A Murder in British Lahore – Closing the Case of Lekh Ram

Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad^as of Qadian (d. 1908), founder of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, claimed to be the Promised Messiah, the Mahdi (The Guided One) and a messenger of Allah, subservient to the Holy Prophet of Islam^sa. As with all other claimants of such divinely guided ranks, the people and scholars of his time asked for proofs of his truthfulness. While he had the legacy of a whole range of Islamic literature to support his claims, he was given signs by God to show to those who so desired.

His claim caught the attention of not only the Muslims but of Christians and Hindus alike, as these faiths awaited the coming of a saviour in the latter days. All three religions had mention of such a saviour in their eschatology. So it was not only the Muslims that required proof of the truthfulness of this messiah, but also the followers of these major faiths.

The majority of the books written by Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad^as, rich in intellectual discourse, were and still remain a detailed study of the eschatological interpretations of all major world religions.^[1] Intellectual discourse was not however always deemed sufficient in the diverse, religious culture of the British India of his era. A trend of street preaching (munazira) had become highly fashionable in most of the Indian states, with opponents debating face to face and both claiming victory at the end. This discourse never concluded amicably, as both parties would aim at insulting the other. Hazrat Ahmad^as, having indulged in a number of munaziras, saw no benefits to this way of preaching. The distinct way of knowing the truth, which he introduced, was by Divine guidance; he believed that anyone who sought the truth should come to him, live with him for some time and see the signs of God. Thousands are reported to have adopted this means and verified the truthfulness of Hazrat Ahmad^as. This approach was exactly in line with the practice of the Holy Prophet Muhammad^sa and thousands of Islamic saints, but had become almost extinct with the passage of time.

Another unique approach adopted by Hazrat Ahmad^as involved foretelling events, classified as prophecies in theological terminology. The Holy Qur’an states that Allah gives some knowledge of the future and the unseen to His appointed ones, so that the world may take heed.^[2] A number of such foretold events by Hazrat Ahmad^as were of a universal nature, while others were apparently limited to certain individuals. They ranged from the outbreak of the bubonic plague in Punjab, the fall of the Tsar and the destructive World Wars, all materialising at a later point in time.^[3] Time was to prove that the prophecies regarding individuals were also going to catch trans-religious and global attention. Prophecies about claimants of divinity in the West such as John Hugh-Smyth Piggott and Alexander Dowie were publicised in the British, American and Australian Press.

One such prophecy was about Lekh Ram, a leading figure of the Arya Samaj Movement. This prophecy was by way of a warning issued to him by Hazrat Ahmad^as. He warned him to refrain from hurling abuse at Prophet Muhammad^sa, as his attacks on the character of the Prophet^sa were extremely insulting and provocative, and could lead to Divine Wrath.

The Arya Samaj

The British Indian Punjab was the richest of all states in terms of religious diversity. The three major faiths prevalent were Islam, Sikhism and Hinduism. Christian missionary societies joined this religious hotbed with new tools of propaganda. This meant four major faiths vied to co-exist in the region, with Hindus being the only non-proselytising faith. Mass conversions of Hindus to Christianity and Islam became a matter of huge concern for the Hindus. Not only did the low-castes find it more rewarding to convert to Islam, but those Hindus who opted for a Western education, were prone to converting to Christianity. It was in these conditions that the Arya Samaj was founded by Swami Dayanand in 1875, as a reform movement to revive the Hindu faith and enable the lost Hindu masses to revert. Being a modern, proselytising sect as opposed to orthodox Hindus, Swami Dayanand faced greater opposition from orthodox Hindu groups than indeed Muslims and Christians.

