Maulana Dawood/Daud Ghaznavi

Over on pakteahouse.net, the following claim is made:

Majlis-e-Ahrar-e-Islam Hind was allied with Bacha Khan and the Congress. Maulana Daud Ghaznavi, the founder of the Majlis-e-Ahrar, was appointed the Chief of Congress in Punjab according to Raj Mohan Gandhi’s new book Punjab – A History from Aurangzaib to Mountbatten (See Page 333- Aleph Publication). Daud Ghaznavi remained the chief of the Congress in the Punjab till July 1947 when he left the Congress.  To say that Ahrar had broken off therefore from the Congress is a complete fabrication of history. It was a wholly owned subsidiary of the Congress Party as was Jamiat-e-Ulema-Hind.

That Dawood (using the more common spelling) Ghaznavi remained the chief of the Congress in Punjab till July 1947 is what I dispute.  Just referring to one source, the Jinnah Papers (Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah Papers, edited by Z.H. Zaidi) it is possible to ascertain the following below.


A = Jinnah Papers, First Series, Volume I, Part I, 20 February - 2 June 1947.
B = Jinnah Papers, First Series, Volume III, 1 July - 25 July 1947

1. Maulana Dawood Ghaznavi joined the Muslim League sometime in July 1946 or earlier. [A, item VII.60, page 287]  He was indeed a previous president of the Punjab Provincial Congress Committee.

In late-January 1947, the Muslim League started an agitation to topple the Unionist government of Punjab.

2. On February 12, 1947 (reported in the Dawn, February 15, 1947) Maulana Dawood Ghaznavi, MLA, was nominated Acting President of the Punjab Muslim League. [A, item VII.51, page 277]

3. Maulana Dawood Ghaznavi was the seventh President of the Punjab Muslim League. [A, item VII.60, page 287]

4. Pakistan Times, February 25, 1947, reported that Maulana Dawood Ghaznavi was the only Muslim League Committee of Action member who was a non-detenu.  That news-item has the Maulana flying from Lahore to Karachi to meet Jinnah, to consult him "regarding the terms of the peace offer made by the Punjab Government". [A, item VII.66, page 294]

5. The next day, the Pakistan Times reported that the Maulana returned to Lahore from Karachi, "carrying with him a three-paged typed letter from the Quaid-i-Azam addressed to the Khan of Mamdot".  He then promptly left for Kasur to meet with the jailed members of the Committee of Action. [A, item VII.67, page 295]

6. In [B, item 229, page 670-672] an extract from a letter, from Maulvi Abu Sulaiman to Z.A. Ansari is included, dated July 24, 1947 . It recommends some measures to fight the influence of the Fakir of Ipi.

To fight Pathanistan successfully, we must take some precautions.  We must not appoint to the Governorship of the Frontier any person belonging to this Province.   Some such person should be appointed Governor who can successfully fight the propaganda that the League is un-Islamic, agents of the English and centre of Qadianis, and that to fight it is the greatest service to Islam.   It would be proper if Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Usmani, Maulana Dawood Ghaznavi or Maulana Akram Khan are appointed to this post.  But the League High Command is in a better position to understand the interests of the country.  

PS: In "Self and Sovereignty: Individual and Community in South Asian Islam Since 1850", by Ayesha Jalal, we are told that page 490, that Maulana Daud Ghaznavi, "president of the Punjab Congress and a member of the legislative assembly, defected to the Muslim League", around July 27, 1946. "Ghaznavi was facing an enquiry for his alleged embezzlement of Congress funds during the elections. (SPPAI, 27 July 1946, vol. lxviii, no. 29, p. 362)

Note: SPPAI = Secret Punjab Police Abstract of Intelligence.

PPS: Excerpt from letter from Sardar Patel to Bhim Sen Sachar, July 27, 1946 (from The Collected Works of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, Volume X, edited by P.N. Chopra)

I am sorry about the Punjab muddle, particularly the bungling in the Constituent Assembly elections by the Sikhs.  We expected three seats from the Unionist group, -- at least two-- but we only got one.  The Sikhs did not contest at all in spite of my efforts and I was surprised to hear that.  In spite of my instructions, you had contacted Pandit Nehru and conveyed a message to the Sikhs which has resulted in this unfortunate situation.  Its repercussions have been very serious.  It has given a plausible excuse to our friend Daud Ghaznavi to get out of the Congress at a critical moment.   You know how you pressed me to help him in his own election, as a special case, in addition to the usual share which was included in the budget.  I had my doubts about your judgement and that of Seth Sudarshan.  I was insistent on Dr. Gopichand's endorsement.  Unfortunately, I yielded and disregarded Dr. Gopichand's wise counsel.   You are on the spot and you could have warned us even subsequently about his unreliability.   If you did not know or suspect about this unreliability, you are certainly much too simple for Punjab politics.

