Ghaffar Khan: A Muslim Advocate of Nonviolence

Islam is a caricature in popular American culture. There is little information provided on its complexities and the admirable figures of the faith. Imagine if Gandhi were unknown to us, then think about how much his life and example have leavened our view of Hinduism. Imagine how distorted our view of that faith would be if we did not have him as a bridge to understanding. We would be susceptible to demonizing characterizations of Hindu militancy and nationalism as typifying the entire creed. This raises the question of how little Muslim Ghaffar Khan (1890-1988) is known to us.

The Taliban of Afghanistan found and still finds its supporters among the mainly Pathan (Pashtun) inhabitants of most of Afghanistan and western Pakistan. They are one people divided by an arbitrary border that is a remnant of British imperialism. Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan was also a Pathan, born near Peshawar, Pakistan, in 1890.

Page 138

The Pathans have for centuries been known as fierce warriors — Rudyard Kipling wrote admiringly of their prowess. Ghaffar Khan was a monumental figure in the history of nonviolence, an equal of Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. When Pakistan was still a part of India, Ghaffar Khan led Pathans from militarism to nonviolent direct action.

In 1930, Ghaffar’s followers, the Servants of God, had the city of Peshawar in turmoil with nonviolence. The British had never seen anything like it, least of all among the ferocious Pathans. When a group of resisters was fired on, the wounded fell down and “those behind came forward and with their breasts bared, exposed themselves to the fire … so that some got as many as twenty-one bullet holes in their bodies, and all the people stood their ground without getting into a panic.” (Gene Sharp quoted in Eknath Easwaran, Nonviolent Soldier of Islam: Badshah Khan, A Man to Match his Mountains, 1999, p. 123) More nonviolent resistance followed as citizens endured violence, imprisonment, and torture, inflicting repeated moral defeats on the British and making Pathans the region’s dominant force. Ghaffar became known as the Badshah Khan (the Khan of Khans).

Ghaffar’s charisma was such that even decades later, the vast majority of the 100,000 men and women who joined the Servants of God “could vividly recall when and where they heard the key messages from Ghaffar Khan himself…. A particular feature of Badshah Khan’s charisma,” reports Mukulika Banerjee, was his ability to make every member “feel they had received the message directly and personally from him.” (Mukulika Banerjee, The Pathan Unarmed: Opposition and Memory in the North West Frontier, 2000, pp. 131-132) Yet Khan always rejected exalted status, telling his countrymen, “I am your servant.” (Banerjee, Pathan Unarmed, p. 130)

By all accounts, religion and love of his people were primary motivations for Ghaffar Khan. Both of his parents were pious orthodox Muslims. As a local ethnic leader, Ghaffar’s father was prominent in society, but independent of some social customs. For example, he rejected the Pathan code of revenge. Over the objections of the mullahs, he allowed his son Ghaffar to attend a Christian mission school where the personal example of a teacher inspired Ghaffar with ideals of selfless service to humanity.

At age 20, Ghaffar Khan began opening schools in his native and surrounding villages to foster social uplift among his people. “To my mind,” he said, “educating the people and serving the nation is as sacred as prayer.” (Abdul Ghaffar Khan and K. B. Narang, My Life and Struggle: Autobiography of Badshah Khan, 1969, p. 58) “It is my inmost conviction,” he stated, “that Islam is … right conduct, faith, and love.” (Dinanath Gopal Tendulkar, Abdul Ghaffar Khan: Faith is a Battle, 1967, p. 48)

Relentlessly opposed in his educational efforts by the British government, Badshah Khan developed an increasing interest in politics. Eventually, in 1919, he came into contact with Gandhi, in whom Ghaffar detected a kindred spirit. “Our goals were service of the people and there was no better model or person than Gandhi who exemplified great virtues any nation or society would cherish,” Ghaffar told Neelakanta Radhakrishnan. (Radhakrishnan, Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan: The Apostle of Nonviolence, 1998, p. 10) Gandhi in turn felt great lifelong rapport with Ghaffar, who he saw as “consumed with deep religious fervor…. His politics, if he had any, were derived from his religion.” (Easwaran, Nonviolent Soldier, p. 143) During a year at Gandhi’s ashram, Ghaffar reportedly never missed the five-time daily Muslim prayer.