After the death of Swami Dayanand in 1883, three of his disciples namely Guru Datt, Pandit Lekh Ram and Lala Munsi Ram, played a lead role in shaping and interpreting the Arya Samaj ideology. Guru Datt, highly educated and influential in academic circles, gathered around himself a group of Arya Samajists who supported the reinterpretation of Dayanand’s teachings. This turning point saw the Arya Samaj turn into a militant sect of Hinduism.^[4] Later, Pandit Lekh Ram, a prominent leader of the militant section of the Arya Samaj, focused the Arya efforts on the opposition of Islam. Kenneth Jones, commenting on Lekh Ram’s militant tendencies, suggests that “Growing up in a Muslim area and serving under Muslim officers in the police, Lekh Ram reacted by becoming self-consciously and militantly Hindu.”^[5] His aggressive attacks on Islam came to define his identity. It was not only Muslims who complained of his militantly aggressive attitude towards Islam, but his own followers held the same opinion and openly expressed it in their accounts of his character.^[6]

Arya Samajist biographers are of the opinion that “his love for Arya faith had made him so prejudiced that he would not forgive the opponents’ weaknesses or shortcomings. He would not stay quiet when anything was said about the Vedas and would say the harshest words in response, regardless of the stature of his addressee.”^[7] The writer goes on to state that Lekh Ram’s harsh tone peaked during his verbal discourse.^[8]

The Arya Samaj had split into two factions in 1893; both had become ideologically opposed. The more educated wing worked under the control of Lala Hans Raj and Lala Lajpat Rai, while the other wing, radical and extremist as it was in its ideology, was led by Pandit Lekh Ram.^[9] This militant wing of the Arya Samajists invested all their energy in to organising events that led to open confrontation with Muslims.^[10]

The Controversy

Hazrat Ahmad^as, after having come across the extremely abusive allegations of Pandit Lekh Ram on the Prophet Muhammad^sa, invited him to visit Qadian and to stay there for a while, so that his allegations could be refuted and a sign from Allah manifested.^[11,12] Lekh Ram accepted the offer and travelled to Qadian in 1885.^[13] During his stay, he exchanged correspondence with Hazrat Ahmad^as, mocking the faith of Islam, the Holy Prophet Muhammad^sa, and the claims of Hazrat Ahmad^as.^[14] He also asked Hazrat Ahmad^as to ask his God to show a sign in favour of Islam, while claiming that he too was asking Parmeshar to show a sign in favour of the Hindu faith.^[15] Lekh Ram proposed that both supplicate to their respective Gods, to end the life of the one who belonged to the false religion.^[16] While Hazrat Ahmad^as refuted all of Lekh Ram’s allegations in their correspondence, he also accepted this challenge.^[17] Lekh Ram made a prophecy that Hazrat Ahmad^as would die of cholera within three years from the date of the prophecy, while Hazrat Ahmad^as claimed that he was told by God that Lekh Ram would be killed during the days of Eid (a Muslim Festival), within six years of the prophecy being made public.^[18,19]

To understand the true nature of the controversy, it is important that the factors leading to it must first be understood. Lekh Ram was known in all religious circles for the extremely inflammatory language he used in his verbal and written discourses with all major religions. He had inherited his aggressive and abusive approach from the founder of the Arya Samaj, Pandit Dayanand, who had practised such attacks on all other faiths, especially Islam.^[20,21] His choice of words was extremely provocative and hurtful for all Muslims. for example, he declared the Islamic concept of paradise as a grove of prostitutes.^[22] Lekh Ram carried this legacy forward by focusing particularly on attacking Islam and its founder, Prophet Muhammad^sa, hence intensifying the Hindu-Muslim tension of 19^th century Punjab.^[23] This abusive language created distress in the majority of Muslim circles in India, but there was an absence of a reasonable reaction.^[24]
The abuse hurled by Lekh Ram and other Arya Samajists against the Prophet Muhammad^sa, resulted in Muslims either hurling abuse in retaliation or resorting to violence and vandalism. Vernacular Papers of the British Indian Punjab published in late 1880s and most of the 1890s, regularly covered the “Hindu-Muslim Tension” and described how followers of both faiths reacted violently in response to one another’s attacks on their faiths. Approaching the close of the decade, such news stories grew in volume and intensity, especially by 1897.^[25]
The only reasonable reaction to the Arya Samajist attacks on Islam was to come from Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad^as of Qadian, who was to be hailed as the ‘Champion of Islam.’^[26] His first major work to be published, Barahin-e-Ahmadiyya (proofs of the truthfulness of Islam and its Holy Founder^sa), as Bob van der Linden states, “argued systematically against the statements” made against the religion of Islam by other faiths, especially by the Arya Samajists.^[27] Hazrat Ahmad^as sent a copy to Dayanand, the founder of Arya Samaj, offering him to come forward for a debate based on the book but Dayanand did not even respond, let alone challenge it.^[28] Barahin-e-Ahmadiyya was well received by all Muslims, who felt it was their moral duty to respond to such baseless attacks. This book, not only a defence of Islam but also a counter attack on other faiths, provoked both the Christians and Arya Samajists.^[29,30,31] Silenced by logic, followers of both faiths retaliated with an increase in inflammatory language against Islam. Lekh Ram responded by writing Takzeeb Barahin-e-Ahmadiyya (refutation of proofs of truthfulness of Islam and its Founder), that was to be followed by a whole range of tracts being published by Hazrat Ahmad^as and Pandit Lekh Ram, one after the other. Lekh Ram came to be known as the most outrageous enemy of Islam in both speech and print, constantly attacking Islam with the most derogatory language. Although the Punjab had a long history of religious conflict, no other issue created such unrest and violence as the attacks of Pandit Lekh Ram upon Islam.^[32,33] Dialogue, debate, print and even violence, were all employed in an attempt to curb these foul verbal attacks against Islam. Hazrat Ahmad’s^as Barahin-e-Ahmadiyya, and his other works, were the most powerful and logical refutation of Lekh Ram’s allegations.^[34,35] It was at this point, that the prophecy by the ‘Champion of Islam’, Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad^as, was issued.

