Progressive Dawoodi Bohras

The questionnaire issued by the Nathwani Commission contains questions regarding the position of civil liberties and human rights enjoyed by members of the Dawoodi bohra community vis-a-vis the Sayedna saheb.

Practically all the respondents to the questionnaire have replied that the Sayedna does not permit them to be enjoyed by others in this country. Almost all of them have stated that they are not allowed to express their free opinion about the community affairs and they are being suppressed by terror, harassment, social boycott and excommunication.

They have said that there is no freedom to publish any journal or news-bulletin (and now in the age of Internet, web sites, message boards etc.) without the permission of the High priest or his agents. There is no freedom to read any daily newspaper or magazine banned by the High priest.

They do not have the freedom to form an association or union or a co-operative society without the sanction of the High priest. They also do not have liberty to establish or administer orphanages, musafirkhanas, schools, co-operative banking societies, consumer co-operative stores, houses for the widows or the old without his permission.

Practically all of them have said that they do not believe that in secular matters such as these any permission of the high priest should be necessary. They have also said that to seek such permissions is inconsistent with their self-respect and contrary to the constitution of our country.

They have further stated that if permission is sought, it is granted subject to such conditions as would be violative of their rights and liberties. These conditions vary from case to case. Almost without exception they have stated that if these things are done without permission the consequences are very serious.

The person concerned is socially boycotted or excommunicated, discriminated against, victimized and pressurized to close down the institution started by him. In general they have all said that it is not fair that the High priest or the priestly class should do any of these things.

There is no freedom to contest the Lok Sabha or state assembly elections without the permission of the high priest. As regards the right to vote, members of the community are pressurized to vote for a candidate who has obtained the permission of the high priest if he belongs to the Dawoodi Bohra community and his blessings if he belongs to any other community.

In the letters of invitations or correspondence with the high priest or his subordinates, the members of the community are required to use the expression "Abde Sayedna", if a male or "Amte Sayedna" if he is a female. Some respondents have said that prior to the regime of the 41st Dai it was not obligatory to use the expression but since he ascended to the "Gaddi" it has become mandatory to write such words.

The expression "Abde Sayedna" or "Amte Sayedna" means the slave of Sayedna. If these words are not used in the invitation cards for marriage or dinner party, such dinner would be boycotted and permission would not be given for marriage.

Now let us examine some of the cases in detail so far as freedom of expression and the freedom of opinion is concerned. These are only a few illustrative cases and do not exhaust the list.

Teacher mobbed and dismissed

One Mulla Taher Ali A. Lokhandwala was a teacher who is residing at Arthur Road, Tardev, Bombay. He was working as a teacher in the Taheri High School, Khokha Bazaar, Bombay. He was teaching in the high school for more than nine years. he says that he is a sympathiser of the Bohra Reformist Movement but has never displayed his sympathy publicly all these years.

In 1975 one day he was reading Urdu Blitz in the school premises. Blitz as is well known, is a weekly magazine which is published both in Urdu and in English and has a large circulation. It some time gives news about the Bohra reform movement. According to Shri Taherali, Urdu blitz has been placed on the banned list by the priestly class.

One day in June 1975, he was found reading Urdu blitz and he was beaten by teachers and students of the high school in the school premises and then thrown out. He narrated his story to the Editor of the Urdu blitz which published it prominently. According to him, this enraged the priesthood and he was dismissed from the school on some flimsy pretext.

This high school is run by the high priest Sayedna Mohammed Burhannudin's Education department. This is seen form a letter dated 22-3-1389(Hijri) corresponding to 11-6-1969 informing him on behalf of Sayedna Burhannudin Saheb that he is appointed in Taheri High School as teacher and the he should take up the side position and report for duty on 25-3-1969. Shri Lokhandwala has produced a photocopy of the original letter in Urdu with monogram and its English translation.

Thus there is no doubt that the school is under the management of the Sayedna. He complained to the Director of Education, who ordered his reinstatement because his dismissal form the school was quite irregular. The management of the school challenged by a writ petition filed in the High court of Bombay the validity of the order of the Director reinstating him.