As per the Muslim League, the Ahrar Supported Pakistan in 1942

Muslim National Publications, Bombay, issued a pamphlet in 1942, edited by Syed Sharifuddin Peerzada and Mohamed Usman H. Nanji, titled "Unpardonable Crime of Jinnah".  The foreword was by Husein A. Begmahomed, MLA.   A digitized version is available from the Punjab Digital Library.

The unpardonable crime, as per the Introduction:

"The chief target of attack is Qaed-i-Azam Jinnah, for he has committed the unpardonable crime of refusing to be an accomplice in the nefarious game of "usurping all power in the government of the country by depriving other claimants of their due, legitimate and inherent rights."

This pamphlet claimed that the Ahrar support Pakistan.  The text reads:

Ahrars Support Pakistan

Moulana Mazhar Ali Azhar, M.L.A., the leader of the All-India Ahrar Conference in the course of a statement in support of Rajaji's stand, in the "Zamzam" dated May 11 observes:-

    "The simple question is: Should Indians establish Pakistan and get India liberated from the British bondage or should the Indian nationalists adopt the postion that unless the Muslims gave up the demand of Pakistan, India should be left in bondage of slavery.

     "We, Ahrars, have taken the position for a long time that we should not oppose Pakistan.  We cannot tolerate a fratricidal war among the Muslims on the issue of Pakistan.  If Pakistan is established there will be no harm to Muslims.  The duty of the nationalists at this crisis is that they should not prefer the slavery of India to Pakistan.  They should, by support Mr. Rajagopalachariar, help in clearing the political horizon of India of all clouds of communal animosities.  So what we may be able to present a united front in face of every foreign powers."

Click on images for a larger-sized version:

The All Indian Majlis-e-Ahrar - 24th March 1947

From the Indian Annual Register 1947 (page 199, electronic page 240):

The All India Majlis-e-Ahrar
The Working Committee - Lahore - 24th March 1947
Ahrar's Change of Attitude to Congress

The Working Committee of the All-India Majlis-e-Ahrar at its session at Lahore on the 24th March 1947 passed a resolution suggesting the revision of its policy of co-operation with the Congress and giving it a new orientation in accordance with "the spirit and ideal of the Muslim nation."

The resolution passed by the Committee places the blame for the communal riots on the "Fascist Congress leadership."  It accuses the Congress of having set out on "a pre-planned programme of aggression" in order to coerce and intimidate the Muslim majority into submission and incapacitate it for its legitimate role in the Province.   The resolution asserts that the "gruesome happenings in Bihar and Noakhali and the other parts of the country were the results of the Fascist mentality of the Congress and states that this aggressive attitude of the Congress has forced the Majlis-e-Ahrar to revise its policy of co-operation with the Congress."  The Working Committee has also appealed to come together in a joint effort to achieve the emancipation of the Indian Muslims.

By another resolution, the Working Committee opposed the partition of the Punjab as proposed by the Congress.  A sub-committee was also set up to contact other Muslim political organisations and formulate a common programme of action.

Majlis-i-Ahrar, Part 5

To summarize from earlier parts: the Majlis-i-Ahrar (MiA) broke with the Congress over the uncompromising attitude of the MiA on independence (Congress was happy to work for dominion status as an interim goal).  The MiA broke with the Muslim League over the same issue of independence, over the money required for standing for election, and last but not least, on the status of Ahmedis in the Muslim League.  This last was natural, since "Muslim League" provokes the question: "who is a Muslim?".

The above is not consonant with the version of history in the Munir Report.

Majlis-i-Ahrar, Part 4

Oxford University Press is due to release any day now, the following book:

Majlis-i-Ahrar-i-Islam
A Socio-Political Study
Samina Awan
ISBN13: 9780199060115ISBN10: 0199060118 Hardback, 350 pages

In the meantime, one of Samina Awan's papers is available here.
J.R.S.P. (Journal of the Research Society of Pakistan, Vol 45, No 1, 2008)
RECONCILIATION OR CONFRONTATION: MAJLIS-I-AHRAR AND THE POLITICS OF PUNJAB IN 1930s

Remember the Munir Report said that
(1) the Ahrar split from the Congress over matters of religion
(2) the Ahrar always execrated the Muslim League.

Samina Awan's paper tells a different story.

Majlis-i-Ahrar, Part 3

From Part 2, note the following about the Ahrar: "In their dealings with the Congress, religion was a private affair to them and nationalism their ideology. When they were pitted against the League, their sole consideration was Islam of which they held a monopoly from God, and the League was not only indifferent to but an enemy of Islam."

It suggests that the Ahrar saw the Congress as purely a political party; but the Muslim League as competition in the religious realm.

Of course, the Munir report also says about the Ahrar: "They left the Congress on grounds of religion, and they opposed the Muslim League and Pakistan on that ground." 

The grounds for the Ahrar splitting away from the Congress need to be examined.