The Prophecy by Hazrat Ahmad^as

The prophecy by Hazrat Ahmad^as was published on February 20^th, 1893, whereby he prophesied that if Lekh Ram did not refrain from hurling abuse on the Founder of Islam^sa, he would incur a painful fate that would be extraordinarily cruel in all aspects.^[36] The prophecy unfolded in several stages by the Will of God. They progressed in accordance with the reactions of Lekh Ram. When Lekh Ram first asked for a prophecy, Hazrat Ahmad^as announced that God had told him that “his [Lekh Ram’s] transgressions will make him see the Wrath of God. He is nothing but a lifeless calf making strange sounds.”^[37]

Then on February 20^th 1893, Hazrat Ahmad^as claimed that while meditating about Lekh Ram, he was told by God that “within six years from this date, which is 20^th of February 1893, this person will become a victim of God’s Wrath and Curse as a result of the transgressions that he has committed against the Prophet Muhammad^sa.”

Another revelation received by Hazrat Ahmad^as was that “his matter will be over within six.” The duration for the prophecy to be manifest was announced by Hazrat Ahmad^as in his book Karamat-us-Sadiqeen by way of Divine revelation; Lekh Ram would see this Wrath of God during the days of Eid.[38^] Hazrat Ahmad^as also made it clear right at the onset, that Lekh Ram’s death would not be as a result of an illness, rather both the cause and effect would be extraordinary and unusual in nature.^[39]

Lekh Ram continued to use abusive and provocative language against the Prophet of Islam^sa. Mockery of the Prophet^sa was, historically speaking, the best ammunition the opponents of Islam had to provoke Muslims and gain desired results.^[40] Hazrat Ahmad^as was the only person to come forward as the defender of Islam.^[41] Lekh Ram’s provocative tracts, especially the one titled “The Epistle of Jihad”, led to a mass reaction by the Muslims, leaving Lekh Ram the sole contributor to the “growth of confrontation in the Punjab and soon he was attacked in Muslim, Sikh and Christian newspapers.”^[42] The fire of violence that Lekh Ram himself sparked and then inflamed through persistently vulgar attacks, led the way to the fulfilment of Hazrat Ahmad’s^as prophecy.

The Murder of Lekh Ram

Muslims were becoming increasingly agitated. The Maulvis (Muslim clergy) of Bombay threatened Lekh Ram with court action if he did not “make over to them all copies of a work in which the Pandit had wounded the religious feelings of the Muhammadans by using disrespectful language in criticizing their religion and its founder.”^[43,44] Despite this, the tension between the Muslims and the Aryas continued to grow.

