Progressive Dawoodi Bohras

One Shri Yahyaali, who is an Advocate practising at Udaipur, gave a statement and also appeared before us. He stated that he is interested in the Bohra reform movement for many years. He had supported the reformist candidates of Bohra Youth in 1970 elections of the Municipality in Udaipur.

Baraat was declared against him in 1973 and as a result he lost most of the Bohra clientele belonging to the orthodox section and his first cousin has broken off all relations with him. His mother in law who resides with him in also boycotted by her other relations. His sister with her children have been boycotted by her husband because she refused to break her relations with the witness. She does not get any financial help from her husband for maintenance for her and her daughter.

He also stated that before starting social and welfare activities, permission of the Sayedna is required and if no permission is obtained, the person concerned is boycotted and persecuted till he gives up the activities and apologies. He said that in 1940 he had organised one Idara National Club in co-operation with other educated Bohras with the object of promoting educational and cultural activities for persons below the age of 18.

Not knowing that the permission of the Sayedna was needed, he had not sought such permission of the local Amil. When for the first time the club arranged a function and a mushaira, the witness was called by the local amil and was told that as he had not sought permission to arrange the programme, he had committed a serious offence. Amil then threatened the father of the witness and his father asked him to leave the club or else he would not continue to pay for his education.

He further stated that if any school or a society is floated with a constitution of its own, before securing sanction to such an institution, a condition is imposed that provision should be made in the constitution to the effect that whatever decisions are taken by the institution will have to placed before Sayedna for sanction and if they are not so sanctioned they would be treated as null and void.

In effect there is a veto power given to the Sayedna in respect of every decision of the body. In this way, in every society the Amil of Sayedna has been made its president. Thus the Sayedna keeps control over every institution started by a Dawoodi Bohra.

As an illustration he said that in 1956-57 a secretary was to be elected for the Sayedna's school. One Ismail Ali who was advocate and chairman of the Municipal Council and also a member of the Panchayat Service Commission was returned uncontested under he new constitution of the society.

When the Sayedna was informed of the uncontested election of the secretary, he at once ordered Ismail Ali to resign as secretary and without any further election one Shri Gulamali who was secretary prior to this uncontested election was appointed by his order and the election of Ismail Ali held in accordance with the rules became void by a stroke of pen and the old secretary who was not at all conversant with educational matters was put back in the saddle.

Persecution of sheikh

One Sarangpurwala Mohammed Sheikh, son of Sajjad Hussain, of Surat appeared before us and narrated the story of persecution of himself and his father. His late father has taken religious education in a religious college in Surat controlled by the then Sayedna. He studied religious literature in Arabic and he was a scholar of Urdu and Arabic and Farsi. He has also written religious songs. Thereafter he was appointed as a teacher in the religious college by the then Sayedna i.e. 51 the Dai Tajer Saifuddin.

The present Sayedna took religious instruction from him. He served the institution for about 50 years faithfully on a pittance of Rs. 275 per month. He was dismissed from the college by the brother of the present Sayedna. The cause of his dismissal makes a very interesting reading and has thrown a flood of light on the totalitarian character of the Dai's regime.

Sajjad Hussain and three of his colleagues believed that the 45th Dai died suddenly from poisoning without making an appointment of his successor. He had not expressed his belief in public and kept it to himself. But in 1969 when one of his colleagues Sheikh Hasanali had gone to Mecca for Haj, he expressed his view before an Arab friend and had requested him to keep it secret.

Somehow, this matter leaked out and the brother of the present Sayedna Yusuf Najmuddin came to know that Sajjad Hussain and his three colleagues were holding this belief. Soon after that serious steps commenced to be taken. The Sayedna Saheb first declared Baraat against Sajjad Hussain and his three colleagues.

The Sayedna started the practice of presenting them as Maloon (hated being or Satan) and informed the followers accordingly in all places by a circular. He thereafter called the family members of the four teachers to his devdi (Surat headquarters) and told them either to expel the four persons from their family or to leave them collectively and to curse (utter lanat against) them. When they refused to do so, they were manhandled by the followers also. This resulted in the severance of relation of the community with them and made their lives intolerable.

