Abstract

The Sufi shrines that emerged and developed in the Indian subcontinent during the medieval period had developed their respective patterns of succession to the office of their custodians based on relation to their separate Sufi orders. The office bearers also enjoyed a level of socio-religious, spiritual, and moral authority according to the status of their shrines in the realm. However, after the emergence of the modern state in the Indian subcontinent, the succession issues at the Sufi shrines became part of the judicial system established by the British. Likewise, the succession issues that emerged at the shrine of B?b? Far?d in Pakpattan (Punjab-Pakistan) during the colonial and postcolonial times were also dealt with through the new judicial apparatus. The arising phenomenon significantly impacted how issues were handled, affecting the office bearers’ local spiritual and moral standing. This study intends to explore the nature of the recent succession cases and analyze the effects of the encounter of the office of the sajj?da-nish?n of the shrine of B?b? Far?d with the modern state had on its socio-religious stature.

Key Words

B?b? Far?d, Chisht? Sufi Shrines, Modern State, Moral Authority, Pakpattan, sajj?da-nish?n, Succession Cases

Background

In popular South Asian Sufism, it is believed that the saints of the past can be reached through intermediaries in the form of their living representatives, the sajj?da-nish?ns (office custodian from lineal descendants), who are held to possess all the attributes of the moral exemplars that were the past masters. (Ewing, 1983) The sajj?da-nish?n, in general, is the head and manager of the shrine and administrator of the charities. He is considered more than a mutavall? who oversees only secular affairs of the endowment and is a mere manager or superintendent in temporal matters. The sajj?da-nish?n is also believed to be a spiritual preceptor to some degree. In the case of the present study, the regional and local socio-religious influence of a renowned 13th century Chisht? Sufi saint, Shaikh Far?d al-D?n Mas ??d Ganj-i Shakar (d. 1265), popularly known as B?b? Far?d, allowed his sajj?da-nish?ns to exercise and enjoy the local religious authority as the living representatives and the custodians of his shrine in the later period. The prestige of the saint enabled the later custodians to act as intermediaries between the local populations and the rulers, from the Sultans to the Mughal emperors and the Sikh r?j?s, and with the saint and Divine. Richard Maxwell Eaton writes, “…both the Diwan [title gradually opted by the custodians of the shrine of B?b? Far?d] and the shrine functioned as intermediaries for an intermediary, as on-going vehicles of the saint’s mediative power.”  (Eaton, 1982)

Anna Barry Bigelow believes that B?b? Far?d’s lineal descendants never fully realized B?b? Far?d’s spiritual gifts. B?b? Far?d’s spiritual deputies, especially the chief spiritual successor, Shaikh Ni??m al-D?n Auliy? (d. 1325), left Aj?dhan (present-day Pakpattan in Punjab-Pakistan) “obviating the possibility of contestation for authority at the dargah”. As one family held the custodianship of the shrine, the shrine and its endowments and gifts from local leaders and the central authorities helped entrench the power of B?b? Far?d in the shrine itself. (Bigelow, 2004) Over time, the role of the sajj?da-nish?n as the centre of that power has taken many shapes. Richard Maxwell Eaton’s study of B?b? Far?d’s shrine in Pakpattan gives a clear idea of this evolution in the pre-colonial period. It clearly describes the process of the concentration of the religious authority of the shrine of B?b? Far?d in the sajj?da-nish?n: the saint’s baraka (blessing conferred by God upon humankind and transmitted through saints) inheres in the latter’s blood relations, and the shrine becomes a pilgrimage centre operated by him. (Eaton, 1984)

During the medieval period (Sultanate and Mughal periods, 14th - 18th centuries), the requirements for becoming a sajj?da-nish?n gradually shifted from spiritual merit to political loyalty to the central government. “Over centuries, the shrine of B?b? Far?d got precedence over jam??at kh?na [a space for the spiritual disciples of a saint where they are provided with spiritual, religious, and moral education], which became less significant as an institution” (Anjum, 2009) and “the prestige and authority of a sajj?da nish?n came to depend on the extent of langar [charity food] and the splendour of the ?urs festival.” (Gilmartin, 1988) Regarding the religious status of the sajj?da-nish?n of the shrine of B?b? Far?d, Richard Maxwell Eaton remarks: “It is worth noting that because only the Diwan opened the gate [the Bahisht? Darv?za (lit. “Door to Paradise”)], it was only through his agency that devotees gained access to B?b? Far?d, and only through the saint’s agency that they gained access to Heaven.” (Eaton, 1982) All this favored the penetration of the shrine into the culture of Punjab. This enhancement of the prestige of the shrine of B?b? Far?d as well as of the lineal descendants of the saint led to the development of many ‘memorial’ or ‘daughter’ shrines of Shaikh Far?d in different locales of Punjab and consequently led to the establishment of what Eaton calls a spiritual kingdom of Shaikh Far?d in the region. Resultantly, the following of the shrine boosted in many folds, and its religious and moral authority was established over a large number of clans inhibiting Western Punjab.