The Paisa Akhbar, in its edition of August 29^th, 1896 stated that “Takzib-e-Brahin-i-Ahmaddiyya … is calculated to cause great mischief. The book purports to be a refutation of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s^as ‘Barahin-e-Ahmadiyya,’ but the Pandit, in utter disregard of the cannons of strict criticism has used the most offensive and insulting language towards Islam, its leaders, its followers, including the prophets, and things held sacred by the Muhammadans.”

The Paisa Akhbar also called for the government to take action against Lekh Ram and ban his books and pamphlets. They tried threatening him with court action and attempted to file a law suit against him in Delhi, which was dismissed by the Court.^[45,46] The Punjab, rich in diversity, saw its inhabitants drifting towards aggression and violence. Lekh Ram had not only earned animosity from among the Muslims but also from among the orthodox Hindus, Sanatan Dharm, Christians and Sikhs.^[47,48]

Muslims of the Punjab celebrated their festival of Eid on 6^th March, 1897. The joy and fervour of festivity was still in the air of Lahore, when Lekh Ram was at home in Wachhu Wali Street, in the heart of the walled city. He was accompanied by a pupil who was learning Sanskrit from him and who had been seen in his constant company for three weeks. Lekh Ram was alone with this new disciple in his room. His mother and wife sat outside the room in the compound of the house. The silence of the dusk was broken by a loud scream from inside the room. Shocked and startled, Lekh Ram’s mother and his wife stormed into the room to find Lekh Ram stabbed, bathed in blood by a deep stab wound on his belly, struggling to keep his intestines from falling out.^[49] The alleged murderer, who had disguised himself as a disciple, was nowhere to be found. Lekh Ram’s mother and wife gave testimony that no one had escaped the room from the main door of the room and there was no other way to flee from the house. Lekh Ram, on his deathbed is stated to have accused the man who had come to him to be purified. This statement is said to be supported by his widow and mother.^[50] The circumstances of the murder were suspicious from the very onset. Vernacular Newspapers carried speculations that the murderer could have been from the Sanatan Dharm, the beliefs of which had been constantly under attack by Lekh Ram. It was stated in some newspapers that since he was found naked, his murder could have been the result of an illicit relationship that he had with a woman, and that the murderer was an Arya relative of the woman involved.^[51]

It is astonishing that the name of this person accompanying such a high-profile leader and public figure like Lekh Ram, remained unknown to any of the friends or associates of Lekh Ram, despite his accompanying him for three weeks.^[52]

Whilst speculation about the murderer’s identity went on in the local Press, all Arya Samajist newspapers seemed to be pointing their fingers at Hazrat Ahmad^as, due to the prophecy he had issued about the death of Lekh Ram. All Arya Samajist articles not only claimed that Hazrat Ahmad^as had plotted the murder in order to fulfill his prophecy, but also alerted the Aryas to be on guard in case Hazrat Ahmad^as might desire the same fate for them all.^[53] This accusation was so forcefully levied by the Arya Samajists, that the investigating teams of police searched the house of Hazrat Ahmad^as in Qadian in an attempt to find any incriminating evidence.^[54]

Fallacies in the Arya Samajist Propaganda

It is quite natural that the Arya Samajists would have accused Hazrat Ahmad^as of conspiring to fulfill his prophecy, however they had no supporting evidence to back their claims. The details of the prophecy published by the Arya newspapers were inaccurate, as they declared that 1897 was the sixth year of the prophecy, by when Lekh Ram should have been dead.^[55] This was an incorrect statement which seems to have been made only to pressurise the authorities to charge Hazrat Ahmad^as with the murder. The prophecy, as mentioned earlier, was issued in February 1893 and so the period of six years would not have expired before February 1899. It is evident that the timeframe of the prophecy was well known to the Aryas, but was purposefully corrupted to corroborate their false allegations.^[56] While Hazrat Ahmad^as himself pointed out the fallacy that he would have conspired the murder just as the timeframe of the prophecy was about to end, the Paisa Akhbar newspaper also drew attention to the fact that the prophecy still had two years before it expired.^[57,58]

Hazrat Ahmad^as also tried to bring to light the fact that it was in no way plausible that he would commission one of his followers to murder Lekh Ram. Hazrat Ahmad^as argued that such an act, would have lead to that follower doubting Hazrat Ahmad’s^as claims of being Divinely appointed, and would no longer have remained a follower.^[59] This reasoning was very openly supported by the editor of the Paisa Akhbar, who stated that “it is impossible that Mirza could have asked any of his disciples, among whom are several educated and learned persons, to murder the deceased, for by doing so he would have proved himself an imposter.”^[60]

The Arya Samajist constantly insisted that even if Hazrat Ahmad^as was not behind the murder of Lekh Ram, he should have been employed to use his prophetic faculties and to ask his God to reveal to him the whereabouts of the assassin in order to resolve the controversy.