When the petition came up for hearing, it was stated by the counsel on behalf of the school management that they desired to withdraw the petition unconditionally and that Taherali would be reinstated in the school and arrears of salary would be paid. Accordingly he was reinstated. But the management then instigated the students, and teachers not to permit him to work peacefully and to insult, abuse and attack him voilently. Everyday, he had to go to school under police protection.

On 27th September 1978, he went to school as usual in a police van. The inspector of Pydhooni police station was also with him. As soon as the proctor of the school saw him coming to the school, he immediately asked the students to leave the classes and mob him. The police inspector saw this incident and scolded the proctor for his irresponsible behavior in releasing the students with the intention of attacking the teacher.

Meanwhile some outside goons came and locked the door form outside, thus confining both the inspector and the teacher. Later on the principal appeared on the scene who was also scolded by the inspector. When the door was opened and the teacher came out, he was attacked with stones form all directions injuring his skull, his ankle, his thigh, foot and back. he was taken to the J.J. Hospital by the police for treatment.

His services were then terminated by the school management by their order dated 28th September 1978 i.e. on the next day of the incident. We have seen a photo-copy of the order or termination of services. It does not contain any reasons for termination. It merely says that the Taher Education Society has passed a resolution on 28-9-1978 terminating his services with immediate effect and giving him a cheque for the amount equivalent to six months salary. We have also seen a true copy of the order of High Court and we asked Mr. Lokhandwala to state facts on an affidavit. Accordingly he has submitted an affidavit.

This is a clear illustration of the priestly class denying Dawoodi Bohras freedom of information and persecuting reader of a banned magazine in all possible ways. The universal declaration of human rights adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 10th December, 1948 (to which India is a signatory) by artile 19 says:

"Every one has the right to freedom of opinion and expression. This right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and import information and ideas through any media or frontiers."

What the poor teacher had done was only to read an Urdu weekly newspaper!!

Baraat against orphanage

Now we may take up a few illustrative cases of persecution of those who organize and administer social institutions without the sanction of the high priest.

One Abbasbhai Ghulamhussein residing in Dharol near Rajkot, Gujarat, has stated that he was working in an institution known as Sir Adam Ji Peerbhoy Rafiduddin Yatimjkhana, Dhraol, which maintained orphans and very poor children. The institution was established in 1955 and was run with the help of a donation given by a Bohra Philanthropist Sir Adam Ji Peerbhoy who was a staunch reformist.

It was started without the permission of the high priest. Therefore, the whole institution including the orphans living therein has been boycotted. The witness was working as a superintendent of the said orphanage - Yatimkhana. The Amil of Jamnagar asked him to resign form the service of the institution on 28-2-1975.

The orphans were also asked to leave the institution. Their relations were asked to withdraw the children form the orphanage. The children were also called by the Amil who was then on a visit to Dharol and told that they should leave the institution. The witness was also called and told that he should resign, otherwise Baraat will be declared against him and that his relations will become helpless.

When the orphans asked him as to what they would do if they went out of the Yatimkhana they were told by the Amil that when the dogs and other animals somehow procure their food, why should they feel so nervous about their life.

A list of orphans was then prepared with their names and addresses. On the same day in the Masjid the members of the Jamat of Dawoodi Bohra congregation were directed by oral order not to keep any relations with the orphans as well as members of the staff running the institution. They should never be invited to community dinner nor should anyone attend any function of these persons no even attend the burial.

Since then even the children are not invited to the dinner or feast and the poor children and the members of the staff including the witness are socially boycotted. The witness made a complaint to one Mrs. Ayesha Begum, who was then minister in the Gujarat state cabinet and she in turn passed on the complaint to the high priest. The high priest gave her a reply dated 1-9-1976 and Ayesha Begum communicated the gist of the reply to the witness.

In substance the high priest had replied that his representative at Jamnagar was asked to report and action would be taken thereafter. But nothing has been done thereafter. The witness then wrote to the Minister more letters but he did to receive any reply from her.

A brother of the witness was to marry and therefore, his father sought permission of the Amil of Bagasara (town near Rajkot). He was told that since his other son (i.e. the witness) was in the service of the said Yatimkhana, he will not be given the Safai Chitthi (letter of clearance).

