years deserves some attention. Why did Jinnah as one of the leading lawyers refer specifically to an argument that had been exploded by the same court only two years earlier? That only Mr Jinnah can answer and I do not wish to speculate. Perhaps he was trying to argue what Clarence Darrow had argued successfully a few years ago in the famous Leopold and Loeb case involving two 19-year old college students who had committed the ‘perfect crime’. Clarence Darrow’s defence converted a death sentence to a life sentence.
Another corollary of the argument forwarded by our right-wing commentators is that since Jinnah defended Ilam Din in this murder trial, he favoured the ‘death sentence for blasphemy’. It is an odd derivative even for average intellects that most Pakistani ultra-rightwingers and Islamists possess. First of all, it is quite clear that Jinnah did not defend the actions of Ilam Din. He had attacked the evidence on legal grounds. Second, it is clear that there was no confession and Jinnah did not ask Ilam Din to change his plea. Third, when the court rejected Jinnah’s contentions, Jinnah’s argument was simply that a death sentence was too harsh for a man of 19 or 20, with the obvious implication that sentence should be changed to life imprisonment.
We can only conjecture as to what Jinnah’s reasons as a lawyer and politician to agree to be the lawyer for the appellant before the high court were. In any event, a lawyer’s duty is to accord an accused the best possible defence. Just because a lawyer agrees to defend an accused does not mean that the lawyer concurs with the crime. One is reminded of the famous Boston Massacre in 1770 when British soldiers opened fire and killed five civilians who were protesting against them. The British soldiers hired John Adams as a lawyer, who got five of the accused acquitted, arguing that a sentry’s post is his castle. Does that mean that John Adams was in favour of British rule in the US? If so, it is rather ironic that he was the prime mover and the guiding spirit behind the American declaration of independence. Similarly, when Clarence Darrow defended Leopold and Loeb, was he in any way suggesting that the crime that those two young men had committed was justified?
Jinnah’s record as a legislator tells us a different story altogether. He was an indefatigable defender of civil liberties. He stood for Bhagat Singh’s freedom and condemned the British government in the harshest language when no one else would. In the debate on 295-A of the Indian Penal Code, a much more sane and reasonable law than our 295-B and 295-C, Jinnah had sounded a warning against the misuse of such laws in curbing academic freedoms and bona fide criticisms. I have quoted that statement in my previous two articles.
There cannot be any question that Jinnah the legislator would have balked at the idea that his defence of a murder convict is now being used by some people to justify a law that is ten times more oppressive and draconian than the one he had cautioned against. To this day, I have only found him alone to have had the courage to state in the Assembly on September 11, 1929: “If my constituency is so backward as to disapprove of a measure like this then I say, the clearest duty on my part would be to say to my constituency, ‘you had better ask somebody else to represent you’.”
The writer is a lawyer. He also blogs at http://pakteahouse.wordpress.com and can be reached at yasser.hamdani@gmail.com
Ghazi Ilm Din Shaheed « Khudi.pk
10. Jan, 2011
[...] A LOST CASE, AN UPHELD CAUSE! [...]