Despite the police searching his house under pressure from the Arya Samaj,^[61] no proof of any kind was ever found to connect Hazrat Ahmad^as to the murder. Hazrat Ahmad^as read out to the superintendent the terms of the contract which was concluded between Lekh Ram and himself; he had nothing to hide and the police had nothing to suspect.

Some Arya circles then claimed that it was not Hazrat Ahmad^as alone, but a whole lobby of Muslim leaders who were involved. This propaganda led to the houses and offices of other prominent Muslim Associations and their leaders being searched. The premises of Anjuman-i-Himayat Islam as well as the house of its secretary and the house of the secretary of Anjuman-i-Naumania, were also searched to no avail.^[62] This clearly shows that the search of Hazrat Ahmad’s^as house had been carried out on fair grounds and the authorities were under no influence when clearing Hazrat Ahmad^as of any involvement. Hazrat Ahmad^as had only issued a prophecy about Lekh Ram’s death and had made it public.

A telegram was brought to the attention of the investigation. It had been sent from Bombay a few days prior to Lekh Ram’s murder. The sender had inquired about Lekh Ram’s address.^[63] It is surprising to note that when such suspicious material was received, there was still no attention given to the pending prophecy of Hazrat Ahmad^as and no alarms raised with the authorities. Some of the Vernacular Papers highlighted this point, reminding the public that if such suspicion had prevailed with the Arya Samaj, why was Lekh Ram not provided with security as the Christian Community had provided Abdullah Atham, when Hazrat Ahmad^as made a prophecy against him.^[64]

The Chauwdhwin Sadi, on March 23 1897, stated that Lekh Ram had been warned “of his impending fate only a few days before his assassination.” Common sense would suggest that Lekh Ram and his associates would have reminded the law enforcement authorities to monitor Hazrat Ahmad^as, as he would have been the prime suspect. No such complaints were ever lodged, clearly showing that Hazrat Ahmad’s^as prophecy had no importance for them and they doubted that it could ever be fulfilled.

A Murder Mystery or a Prophecy Fulfilled?

The police are said to have promptly arrived at the scene of his murder. They searched the property and could not reach a conclusion as to how the assassin may have escaped, when Lekh Ram’s mother and wife were just outside the sole door to the room. Lekh Ram was rushed to the Mayo hospital in Anarkali, where he stayed alive for a further six hours. He is said to have been in great pain but was conscious. He is recorded to have mentioned the assassin, but never to have accused Hazrat Ahmad^as. He was treated by Dr Mirza Yaqub Beg and Lieutenant Colonel. F Perry, the former being a follower of Hazrat Ahmad^as. Dr Beg states that even being aware of his association to Hazrat Ahmad^as, Lekh Ram never made any mention of Hazrat Ahmad^as as a suspect. As the story reaches its end, many astonishing facts emerge, such as that the police officers were with Lekh Ram from the time he was found stabbed to the moment he breathed his last breath, but his dying declaration was never recorded.^[65] Questions were also raised as to why the friend of Lekh Ram, who had shown apprehension about Lekh Ram’s life being in danger, was not brought forward by the Aryas to explain why he entertained such fears. This again highlights the fact that Hazrat Ahmad^as had absolutely no involvement in the murder of Lekh Ram, or else such friends would have expressed their suspicion to the authorities.

A vigorous search was carried out by the police but no trace of the assassin was ever found. All areas adjacent to Lekh Ram’s house, alongside the whole of the neighbourhood were raided and searched, but the assassin was never found.

