March 19, 1935: Karachi is in a state of chaos. Riots have erupted at Chakiwara, a neighbourhood in Lyari. Detachments of the Sussex Regiment are deployed, after the police’s futile attempts to control the situation. But it gets out of hand, as shots ring out. Scores of protesters die on the spot, and many more are injured. Over at the Civil Hospital, the matron, Daisy Munro, pushes close the hospital gates, with all her might, to keep out the agitated mob raiding the mortuary, in search of those who went missing.

It was a book, published three years prior, that had set the stage for this civic unrest.

Islamic History was published in 1932. Its author: Nathoo Ram, the General Secretary of Arya Samaj’s (a Hindu reform movement) Hyderabad branch. The book contained insulting and objectionable material about Islam and the Prophet (PBUH) which provoked strong protests by the Muslims of pre-Partition India.

Prominent politicians from Karachi, Hatim Alavi (a former mayor of Karachi) and Shaikh Abdul Majeed Sindhi (a Sindhi politician), filed a lawsuit against Nathoo Ram. The session judge at Hyderabad court sentenced him to 18 months’ imprisonment with hard labour for blasphemy. His book was banned. However, Nathoo Ram appealed his sentence. When he was granted bail, Muslims, across the board, were incensed.

Eighty seven years ago, a case of blasphemy emerged, over the publication of a book, which shook the Hindu and Muslim communities of Karachi and created an atmosphere of fear and violence in the city. Eos recounts the trials of Nathoo Ram and Abdul Qayyum that took place in the 1930s and the aftermath of their deaths

It was in a mosque in Juna Market, near Napier Quarter that Abdul Qayyum learnt of the Nathoo Ram case. A Pakhtun from Hazara, Abdul Qayyum, lived in Karachi with his wife and uncle. He ran a small business of horse-drawn carriages (victorias) and had just been married. When he heard about the Hindu who wrote the book defaming his faith, he was outraged. That day changed the path of his life irrevocably.

On September 21, 1934, Nathoo Ram was in court being heard for his appeal against his sentence. The bench was headed by a senior judge, Justice Dadibametha, a Zoroastrian. Abdul Qayyum was there too, he had somehow managed to enter the court and sat among the spectators.

While Nathoo Ram was waiting in the courtroom, three Pakhtun men, who had been sitting nearby, rose from among the spectators and rushed on to him. One of them was Abdul Qayyum. The other two held Nathoo Ram while Abdul Qayyum stabbed him repeatedly. Ram was rushed to a hospital, but he was already dead on arrival. The court adjourned in confusion.

Consequently, a murder trial was conducted which was led by the same senior judge — Justice Dadibametha — in the Karachi district courts but it was now Abdul Qayyum who stood in the dock. The jury consisted of nine members: six British, two Parsis and a Goan Christian. Before them, Abdul Qayyum confessed to the attack with the intent to kill Nathoo Ram. He submitted an affidavit saying, “I have bought shahadat [martyrdom]. Do not try to save me from the gallows.” Hence, the judgement was passed. Abdul Qayyum was sentenced to death by hanging in Karachi’s Central Jail, where he was lodged.

The case raised a furore and sparked controversy with the various kinds of reactions it elicited from all segments of society, including the press. Al Waheed, a newspaper of that time, wrote editorials in support of Abdul Qayyum, while the magazine Chand condemned his act of murder.

Clemency petitions were moved by the luminaries Alavi, Rahim Ali Chagla and other influential citizens of India. They pled that Abdul Qayyum had acted under aggravation, and urged the court to commute the death penalty into a life sentence. They were summarily turned down by the Governor of Bombay, Lord Brabourne, and the Viceroy in Delhi, Lord Willingdon.

Abdul Qayyum was hanged to death at 4 am on March 19, 1935. The burial was held in Mewa Shah Qabristan, one of the largest and oldest graveyards in the city. His body was handed to his relatives by the police with the request for a speedy burial. The funeral proceedings commenced at the Imambargah at Kharadar.

Groups of mourners began gathering there, demanding to view the body. The crowds grew in number, and quickly turned into a mob. This incited a demonstration at Chakiwara, despite Section 144 having been imposed. The police vainly attempted to stop the mob but they disinterred the body of Abdul Qayyum and carried it in a procession towards the city.