Thorough research of the succession matters of the shrine, through centuries of pre-colonial times, of B?b? Far?d has been conducted by this author covering the evolution of the lineal descendants of B?b? Far?d, known as Chisht?s in Pakpattan. The research has been published in the shape of a chapter titled “Evolution of the Chisht? shrine and the Chisht?s in Pakpattan (Pakistan)” in Devotional Islam in Contemporary South Asia: Shrines, Journeys and Wanderers (2015) from Routledge (London). The detailed study reveals that the sajj?da-nish?n of the shrine of B?b? Far?d was initially a patron saint-scholar, and on certain occasions, a government official, a feudal lord, at times a ruler, an influential elder of the area, an intermediary between the government and the local masses, and later in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries as a dependent, a kingmaker, a politician, and a ceremonial and prestigious figure. (Muhammad Mubeen, 2015)

Regarding the succession matters, “Initially, at least, two conditions were considered a prerequisite to qualify the sajj?da nish?n? in Aj?dhan [modern Pakpattan]: first, the sajj?da nish?n must possess some degree of godliness and piety; and second, he must be a direct descendant of the deceased Shaikh. Over time, the second precondition emphasizing the lineage of a sajj?da nish?n seems to have taken precedence over the first one.” (Anjum, 2009) Therefore, on the authority of hagiographical and contemporary historical sources, this author’s study reveals that in the pre-colonial period, a specific norm developed and established regarding the succession to the custodian’s office, the nomination of an agnate disciple as successor to the office by the preceding custodian of the office. (Muhammad Mubeen, 2015)

The second important aspect was that the office of the sajj?da-nish?n had an attraction that it was one of the largest gadd?s of India, that it had an enormous influence over the shrine circles of different gadd?s in Punjab and other regions, and that it meant having the economic hold of an extensive estate attached to the shrine as waqf or inalienable religious endowment. This directly resulted in a sharp rivalry for access to the office of sajj?da-nish?n among the members of the custodian family of the shrine of B?b? Far?d at Pakpattan. Thus, getting of sajj?da-nish?n? became a bone of contention among the different members of the custodian family of the shrine of B?b? Far?d at Pakpattan. In the pre-colonial period, the Chisht? elders used to solve such intra-family issues. (Muhammad Mubeen, 2015)

With the emergence of the modern state in the region, the local religious authority of the shrine of B?b? Far?d, as implemented through the living representatives of the saint, started decreasing. Several factors, during the colonial and postcolonial periods, can be considered as having played a role in the deterioration of the shrine custodian’s local religious authority: the state, for instance, started encroaching in various ways on what had been the prerogatives of the sajj?da-nish?n and his family in the pre-colonial period. Regarding succession issues, in the colonial period, the British colonial administration interfered directly in the internal matters of local shrines like Pakpattan, going as far as to mediate succession disputes in official courts established after the annexation, and the process continues in the current scenario.

The Modern State and the Issue of Succession at Sufi Shrines

To solve the succession issues of various Sufi shrines, the judicial machinery of the colonial state depended upon the Anglo-Mu?ammadan Law, which was developed and codified by the colonial authorities in the latter decades of the 19th century. (Anderson, 1993) Therefore, it is necessary to have an idea of the development of the judicial system in India, which was the statutory tool of the state to deal with such issues.