The father feeling helpless sent a written apology addressed to the high priest which was signed by his father and several other gentlemen certifying that the facts stated in the apology were correct. In that apology he said that he would not keep any relations with the son. The witness produced a photo copy of the apology.

It is dated 2-6-1977. The father i.e. Ghulamhussein Adamji Vankar has signed it as "Slave of the Sayedna". There are signatures at the foot of the apology of seven other gentlemen who have vouched for the accuracy of the statement contained therein.

The safai chitthi was then given in a sealed envelope. The witness could not attend the wedding of his own brother. He however went there clandestinely. When the Amil of Bagasara came to know about it he pressed his father to expel the witness form the place and so the witness was driven out from the marriage party.

The father of the witness has confirmed the fact about withholding the of the Safai Chithi at the time of the marriage of his son. He has added that when the Safai Chithi was asked for by his intervention and payment of Rs. 5000/- to the Dawat a fresh misaaq was taken from him.

Prestigious daily newspaper indexed

Another glaring instance is that of a very long established daily Gujarati newspaper 'The Bombay Samachar'. It is a highly prestigious newspaper. It was established in the year 1822. The paper runs columns for different communities like Muslims, Jains, Dawoodi Bohras.

In its Friday issues a column entitled 'Bohra Vartman'(Bohra News) appears wherein both orthodox and reformist Bohras are invited to express their views, mainly on socio-economic matters. Reformists in their letters also ventilate their grievances against the high priest and the priestly class about arbitrary imposition of taxes and fines and even physical attacks upon the dissenters.

The 'Bombay Samachar' has stated through its editor Jehan D. Daruwala that the orthodox do not relish this. They want the paper not to publish any letters which are critical of any action or directives of the High Priest.

On several occasions deputations of the orthodox called upon the editors and urged them not to publish views critical of working of the High-Priest. They explained to the deputationists that the columns were open to both the sections of the Bohras and the orthodox could avail of them to contradict any facts which they felt were not true and also put their case before the community.

The editor has further stated that when our Commission held a sessions in Bombay to hear witnesses there were demonstrations at Chowpaty. The Bombay Samachar gave a factual report of the same on the next day. On the day after the report appeared copies of the paper were snatched away from the vendors in the Muslim areas and some of them were burnt. Some of the miscreants wanted to come to the office and burn the copies in front of it. But the police forestalled the action and they dispersed after shouting slogans.

Thereafter a large number of handbills appeared which enjoined Dawood. Bohras not to read he 'Bombay Samachar'. They are also forbidden from giving any advertisements or publish obituary notices in the paper. The handbill threatens that no 'mumin' (follower of Sayedna) will ever attend the 'Sipara' (ritual reading of the Holy Book) of a person whose relatives publish obituary notices in the boycotted paper.

All such notices should be published in Jam-e-Jamshed (which is another Gujarati daily newspaper published in Bombay). It may be stated here that by a long tradition the 'Bombay Samachar' publishes all obituary notices free of charge. The editor has produced photostat copies of three such handbills.

The significance of this injunction given to Dawoodi Bohras is that whoever violates the boycott of the paper will himself be boycotted by the establishment so that even a priest would not come and recite funeral prayers if the obituary notice is published in the 'Bombay Samachar'.

The editor has further said that in the issue dated 8th Jan, 1960 an editorial had appeared under the caption "Yugdharnabe Pichhano, Bada Mullaji" (which means "recognize the changing times"). Some of the orthodox followers of the Sayedna rushed into the office of the paper and assaulted the then editor Mr. Sorabji Kapadia. There was a widespread protest by the leading newspapers denouncing the dastardly attack upon the veteran journalist. Those arrested for the offense were prosecuted and sentenced.

It is true that the handbills do not bear any signature, nor do they indicate on their face the source of publication nor the name of the printer. But from all the facts and circumstances set out by the editor we conclude that the editor is justified in holding the belief that they are issued under the directions of the priestly class.

After all the priestly class had made organized efforts to boycott the commission and prevent it from functioning. They naturally could not have relished the report of the violent incidents at the Chowpati in Bombay at the time when our commission was examining witnesses.