While Hazrat Ahmad^as and the Muslim Community of the Punjab were accused by the Aryas to be involved in the murder of Lekh Ram, Hazrat Ahmad^as was the only one not to have displayed any violence in retaliation. The Vernacular Press was filled with news of Arya-Muslim clashes across the Punjab, however, not a single account reported any violence in Qadian or elsewhere, that was instigated by Hazrat Ahmad^as. The only response witnessed from Hazrat Ahmad^as was the announcement of the fulfillment of the prophecy and the expression of sorrow that Lekh Ram had to suffer the Wrath of God, which he could have avoided by abstaining from hurling abuse upon the Prophet of Islam^sa.66 The moderate minded public could not ignore the philosophy behind the prophecy issued by Hazrat Ahmad^as. There were many who declared that they too were inclined to think that Hazrat Ahmad^as was involved in the murder of Lekh Ram, but having read the works of Lekh Ram and the response of Hazrat Ahmad^as, they had changed their opinion. Some wrote to newspapers offering to claim, on oath, that Hazrat Ahmad^as had nowhere used harsh or foul language but had, while pointing out the weak points of the Hindu religion, refuted the misstatements to which currency had been given by his adversaries.^[67]

By May 1897, when the assassin could not be found, there was an undercurrent of acknowledgement that the prophecy of Hazrat Ahmad^as ‘may’ have come true. Maulvi Muhammad Hussain of Batala, is reported to have commented on the prophecy in his Ishaatusunnah that, “even if it has come true, it cannot be considered anything more than the forecast of an astrologer.”^[68] Another communication to the Wafadar read that, “the Mirza may make predictions, but this can be done with the aid of mesmerism.”^[69]

The immense pressure by the Arya Samajists on the Government to implicate Hazrat Ahmad^as in the murder of Lekh Ram remained for months amongst the main headlines of Vernacular Newspapers throughout the Punjab. It was at the end of April 1897, that the Press was seen reporting the innocence of Hazrat Ahmad^as in the murder case of Lekh Ram.

The Victoria Paper (Sialkot) in its issue of May 1, 1897, published a report stating,

“Notwithstanding the fact that the enemies of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad^[as] made many complaints against him (to the effect that he was the murderer of Lekh Ram), the Government acted wisely in not interfering without sufficient proof. The present Lieutenant Governor deserves great credit for not taking action on hearsay.”

The Hindus resorted to accusing the government of favouring the Muslims and not taking the search of the assassin of Lekh Ram seriously.^[70] This accusation can now be proved as baseless, after studying the secret correspondence that went on between the Government of the Punjab and the Secretary of State for India in London. This exchange of correspondence clearly indicates that the case was taken incredibly seriously, as the Home Department’s public wing wrote to the Government of the Punjab, on March 25, 1897, that,

“Government of India will be pleased to receive telegraphic information of Lieutenant Governor’s views to the extent of ill-feeling between Muhammadans and Hindus consequent on recent murder of Lekh Ram, and to be kept informed of any developments.”^[71]

The Government of Punjab wrote back by telegram no. 372 on March 27, 1897 the following information:

“Lieutenant Governor of Punjab believes that bitterness of feeling between the Hindus and Muhammadans which has been founded on expressions in the native press regarding the murder of Lekh Ram is confined to the educated classes in Lahore, Amritsar, Ludhiana, Hoshiarpur, Ferozepore and Peshawar and especially the student classes, and has been stirred up by the Arya community to whom Lekh Ram belonged … The excitement is now quieting down, but the assassin is still at large.”^[72]

This shows the level of keen interest maintained by the Government of the Punjab in the case of Lekh Ram. This secret correspondence also shows no bias against the Aryas.

The mystery murderer, whose name remained unknown, murdered Lekh Ram on the festival of Eid. He mysteriously escaped a room that only had one door to be used as both an entrance and an exit. All religious communities accused one another as the conspirators behind this mysterious murderer. Lekh Ram had insulted all major religions during his life, so it was plausible that followers of any one of these faiths could have perpetrated his violent and cruel death and the murder remained clouded in speculation. Despite all lines of investigation, the mystery murderer was never found and the prophecy about Lekh Ram’s death was fulfilled to the letter. The attempts to prove Hazrat Ahmad^as as culpable failed miserably.^[73]
The case was and always will remain closed, and is a grand testimony to the truth of Hazrat Ahmad^as, the Promised Messiah, as a prophet of God.