During the early decades, the ideal of the British Indian Government to run the judicial administration of the Indian colonies was that “A system should be formed, which shall preserve as much as possible can be done, their institutions and laws to the natives of Hindoostan, and attempter them with the mild spirit of the British government.” (Kugle, 2001) In 1772, the British government had already laid down a Regulation stating that, “inheritance, marriage and costs and other usages or institutions the laws of the Koran with respect to the Mahomedans . . . shall be invariably adhered to.”  (Liebesny, 1967, Fyzee, 1963)

Thus, the administrators of the BEIC decided that both Hindu and Muslim Laws would be applied in the civil legal matters of the respective communities and that the Muslim Law would be applied universally for the criminal legal issues, as had been the case under the Mughals. (Benton, 2002) Accordingly, an inclusive legal policy was enacted based on two principles: taql?d (“conformity” to legal precedent, traditional behavior, and doctrines), borrowed from Islamic Law, and the Common Law Doctrine of Precedent, borrowed from the British Law. For this purpose, al-Margh?n?n?’s (d. 1196) al-Hid?ya, a compendium of ?anaf? legal principles, was also translated into English and published by Charles Hamilton (d. 1792) in 1791. (Calder, n.d.) Subsequently, a hierarchy of legal courts under European judges was constituted. Both local Hindu legal experts and Muslim q???s (Muslim legal experts and judges) were hired to assist European judges in interpreting religious and local rules and resolving legal matters of local nature. Hence, on the one hand, British statutory laws were applied in the courts, and on the other hand, customary Indian rules and religious rules were given weightage to administer the region properly under dominion. In unusual circumstances where customary laws and religious doctrines were silent, the judges were instructed to decide based on “justice, equity, and good conscience.” (Singha, 2000)

The transfer of the government from the BEIC to the British Crown in 1858 paved the way for a gradual codification of laws along the lines of the British System. The Anglicized courts administered the Islamic Law, which was subject to the supreme authority of the Privy Council. At the same time, the Customary Laws, based on the local customs, retained their share in the new dispensation. (Metcalf, 1997) In this process, to avoid the displacement of the already existing Mughal legal system, the British deemed it appropriate to keep certain parts of the already working Islamic Law in a kind of fossilized form. This retention, combined with the introduction of English legal principles and concepts, led to a fusion of the two systems, resulting in a new by-product code aptly termed as ‘Anglo-Mu?ammadan Law.’ (Masud, n.d.)

During colonial rule, the decisions taken by the courts under Anglo-Mu?ammadan law were recorded and published, and this process led to the formation of the corpus of jurisprudence. In contrast, the works produced by legal jurists and authors to simplify decisions in the court played a vital role in facilitating the legal process and generating literature based on the Anglo-Mu?ammadan law. Finally, in 1937, the Muslim Personal Law Application Act was promulgated, with provisions for all cases concerning Muslims’ personal status, inheritance, and waqfs. (Liebesny, 1967)

Succession issues in the matters of religious institutions were generally solved according to these laws. In All India Reporter (AIR) 1930 Lahore 728, it was laid down that the succession to the office of the sajj?da-nish?n did not depend on the ordinary law of property but the rules if any made by the founder, and that no right of inheritance could attach to the office. Similarly, where the rules were not expressed in the endowment deed, they could be deduced from the usage of particular institutions. Likewise, in AIR 1938 Lahore 905, it was held that the question of succession to the office of the sajj?da-nish?n and mutavall? was to be governed by the direct evidence of an old document, if any such document existed, that otherwise, the general rule was to ascertain what the usage of a particular shrine was, and that the succession would be governed by such ascertained usage. Sir Mulla, in his work, considered it a settled doctrine that in the matter of succession, each religious institution was governed by its own usage and custom and not necessarily or invariably by the strict principles of Mu?ammadan Law. He believed that the Mu?ammadan Law itself expressly saved and protected usage. (Mulla, 1907)

The cases of succession to the office at Sufi shrines solved in the pre-partition period played an important role in the court decisions of the post-partition times as precedents. After independence in 1947, many changes appeared in the codification of different Ordinances and Acts promulgated by the new State of Pakistan, which also played an important role in determining Sufi shrines’ succession issues. The Punjab Muslim Personal Law (Shariat Act) was promulgated on March 15, 1948, according to which the adopted son of a sajj?da-nish?n could not be the legal heir, thereby making him unlawful to have the office of the sajj?da-nish?n. Later, when the West Pakistan Auq?f Department was created in the late 1950s and took over the managerial control of some major Sufi shrines, it had no authority to appoint a sajj?da-nish?n. Nevertheless, according to section 7 (2) of the Auq?f Act 1979, it was prohibited by the Government of Punjab to perform ras?m?t (ceremonies) related to any shrine or darb?r or darg?h without the prior permission of the Department authorities, and this seriously questioned the validity of the traditional shrine authority in the office, the sajj?da-nish?n.




