Ourselves
QissaKhawani Bazaar Massacre
The Light is not a political paper. It aspires, to serve the cause of Truth and Humanity. In other words, it is a religious organ and does not concern itself with politics in the narrow sense. So far, however, as the religion of Islam is concerned, one cannot draw any sharp line of demarcation between religion and politics. Islam is just another name for conduct in life and there is no sphere of human activities, but it has a moral and religious bearings. In so far as politics undertakes to deal with the destinies of vast multitudes of mankind, perhaps no other sphere of life carries greater moral and religious implications. A. religious organ of Islam must perforce take cognizance of the broad currents of thought and life as swaying masses of humanity and discuss their moral bearings.
Just take for instance the present struggle of the people of India for political emancipation. No religion worth the name, much less Islam, can calmly sit on the boundary line and look indifferently on as an idle spectator, while a life and death drama is going on and a nation is in the throes of a re-birth. It is as such that we have felt called upon every now and then to throw the flashlight of higher morality and religion on some aspects of this stupendous drama here and there. And this has brought us into conflict with the Government authorities who would have us look at things through their glasses or not look at them at all.
In our issue of May 1, 1930, we deplored the bloodshed at Peshawar on April 23rd and earnestly warned the Government against the gruesome consequences which, history tells us, never fail to follow in the wake of repression. Though undoubtedly couched in rather strong terms and a blunt style, calling a spade a spade without mincing words or beating about the bush, the article was inspired by nothing but the highest of humanitarian considerations. We are no enemies of the English people. In Islam, there are no Indians and no Englishmen. There are just men all equally dear to us. Nor do we consider that British rule in India is an unmixed evil, out and out a ”’Satanic” affair. We are not blind to whatever leaven of good it has, and Dr.Tagore was certainly right in saying, while condemning the present policy of repression in India, that the lot of the unarmed masses of India would have been much harder, if in this struggle they were pitched against any other foreign Government. While thus we are prepared to give the Government its due for whatever refinement it may bring to bear upon the handling of affairs in India, we do not wish to be blind to its dark side either and have considered it our duty to call attention to it, without fear or favour, in the best interest both of the rulers and the ruled.
The Government unfortunately has not been able to appreciate this higher spirit underlying our blunt yet well-meant criticism and warning.Used to the sugar-coated hopes with which a certain class of false friends has been feeding it, it seems impatient of adverse criticism and bitter truth, however calculated to the ultimate good of itself. This is the view it was pleased to take of one of our articles on ”Peshawar Bloodshed,” issuing us the following warning through the Deputy Commissioner, Lahore:
” I have the honour to say that an objectionable article headed ”Peshawar Bloodshed” has been published in your paper of the 1st May 1930 and to warn you to refrain from publishing such articles in future.”
This was on May 19, 1930, and we took care to try to temper our tone so as not to be unpalatable to the Government. But it seems we failed in our issue for June 1st we gave an account of the shooting incidents in Peshawar on May 31, under the heading, ”May 31 in Peshawar.” We confined ourselves just to a bare description of the events but to our sur-prise, it brought us the following letter from the same source on June 21:
” Please call at this office on Monday, the 23rd June 1930 at 2 p.m. to appear before Additional District Magistrate in connection with an article appeared in the issue of the 1st June 1930 of the Light.”
And at the compulsory interview we were surprised to hear that the Government considered the article as extremely ”mischievous” and so forth and that any future recurrence of such a article would make us liable to furnish a security under the New Press Ordinance.
We tell the whole thing because we consider it necessary to take the reader into confidence. We are not over-rich so as to replenish His Majesty´s treasury with money. In fact, we cannot even make both ends meet. For the future there are, if the reader finds that we have confined ourselves more to the academic aspect of religion, the gentle reader will of course understand and treat the omission with indulgence.
M.Y.K.
(Editor: THE LIGHT – Tuesday, June 24, 1930)