Moreover, the fact about the publication of the handbills was published by the paper. Yet no contradiction by anyone was issued sating that these handbills did not represent the orders or class. No other person would be interested in spending large sums of money to announce the boycott of a particular newspaper through such handbills. The object was obviously not to cause financial loss to the paper because, as we have said before, obituary notices are published by the paper free of charge.

The action is directed not so much against the paper as against the Bohra readers. Any paper which runs a regular column criticizing the actions of the priestly class would not be relished by the priests who are deputies of the High Priest and given the claim which the High Priest makes of demanding implicit and absolute obedience from all members of the community any criticism would ultimately shake the authority of High Priest. The members of the community should, therefore be forbidden from reading the papers on pain of social boycott of the reader himself.

In view of all the circumstances we are satisfied that the priestly class has by these handbills forbidden Dawoodi Bohras from reading the 'Bombay Samachar' on pain of social boycott so that they may not hear any criticism of the conduct of the priestly class.

We must make it clear that the editor who has given the facts is not a Dawoodi Bohra of one or the other group. He is not a Mohammedan of any sect. He is a Parsi. His co-editor is Mr. Bhatt is a Hindu. The paper is owned by a Private Limited Company controlled by persons who are not Bohras - orthodox or reformists.

Dissolution of co-operative bank ordered

Another astounding example is that of Shri Gulamhussain Ismail residing at Udaipur who is the Secretary of the Bohra Jamat at Udaipur. Apart from submitting a memorandum he has given oral evidence in which among other things he has said that when the reformist movement gathered momentum in udaipur, Firmans (orders) were issued by Syedna to ban and dissolve the organisation of the reformist Bohras which were started for the welfare of the members, of the community without the permission of the High Priest.

He has produced a photocopy of a letter which bears the date 23rd Rajab 1332 Hijri (about 1971 A.D.). The letter is addressed to the witness asking him to dissolve the Bohra Youth Association and to close down the C0-Operative Bank started by the Youth Association. These institutions had been started without the permission of the high priest. The writer of the letter had also sent a copy of the order given to Amil of Udaipur Sheikh Gulamali. He has also shown the original of the letter which he received and we have kept a photocopy on record.

This order clearly shows that the Syedna and the priestly class hold that no institution can be started without the permission of the high priest and that if one does it he can be directed to close it down. We shall have to say more about this witness later on.

Youth association ordered to be dissolved

Abidali Hasanaly is residing at Udaipur and was in the Rajasthan Sahitya Academi. He is the secretary of Bohra Youth Association, Udaipur. He submitted a written statement and personally appeared as a witness before the Commission. He stated how Syedna tried to break the Bohra Youth Association by unfair means. In the beginning one Gulam Hussain was elected as secretary of the Association. In order to take him under his influence Syedna conferred upon him the title of N.K.D.

The witness has produced a photocopy of the Sanad of the title. Gulam Hussain was then called to Bombay by Sayedna. The witness was also present there. Syedna's secretary (Divan) Sheikh Ibrahim Yemani had asked the witness to meet him first and the witness was told that he (witness) had ridiculed the practice of raza (permission) by setting up candidates to contest the municipal election against the candidates who were contesting the same with the raza of Syedna and by not voting for the latter. He had thus committed a great sin and he would have to tender apology for having done so.

When the witness and the other person declined to do so, and finding that they were determined persons, the Divan changed his attitude and in an open assembly he conferred the title of "Mulla" upon Gulam Hussain. Even after this the Youth Association did not break and therefore Gulam Hussain was called to Gailakot, a place about 75 miles from Udaipur - and pressure was brought upon him for the purpose of breaking the Bohra Youth Association. When Gulam Hussain pleaded his inability to break the association, he was called at Burhanpur and warned. It was then that Sayedna sent him a letter directing him to dissolve the Association. Gulam Hussain has also appeared as a witness and has corroborated this evidence.

The witness has further stated that thereafter the Amil Nomanbhai Saheb was called at Barhanpur and when the witness returned from there to Udaipur he received a letter from Saydena ordering dossolution of Youth Association.

In this section

• Bohras and reform
• Multimedia
• Bohra literature
• Publications
• Your story