History of Succession at the Shrine of B?b? Far?d (Pakpattan)




Following three cases emerged at the shrine of B?b? Far?d regarding the appointment of a successor to the office of sajj?da-nish?n during the 19th and 20th centuries.

First Litigation (1885-94)

The course of litigation in the official courts began after the death of D?v?n All?h Jav?ya, the 24th sajj?da-nish?n of the shrine of B?b? Far?d, in December 1884. D?v?n All?h Jav?ya had appointed his daughter’s son (as well as the adopted son) D?v?n Said Mu?ammad (d. 1934), as his successor, through an oral statement made during the year 1882 (in the presence of a group of followers) as well as through his va?iyyat or khil?fat-n?ma (written “will” or “deed of succession”), five months before his death. D?v?n ?Abd al-Ra?m?n (d. 1891), the paternal uncle of the deceased sajj?da-nish?n, claimed the office, declaring himself the nearest agnate to the dead, on the fourth day after the death of the late sajj?da-nish?n, thereby succeeding the gadd? and the properties affiliated with the institution. D?v?n Said Mu?ammad was then a minor, eleven years old. P?r Fata? Mu?ammad, the father of Said Mu?ammad and the son-in-law of the deceased sajj?da-nish?n, challenged the claim of D?v?n ?Abd al-Ra?m?n in the court of the District Judge of the Montgomery District on behalf of his son. Proceedings went on for about four years. The Deputy Commissioner Montgomery decided the case in his capacity of District Judge Montgomery on April 28, 1888, in favor of D?v?n Said Mu?ammad, who was installed as the 25th sajj?da-nish?n of the shrine. (Judgment dated April 28, 1888, by the District Judge Montgomery, n.d.) Against this decision by the District Court, D?v?n ?Abd al-Ra?m?n appealed in the Chief Court of Punjab, in which he succeeded: he was consequently reinstalled as the sajj?da-nish?n on April 10, 1890. (Judgment dated April 10, 1890, by the Chief Court Punjab, n.d.)

Said Mu?ammad made a further appeal to the Privy Council, but before any decision was made, D?v?n ?Abd al-Ra?m?n died and was succeeded by his son D?v?n Fata? Mu?ammad as the sajj?da-nish?n of the shrine of B?b? Far?d. Said Mu?ammad’s appeal to the Privy Council was accepted in November 1894. Therefore, Fata? Mu?ammad had to vacate the gadd? in favor of D?v?n Said Mu?ammad who finally became the 25th sajj?da-nish?n of the shrine of B?b? Far?d. (Judgment dated November 6, 1894, by the Privy Council, n.d.)




Second Litigation (1935-42)




After the death of D?v?n Said Mu?ammad on December 26, 1934, another dispute started between the son of the deceased sajj?da-nish?n and the descendants of P?r Fata? Mu?ammad, the ex-claimant to the office in the last succession case.

In March 1933, by a testamentary document or khil?fat-n?ma, D?v?n Said Mu?ammad appointed his minor son D?v?n Ghul?m Qu?b al-D?n (1923-1986) as his heir and successor and later confirmed his decision by a deathbed will in December 1934. On January 27, 1935, a faction of local Chisht? clan consisting of certain descendants of Shaikh ?Al?? al-D?n Mauj Dary?, (d. 1334), the second sajj?da-nish?n of the shrine of B?b? Far?d, performed the dast?r-band? (tying of a turban, denoting installation of someone in the office, followed by the Sufis) of D?v?n Ghul?m Ras?l (d. 1964), son of D?v?n Fata? Mu?ammad, as the next sajj?da-nish?n of the shrine of B?b? Far?d. This ceremony took place at the residence of D?v?n Ghul?m Ras?l, beside the shrine (Though the District authorities under section 144, Criminal Procedure Code, issued a prohibitory order to hold such ceremony outside shrine premises). A declaration was also executed, on behalf of the descendants of Shaikh ?Al?? al-D?n Mauj Dary?, declaring that D?v?n Said Mu?ammad could not nominate and appoint his successor without their consent.

However, on the strength of his nomination, Ghul?m Qu?b al-D?n assumed the office of the sajj?da-nish?n, and he took possession of the shrine and its properties. A dast?r-band? ceremony was performed in the presence of many followers and sajj?da-nish?ns of some important shrines, on February 1, 1935, where he was installed as the 26th sajj?da-nish?n of the shrine of B?b? Far?d. His accession led to the institution of a civil suit by D?v?n Ghul?m Ras?l. In 1936, the Deputy Commissioner of the Montgomery District, in his capacity of Court of Wards, took over the shrine management, and the case was defended by the Manager, Court of Wards, on behalf of Ghul?m Qu?b al-D?n.