Given the West’s ignorance of Islam, the variety of Muslim viewpoints Ghaffar Khan represents has not been available to the people of the United States. Ghaffar Khan deplored purdah, the tradition of repression of women. “My sisters,” he told one group, “I am feeling a peculiar sort of pleasure, because wherever I went in India and saw the nationwide awakening of the Hindu and Parsi women, I would say to myself, ‘Would such a time come when our Pathan women would also awaken?… God makes no distinction between men and women.… It is a grave mistake we have made in degrading women….’” (Easwaran, Nonviolent Soldier, p. 133)

Nor did he view religion as simplistically as many Christians do. Gandhi once asked Ghaffar if his English sister-in-law had converted to Islam. Ghaffar confessed he did not know his sister-in-law’s religious views:

You will be surprised that I cannot say whether she is a Muslim or Christian.… She was never converted — that much I know — and she is completely at liberty to follow her own faith. I have never asked her about it. Why should I? Why should not a husband

Page 139

and wife adhere each to their respective faiths? (Easwaran, Nonviolent Soldier, p. 145)

This great Muslim advocate of nonviolence said that, “I have one great desire. I want to rescue these gentle, brave, patriotic people from the tyranny of the foreigners who have disgraced and dishonored them.” Moreover, “I want to create for them a world of freedom, where they can live in peace, where they can laugh and be happy. I want to kiss the ground where their ruined homes once stood, before they were destroyed by savage strangers.” (Khan, My Life, p. 124) His followers swore an oath: “I shall never use violence. I shall not retaliate or take revenge, and shall forgive anyone who indulges in oppression and excesses against me.” (Tendulkar, Faith Is a Battle, p. 59)

That the Pathans with their brutal culture and history could so easily adapt to nonviolence — and succeed at it — mystified Ghaffar Khan himself. “I started teaching the Pathans nonviolence only a short time ago,” he told Gandhi. “Yet in comparison the Pathans seem to have learned this lesson and grasped the idea of nonviolence much quicker and much better than the Indians.… How do you explain that?” Gandhi responded, “Nonviolence is not for cowards. It is for the brave, the courageous.… That is the reason why the Pathans were able to remain nonviolent.” (Khan, My Life, pp. 193-194)

In 1947 Britain left India split among Muslims and Hindus, carved up into two nations: India and Pakistan. Khan had opposed partition and was characterized as a traitor by the Muslim League, which had fought for the creation of Pakistan. He continued supporting autonomy for the Pathans and spent 15 years in Pakistani prisons. Thus, although he lived until 1988, Ghaffar Khan vanished from view and, despite his enormous contributions, has been mostly forgotten in the history books. Gandhi and King are remembered; Ghaffar is almost forgotten. Since the beginning of the Afghan war, in spite of Ghaffar’s direct relevance to present events, we have seen only one mention of him in general circulation, mainstream U.S. journalism — a New York Times essay by Karl Meyer — and it referred to Ghaffar as a pacifist rather than an advocate of nonviolent action.

The dimming of the memory of Ghaffar Khan has had two consequences. First, the Western public has been denied historical knowledge that would help repair our stereotypical view of Islam. To us, a nonviolent Muslim seems a contradiction in terms. Second, the example of Ghaffar Khan could have given Muslims an alternative to those leaders who appeal to their worst instincts as leaders in the U.S. south once did. Imagine if George Wallace were remembered in U.S. history books while Martin Luther King, Jr., was expunged. Powerful examples can exert influence across centuries and even millennia. Scholars have established that within Islam, conscious and systematic emulation of spiritual models has long been particularly explicit. The Qur’an [Koran] identifies Muhammad as a beautiful example. (33:21) Moreover, Ghaffar Khan’s example had enduring influence. Banerjee’s recent interviews with dozens of surviving, mostly octogenarian, Servants of God confirm that “the movement’s emphasis on non-violence has stayed with them as a guiding principle.” (Banerjee, Pathan Unarmed, p. 165)

Ghaffar Khan’s example of nonviolence could have altered our perception of last year’s tragedies. As the director of Jerusalem’s Palestinian Center for the Study of Nonviolence has written, “The life of Khan can change and will challenge many readers in the Middle East.” (Mubarak Awad in Easwaran, Nonviolent Soldier, p. 2) It can do the same for those of us in the West — if it ever finds its way into our history books.

Page 140