Before the dismissal from the college of these four teacher they were called by the Sayedna on 1-1-1971. They kept them standing surrounded by teachers and pupils of the college. The pupils as well as the teachers were then asked to utter 'lanat' against them and to spit on them and also abuse them. After this they were pushed out and dismissed.

On the same day at night a mob of 300 persons went to their house and looted household property and books of religion. At that time Sheikh Hasanali was called and severely beaten by the pupils. During religious occasions and especially during Mohram and Ramzan, the priestly class used to provoke the orthodox followers by falsely alleging that these four teachers were drinking alcohol and eating tobacco and that they did not believe in the authority of the Prophet or Hazure Ala (Sayedna) and besides their isolation they were threatened by some bully that acid will be thrown on them and that they will be murdered or their house will be looted and burnt if they did not apologise.

The witness further said that his father Sajjad Hussain was very old and weak and suffered the most. Even in the mosque and durgah very rough treatment was given to him by throwing pebbles at him and taking away his cap. The family members complained to the Sayedna about such behaviour but the harassment went on increasing. Even if any one of the female member was seen from a window or varandah of their house, the orthodox followers used to abuse her and it became practically impossible to move out of the house with any self respect. Not only Bohras but even others like milkmen, washerman, and domestic servants also boycotted the families of Sheikhs (the four teachers referred to earlier).

The witness's wife was forced to divorce him. His 4-month old daughter Nasrin was considered "Haram"i.e. bastard. Similarly the son-in-law of Sheikh Hasanali was forced to divorce his wife as he was serving the Sayedna's establishment and had therefore to carry out their order even though he was deeply attached to his wife. The second son-in-law of Sheikh Ahmedali (one of the four teachers ) was not forced to divorce his wife because he and his wife in the presence of Sayedna abused and uttered "Lanat" against all the four teachers including Sheikh Ahmedali.

In 1972 the wife of Sheikh Ali Ahmed expired after much humiliating treatment. Permission was granted for her burial. But all Bohras were asked not to participate in the burial. A condition was imposed that if any of the four boycotted teachers participated in the burial ceremony, the dead body would the thrown out from the graveyard.

Consequently six young members of the family had to carry the dead body about one and a half miles in Ramzan when they were observing fast. The gravedigger was sent away and the witness had to arrange for another gravedigger. Even though death took place at 10.00 a.m. the burial took place at 5.00 p.m. the same thing happened when the witness's aunt late Fatima Sheikh Hasanali expired.

The priestly class kept on telling the orthodox followers that this rubbish (meaning 4 teachers ) must be removed from Surat. Sheikh Ahmed Ali one of the four teachers had already left Surat for good and he was invited by reformist Bohras of Udaipur as they needed a learned man.

On 22-11-1974 at night the teachers and pupils and other miscreants held a meeting at the school and after planning the assault they divided themselves into three groups and attacked the witness's family (i.e. the family of his father Sajjad Hussain) at about 10.00 p.m. The house of the witness's uncle was raided but he and others were able to save their lives by closing the front door and escaping through back door. They were saved by Hindus. All household furniture, utensils were looted and stones were thrown and food was destroyed and costly articles and glassware were broken. Sheikh Ali Ahmed and his family members also were protected by neighbouring Hindu families.

The witness and his father were surrounded by Bohras and the neighbouring families could not help them. Some of the raiders broke into the house and started beating the witness and his father. The witness tried to protect his father and so they concentrated on the witness. He was dragged out. The witness was beaten and asked to leave his father and utter Lanat against him. His clothes were torn and various parts of his body were bleeding. He lost consciousness.

With great difficulty when he went to his house he saw that his father was in a semiconscious condition. Serious injuries were inflicted on him by the mob and his ribs were injured. His furniture, radio and sewing machine etc. were taken away. Even his 4-month old daughter was not spared. The wounded father of the witness expired on 25-11-1974 at the residence of a staunch reformist Shiekh Taherbhai Abdul Gafoor Kinkhabwala. When the father died the priestly class celebrated the death and their victory by a show of fireworks from 2.00 to 10.00 p.m. and sweets were distributed.

Prosecution was filed against a number of persons for conspiracy to cause death. The accused persons were acquitted by the Surat Court because it could not be established that those who were put up for trial were guilty. We are however not concerned with the question as to which particular persons were the assailants. We are only concerned with the fact that the boycotted persons became victims of mob violence, whoever may have engineered it.