The case remained in courts for about seven years (1935-1942) and was decided in favor of the preceding d?v?n’s son, D?v?n Ghul?m Qu?b al-D?n, by all three courts: Sub-Judge, First Class, Montgomery, – Lahore Chief Court, – and the Privy Council. and D?v?n Ghul?m Qu?b al-D?n was finally installed as the 26th sajj?da-nish?n of the shrine of B?b? Far?d in 1942. (Judgment dated December 2, 1938, by the Sub-Judge, First Class, Montgomery, n.d.)(Judgment dated May 6, 1941, by the Chief Court Punjab, n.d.) (Judgment (1942), by the Privy Council, n.d.)




Third litigation, 1986 onward




The only succession dispute of the post-partition time appeared after D?v?n Ghul?m Qu?b al-D?n’s death in 1986. The case is still in the process of litigation, waiting for its conclusion. The principal claimants to the office of the sajj?da-nish?n are the eldest son and the younger brother of late D?v?n Ghul?m Qu?b al-D?n.

D?v?n Ghul?m Qu?b al-D?n appointed his eldest son, Maud?d Mas??d, as his successor in the office. In this regard, a formal rasm-i dast?r-band? was also performed in the shrine, and a Public Notice was published in the Urdu daily Nav?-yi vaqt on November 14, 1980.

The following year, on September 13, 1981, another Public Notice appeared in two Urdu dailies, Nav?-yi vaqt, and Mashriq, on behalf of D?v?n Ghul?m Qu?b al-D?n, in which he disqualified D?v?n Maud?d Mas??d as being an incompetent person to perform the duties of the shrine in his absence. The issue of appointment was left pending until further declaration.

D?v?n Ghul?m Qu?b al-D?n breathed his last on August 19, 1986, just a few weeks before the annual ?urs festival started. On his demise, D?v?n Maud?d Mas??d claimed to be the next sajj?da-nish?n of the shrine. On the third day after Ghul?m Qu?b al-D?n’s death, Maud?d Mas??d was formally installed in the office in the presence of dignitaries, of many Chisht? elders like Khw?ja Mu??n al-D?n Taunsav?, Makhd?m Sajj?d Hussain Quresh?, the then Governor of Punjab (1985-88), Ghul?m Mu?ammad A?mad Kh?n M?nek? (d. 2011), Member of National Assembly of Pakistan and a Federal Minister, M?y?n Ghul?m Far?d Chisht?, Member of the Provincial Assembly, of many  Auq?f and local administration officials, and a massive gathering of mur?ds of the shrine of B?b? Far?d.

Within 50 days after the demise of D?v?n Ghul?m Qu?b al-D?n, on October 7, 1986, D?v?n Ghul?m Qu?b al-D?n’s younger brother D?v?n Bakhty?r Said Mu?ammad filed a suit in the Civil Court of Pakpattan claiming the right to perform ras?m?t as being the legal heir of the deceased D?v?n. The case filed by D?v?n Bakhty?r Said Mu?ammad was decided in July 1993, in his favor. (Judgment dated July 19, 1993, by the Court of Civil Judge Class II, Pakpattan., n.d.) Accordingly, he assumed the office of the sajj?da-nish?n.

D?v?n Maud?d Mas??d challenged this trial court judgment in the court of the District Judge Sahiwal. During the course of the litigation in the District Court, D?v?n ?Azmat Said Mu?ammad, younger brother of D?v?n Maud?d Mas??d, filed an application for being impleaded as a party, claiming himself to be the appointed sajj?da-nish?n of the shrine. The Additional District Judge Sahiwal decided both the appeals of D?v?n Maud?d and D?v?n ?Azmat in May 1996, deciding for the restoration of Maud?d Mas??d as the 27th sajj?da-nish?n of the shrine of B?b? Far?d after three years of gap. The application of D?v?n ?Azmat was rejected. (Judgment dated May 8, 1996, by the Additional District Judge Sahiwal, n.d.)