Endnotes

1. Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad^as, Ruhani Khazain, www.alislam.org/rk.
2. Holy Qur’an, Surah al-Jinn, Verse 27-28.
3. James Thayer Addison, “The Ahmadiya Movement and Its Western Propaganda,” Harvard Theological Review 22, no. 01 (January 1929): 1–32, doi:10.1017/S0017816000000468.
4. Kenneth W. Jones, “Communalism in the Punjab: The Arya Samaj Contribution,” The Journal of Asian Studies 28, no. 01 (November 1968): 39–54, doi:10.2307/2942838.
5. Kenneth W. Jones, “Communalism in the Punjab: The Arya Samaj Contribution,” The Journal of Asian Studies 28, no. 01 (November 1968): 39–54, doi:10.2307/2942838.
6. Pandit Lekh Ram, Kulliat-e-Arya Musafir (Saharanpur: Satya Dharam Parcharak Press, 1904).
7. Pandit Lekh Ram, Kulliat-e-Arya Musafir (Jullundur: Satya Dharam Parcharak, 1897).
8. Pandit Lekh Ram, Kulliat-e-Arya Musafir (Jullundur: Satya Dharam Parcharak, 1897).
9. Gene R. Thursby, Hindu-Muslim Relations in British India: A Study of Controversy, Conflict and Communal movements in Northern India, 1923-1928.
10. Gene R. Thursby, Hindu-Muslim Relations in British India: A Study of Controversy, Conflict and Communal movements in Northern India, 1923-1928.
11. Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad^as, Aina-e-Kamalat-e-Islam, Ruhani Khazain, Vol. 5 (Surrey: Islam International Publications, 2009), 651.
12. Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad^as, Istafta, Ruhani Khazain, Vol. 12 (London: 1984), 110.
13. Kenneth W. Jones, “Communalism in the Punjab: The Arya Samaj Contribution,” The Journal of Asian Studies 28, no. 01 (November 1968): 39–54, doi:10.2307/2942838.
14. Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad^as, Istafta, Ruhani Khazain, Vol. 12 (London: 1984), 113-116.
15. Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad^as, Istafta, Ruhani Khazain, Vol. 12 (London: 1984), 110.
16. Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad^as, Istafta, Ruhani Khazain, Vol. 12 (London: 1984), 110.
17. Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad^as, Istafta, Ruhani Khazain, www.alislam.org/urdu/rk/Ruhani-Khazain-Vol-12.pdf.
18. James Thayer Addison, “The Ahmadiya Movement and Its Western Propaganda,” Harvard Theological Review 22, no. 01 (January 1929): 1–32, doi:10.1017/S0017816000000468.
19. Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad^as, Aina-e-Kamalat-e-Islam, Ruhani Khazain, Vol. 5 (Surrey: Islam International Publications, 2009), 650.
20. Vernacular Papers British Library, Akhbar-e-Aam (Lahore), 169.
21. Ganga Prasad Upadhaya, The Light of Truth, 780.
22. Ganga Prasad Upadhaya, The Light of Truth, 780.
23. Kenneth W. Jones, Arya Dharm (London: University of California Press, 1976),146.
24. Vernacular Papers British Library, Punjab Samachar, 184.
25. Vernacular Papers British Library, “Summaries,” (India Office Records).
26. Kenneth W. Jones, “Communalism in the Punjab: The Arya Samaj Contribution,” The Journal of Asian Studies 28, no. 01 (November 1968): 146 & 148, doi:10.2307/2942838.
27. Bob van der Linden, Moral Languages from Colonial Punjab, (New Delhi: Manohar, 2008), 185.
28. Bob van der Linden, Moral Languages from Colonial Punjab, (New Delhi: Manohar, 2008), 186.
29. Bob van der Linden, Moral Languages from Colonial Punjab, (New Delhi: Manohar, 2008), 104.
30. Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad^as, The Message or a Cry of Pain, p.19.