It was a ghastly spectacle that day. Before the clash occurred, a large crowd prayed by the exhumed coffin of the executed man. A dangerous situation was thus created when an enraged crowd of nearly 50,000 demonstrators came together.

Detachments of the Sussex Regiment were dispatched to control the protesters. Lieutenant Colonel V. E. Dashwood was commanding the regiment. After his warnings were ignored by the protesters, volleys were fired at the demonstrators, reportedly killing at least 40 and injuring more than 100. However, the exact figures were never confirmed. Some reports said 47 persons were killed and 134 were injured. A British officer and three Indian magistrates were injured by the missiles flung by the mob.

Despite the troops opening fire on them, thousands of angry Muslims refused to abandon Abdul Qayyum’s coffin. Eventually, religious leaders persuaded them to replace the body in its original grave.

In the wake of the massacre, prominent citizens of both the Hindu and Muslim communities raised a relief fund for the families of the dead. The national press demanded a public inquiry in to the action of the troops’ firing at the rioters and criticised it bitterly. There was also resentment towards Lt Dashwood for making a donation to the fund to assist the families of those his soldiers had killed.

Keeping in mind the safety concerns around the volatile situation, Lord Brabourne instructed for Justice Dadibametha to be immediately transferred from Karachi to Liverpool via a British India (BI) Line ship. Upon reaching England, Justice Dadibametha was inducted as a judge in the Old Bailey Criminal Courts, never to return to India.

The Muslims demanded an inquiry into the British troops’ action on March 19, alleging that the authorities had shown criminal negligence in not taking precautions to prevent the mob from assembling on the occasion of Abdul Qayyum’s burial. They also alleged that the authorities were aware of the grave tension existing among Muslims over the execution, but failed to consult religious leaders with the objective of preventing large-scale demonstrations and that the troops had fired indiscriminately on the crowd.

Lord Brabourne discussed the question with Viceroy Lord Willingdon at a special conference in Delhi. The Viceroy concurred with the Bombay Government’s findings and its opinion that no useful purpose would be served by conducting a public inquiry, as demanded by the legislature and the national press, as it would tend to further embitter religious tension.

It was debated at the British Parliament on March 20, 1935, as the Australian daily newspaper Mercury reported:

“The Secretary of State for India (Sir Samuel Hoare): I regret to state that trouble arose yesterday morning at Karachi after the execution of Abdul Qayyum, who was sentenced to death for the murder of a Hindu in the Judicial Commissioner’s Court last September. The burial of the body in a selected graveyard, some distance from the city, was interrupted by a crowd of Mahommedans who swelled to 20,000 or more. Half the crowd attempted to rush the body by surprise into the city and overpowered the police.

In these circumstances, and in view of the certainty of a grave communal disturbance, if steps were not taken to disperse the crowd, British troops were brought up and ordered to fire as a last resource. A detachment of 25 men fired nearly two rounds each, causing casualties at present reported to be 29 deaths and 87 injured. The firing was strictly controlled, but, owing to the density of the crowd and the shortness of the range, casualties were high. As the result of the firing, the crowd retreated and buried the body of Abdul Qayyum outside the city. According to the latest report in my possession, the situation yesterday evening was quiet but was being carefully watched.

Mr. Churchill: Would my right hon. friend say why it is that the Government of India, in dispersing these crowds of excited people, do not use lachrymatory gas capsules, such as used in America, instead of firing bullets, which pierce three or four bodies at the same time, and why humanity and common sense cannot lead to reform in the matter of dealing with crowds of this character?

Sir S. Hoare: The Government of India have already considered that possibility. So far as I remember, lachrymatory gas has been used in the Punjab. I will look again into the suggestion, but I will say nothing that would lead the House to suppose that I have not full confidence in the troops in dealing with the situation in the best possible way.”

The incident shook the communities of Karachi, planting the fear of serious communal repercussions, and raised a debate across the board. It created a furore within the establishment in India, having reached the Bombay legislative council as well as the floor of the British Parliament. However, the authorities concluded that no useful purpose would be served by conducting a public inquiry.

The writer is a consultant physician at Southend University Hospital, Essex, UK

Published in Dawn, EOS, March 20th, 2022