D?v?n Bakhty?r Said Mu?ammad and D?v?n ?Azmat approached the LHC against the judgment of the District Court, through their separate Revision Petitions. In the course of proceedings in the LHC, an incident of significance occurred at the shrine. More than thirty-two people were run over and died while 18 were injured in a stampede on the occasion of the annual ?urs of B?b? Far?d at Pakpattan during the first night of the opening of the Bahisht? Drav?za, around 11:00 PM on March 31, 2001. The inquiry report held D?v?n Maud?d Mas??d responsible for the incident, along with the District Administration officials. (Inquiry Report Dated April 30, 2001, n.d.)

Although this incident and related judicial and official proceedings had nothing to do with the appeal pending in the LHC on the succession issue, it had profound effects over the credibility of the character of the sajj?da-nish?n in office, D?v?n Maud?d Mas??d. D?v?n Bakhty?r Said Mu?ammad used the judicial inquiry and the subsequent Orders issued by the Auq?f head office in his appeal before the LHC to prove D?v?n Maud?d Mas??d incapable of holding the office of sajj?da-nish?n. Therefore, in the succeeding judgment of the LHC, the Order of the trial court (of 1993) was decreed and D?v?n Bakhty?r Said Mu?ammad was restored in the office after over a decade, in May 2006. (Judgment dated May 29, 2006, by the Lahore High Court Lahore, n.d.) Accordingly, the Auq?f Department issued a Notification in favor of D?v?n Bakhty?r Said Mu?ammad to perform the ras?m?t at the shrine. (Order No. SOP 5(17)A Dated May 30, 2006, Office of the Chief Administrator Auqaf Punjab Lahore., n.d.) The LHC again rejected D?v?n ?Azmat Said Mu?ammad’s plea in the combined judgment. 

Both the brothers challenged this decision of the LHC in the Supreme Court of Pakistan. On January 15, 2007, the Chief Justice of Pakistan converted Maud?d’s Civil Petition into an Appeal. Therefore, the judgment of the LHC was set aside, and the case was remanded for decision afresh in the LHC. Accordingly, the Auq?f Department issued an Order, on January 16, 2007, by which D?v?n Maud?d Mas ??d was allowed to perform ceremonies at the shrine during the ?urs. (Order No. SOP 5(17) 1, January 16, 2007, Office of the Chief Administrator Auq?f Punjab Lahore, n.d.) The LHC took its decision on the revised appeal in October 2007. D?v?n Maud?d Mas??d was restored in the office. (Judgment dated October 29, 2007, by the Lahore High Court, Lahore, n.d.)

The case is still pending with the Supreme Court of Pakistan, and D?v?n Maud?d Mas??d is the declared sajj?da-nish?n at present, under the latest decision of the LHC. In the current scenario, only D?v?n Maud?d Mas??d and D?v?n Bakhty?r Said Mu?ammad are the active claimants to the office, but two persons are dormant claimants as well: D?v?n ?Azmat Said Mu?ammad and D?v?n ?Azmat Ma?m?d Chisht?, the great-grandson of D?v?n Ghul?m Ras?l, who is also the son-in-law of D?v?n Maud?d Mas??d.

Subject Matter of the Succession Cases of the Shrine of B?b? Far?d

All the succession cases that came under the official courts’ proceedings have similar subject matters: whether the deceased sajj?da-nish?n has a right to appoint his successor, within certain kinship to the founder, according to the custom and usage of the shrine.

In the first case (1885-94), D?v?n Said Mu?ammad claimed to be the appointee of the deceased D?v?n All?h Jav?ya. In comparison to that, D?v?n ?Abd al-Ra?m?n claimed the right to occupy the gadd? under the Anglo-Mu?ammadan Law, as being the nearest agnate to the deceased. D?v?n ?Abd al-Ra?m?n also contended that there had been no appointment of D?v?n Said Mu?ammad as sajj?da-nish?n and that the deceased sajj?da-nish?n had no right to appoint a successor under the Mu?ammadan Law, which governed the case. The judge relied upon the mutually authenticated Persian Jav?hir-i-Far?d? to sort out the matter. The District Judge decided that the late sajj?da-nish?n had the power under the custom of the shrine to appoint a successor to the gadd?. However, the judges of the Chief Court Punjab decided the appeal without going into the question of the custom involved: they dismissed D?v?n Said Mu?ammad’s suit on the preliminary ground that the will of D?v?n All?h Jav?ya was not legally proved. They argued that the preceding sajj?da-nish?n was not in a condition to decide appropriately (due to an attack of paralysis) and was unduly influenced by the surrounding persons (especially the father of Said Mu?ammad).