31. Kenneth W. Jones, “Communalism in the Punjab: The Arya Samaj Contribution,” The Journal of Asian Studies 28, no. 01 (November 1968): 149, doi:10.2307/2942838.
32. Kenneth W. Jones, “Communalism in the Punjab: The Arya Samaj Contribution,” The Journal of Asian Studies 28, no. 01 (November 1968): 152, doi:10.2307/2942838.
33. Kenneth W. Jones, “Communalism in the Punjab: The Arya Samaj Contribution,” The Journal of Asian Studies 28, no. 01 (November 1968): 152, doi:10.2307/2942838.
34. Muhammad Abdul Majid, Sadqa-e-Jariya baraey Firqa-e-Arya.
35. Khalil Muhammad, Adam: Nijat-e-Arya.
36. Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad^as, Aina-e-Kamalat-e-Islam, p.650.
37. Ibid.
38. Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad^as, Karamat us Sadiqeen, Ruhani Khazain.
39. Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad^as, Barkaat-ud-Dua, Ruhani Khazain, Vol. 6 (Tilford, Surrey: 2008), 2-3.
40. Publications like Ummahatul Momineen, Rangeela Rasool, Satanic Verses, caricatures and satirical depiction of the Prophet in the very recent years are all examples of actions leading to violent reactions.
41. Antony Copley, ed., Gurus and Their Followers: New Religious Reform Movements in Colonial India (New Delhi ; New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 111.
42. Bob van der Linden, Moral Languages from Colonial Punjab, (New Delhi: Manohar, 2008), 186.
43. Akmal-ul-Akhbar, March 21, 1890.
44. Tribune, May 3, 1890.
45. “Synopsis of the lawsuit against Lekh Ram in Delhi,” (India Office Records, British Library) Shelf Mark IOR/LP/R/1/1/223.
46. Kenneth W. Jones, “Communalism in the Punjab: The Arya Samaj Contribution,” The Journal of Asian Studies 28, no. 01 (November 1968): 152, doi:10.2307/2942838.
47. “The Chaudhwin Sadi,” March 23, 1897.
48. Rahbar-i-Hind (Lahore), March 15, 1897.
49. Dafe-ul-Auham, 81.
50. Akhbar-i-Am (Lahore), March 26, 1897.
51. Rahbar-i-Hind (Lahore), March 15, 1897.
52. As far as the author has been able to research on the literature printed in India in response to Lekh Ram’s murder, Arya or Non-Arya, no name of the suspected murderer has been mentioned.
53. “Special Supplement,” Bharat Sudhar (Lahore), March 13, 1897.
54. Akhbar-i-Am (Lahore), March 11, 1897.
55. Punjab Samachar (Lahore), March 13, 1897.
56. Bharat Sudhar (Lahore), March 13, 1897.
57. Paisa Akhbar (Lahore), March 27, 1897.
58. Siraj ul Akhbar (Jhelum), March 22. 1897.
59. Various books of the Hazrat Mirza Sahib^as carry references to this e.g. Aina Kamalat-e-Islam, Al-Istafta, Barakat-ud-Dua.
60. Paisa Akhbar (Lahore), March 27, 1897.
61. Paisa Akhbar (Lahore), Apr. 14, 1897.
62. Wafadar (Lahore), March 15, 1897.
63. Akhbar-i-Am (Lahore), March 19, 1897.
64. The Nur Afshan, April 23, 1897.
65. “The Chawdhwin Sadi,” March 23, 1897.
66. Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad^as, Barkat-ud-Dua.
67. Paisa Akhbar (Lahore), April 10, 1897.
68. Jaafar Zattali (Lahore), May 1, 1897.
69. Wafadar (Lahore), May 15, 1897.
70. Arya Gazzette (Lahore), Jun 24, 1897.
71. “Telegram 444” (Judicial and Public Department, India Office Records British Library), File 765/1897.
72. “Telegram 444” (Judicial and Public Department, India Office Records British Library), File 765/1897.
73. James Thayer Addison, “The Ahmadiya Movement and Its Western Propaganda,” Harvard Theological Review 22, no. 01 (January 1929): 1–32, doi:10.1017/S0017816000000468.