However, the Privy Council reversed the findings of the Chief Court, decreeing in favor of the plaintiff D?v?n Said Mu?ammad. The decision of the District Court was entirely confirmed, and it was laid down unequivocally that the custom of succession in the case of the shrine of B?b? Far?d was that the sajj?da-nish?n in office was competent to nominate his successor during his lifetime if the nominee was an agnate and also a mur?d or disciple. The privy councillors opined that the witnesses for D?v?n Fata? Mu?ammad seemed to alternate between a strict application of the Mu?ammadan Law of succession and a popular choice which had to be determined by the wishes of the worshippers. They also ascertained that the preceding sajj?da-nish?n was able to appreciate the nature and the consequences of what he was doing and was open to persuasion from both sides. Therefore, the main ground for D?v?n Said Mu?ammad’s title was his nomination by the preceding sajj?da-nish?n following the usage of the shrine.

In the second succession case (1935-42), the claimant, D?v?n Ghul?m Ras?l, in his plea, alleged that Ghul?m Qu?b al-D?n was not the natural son of the late sajj?da-nish?n, that he was not appointed as sajj?da-nish?n, and that the nomination of a minor boy was invalid and against the principles of Mu?ammadan Law. On the one hand, he admitted that great weight would naturally attach to the wishes of the last holder of the office in the matter of succession, but on the other hand, he contended that the ultimate approval had to rest, by custom, with the bir?dar? (patrilineal linage) - vis. The descendants of Shaikh ?Al?? al-D?n Mauj Dary? (d. 1334), who had the final and conclusive authority not only to select a successor but also to reject a nomination which they considered unsuitable.

Ghul?m Qu?b al-D?n defended these allegations and claims in the light of the previous case of succession (1885-94). To sort out the matter, the sub-judge first-class, Montgomery, whose decision was also affirmed by the Chief Court Punjab, went deeply into the case and drew a detailed narrative of the history of the succession matters of the shrine of B?b? Far?d. The judge maintained that although Shaikh ?Al?? al-D?n Mauj Dary?, the 2nd sajj?da nish?n, had two sons, and Shaikh T?j al-D?n Ma?m?d, the 13th sajj?da nish?n, had 15, yet none of these or their descendants ever exercised any right in appointing a sajj?da-nish?n. He concluded that not a single appointment was shown to have been made or decided by the descendants of Shaikh ?Al?? al-D?n Mauj Dary? or any group of people based on election or selection. All the appointments were made, invariably and consistently, by the sajj?da-nish?ns in the office. In his judgment, the judge also settled that the dast?r-band? ceremony was not a ceremony of selection but a ceremony of installation. Therefore, considering the tradition and usages related to the office, he justified his interference because nominations were made in each case. The judge bluntly rejected the claimant’s contention that the usage and practice were opposed to the provisions of Section 2 Shariat Act 1937 (Act no. XXVI of 1937). He remarked that the witnesses of the plaintiff had simply established the custom pleaded for by the plaintiff by citing instances in which the bir?dar? had abrogated or overridden the nomination made by the last sajj?da-nish?n on the ground of his incompetency. He also stated that the Shariat Act came into force after filing the suit and was not applicable to the matter in dispute. Furthermore, he argued that the appointment of a sajj?da-nish?n on the ground of nomination was not an antagonist to the principles of Mu?ammadan law. (Judgment dated December 2, 1938, by the Sub-Judge, First Class, Montgomery, n.d.)

In the words of Richard Maxwell Eaton, who have analyzed this case in his article, “… the District Court in the end merely ratified what it deemed to be the customary practice with regard to succession at the shrine, and then declared its judgment to be in conformity with Islamic Law.” (Eaton, 1982) Here again, the nomination by the deceased sajj?da-nish?n was given weightage as a custom of the shrine over any other claim. According to the ratio of the judgments discussed above, it was established that the incumbent of the shrine of B?b? Far?d had absolute authority and discretion to nominate and appoint his successor according to the norms and traditions established at this shrine. Secondly, there was no dispute over the appointment of a sajj?da-nish?n under Mu?ammadan Law or on the principle of Primogeniture.

In the third succession case (1986-till date), D?v?n Bakhty?r Said Mu?ammad claimed himself the real heir of his brother as being the “rightful person” to hold and run the office of the sajj?da-nish?n, given his continuous association in the ceremonies attached to the shrine (he performed rituals in the absence of D?v?n Ghul?m Qu?b al-D?n when he proceeded to Makkah to perform Haj in 1973). He also based his claim on his acquaintance with the affairs of the shrine and the office of the sajj?da-nish?n (during proceedings of the case, he claimed that he made numerous improvements in the shrine complex and rendered services to the visitors), and he challenged the competence of D?v?n Maud?d Mas??d for the office of custodianship, who was disqualified by late D?v?n Ghul?m Qu?b al-D?n, as published in the Urdu dailies of September 1981.

On the other hand, D?v?n Maud?d Mas??d defended the case based on his stated appointment (November 1980), that he was the eldest son of the deceased as well as the one declared and installed by dignitaries before a massive crowd through a formal dast?r-band?. Maud?d Mas??d also challenged the claims of Bakhty?r Said Mu?ammad based on Bakhty?r’s strained relations with the previous sajj?da-nish?n, which were manifested in several cases in courts. He claimed that D?v?n Bakhty?r Said Mu?ammad did not attend the funeral as well as later ceremonies of the deceased sajj?da-nish?n due to differences between them. Therefore, there was no chance of an appointment of D?v?n Bakhty?r Said Mu?ammad as sajj?da-nish?n by D?v?n Ghul?m Qu?b al-D?n. D?v?n Maud?d Mas??d also contested the allegations by D?v?n Bakhty?r Said Mu?ammad that he was disqualified. He claimed that Bakhty?r Said Mu?ammad had forged the 1973 Auq?f letter allowing him to perform rituals during the ?urs as well as the Public Notice of his disqualification in 1981. The letter issued by the Auq?f in 1973 (permitting performing the ceremonies at the shrine to D?v?n Bakhty?r in the absence of the sajj?da-nish?n) was challenged by Maud?d Mas??d on the basis that the Auq?f had no authority to issue such a letter. He contended that the Auq?f Department had the only managerial right for the shrine and no authority to appoint the sajj?da-nish?n. Maud?d Mas??d also claimed that even in 1973, Ghul?m Qu?b al-D?n returned from Saudi Arabia before the commencement of the ?urs ceremonies, which he served, and that Bakhty?r never performed rituals.

As for D?v?n ?Azmat Said Mu?ammad, he pleaded in his application that the late sajj?da-nish?n had held Maud?d Mas??d disqualified for the office of the sajj?da nish?n. He also claimed that his late father had nominated him as sajj?da-nish?n, in the year 1986, that both the other contenders to the office of the sajj?da-nish?n were disqualified, and that he, being a validly nominated successor of the late sajj?da-nish?n, was entitled to hold it (he produced a will, dated January 1, 1986, in this regard).

The judge of the first trial court decided the case in favor of D?v?n Bakhty?r Said Mu?ammad, declaring him a more suitable person to hold the office of sajj?da-nish?n in comparison to his nephew, Maud?d Mas??d, who seemed to be more inclined towards worldly affairs and was disqualified by his father. The judge concluded that in the absence of any will, the matter should be solved according to the required fitness of the person and the needs of the office.

The District Judge, in the first appeal, decided the case in favor of D?v?n Maud?d Mas??d, declaring D?v?n Bakhty?r Said Mu?ammad an unfit person who had brought criminal complaints against his brother, the ex-sajj?da-nish?n. The District Judge also gave weightage to the appointment of Maud?d Mas??d in 1980 based on the intentions of the late sajj?da nish?n, even if Maud?d was disqualified afterwards.

In the judgment of May 29, 2006, the LHC judge validated the decision of the trial court (July 1993) in favor of D?v?n Bakhty?r Said Mu?ammad. In the remanded revision appeal to the LHC by the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the judge of the LHC held that “Unfortunately both the parties to this petition do not qualify to the test of ‘Tasawaf’, but they cannot be dislodged from their respective claims… I, therefore, confine myself to the questions raised and arise out of the judgment impugned in the petition.” (Judgment dated October 29, 2007, by the Lahore High Court, Lahore, n.d.)

The judge, in the judgment of October 2007, based on the evidence produced in the court, declared that the relations between D?v?n Bakhty?r Said Mu?ammad and the late sajj?da-nish?n were strained and that both remained locked in litigation. D?v?n Bakhty?r had filed a criminal complaint against the late sajj?da nish?n. D?v?n Ghul?m Qu?b al-D?n also appeared as a witness against his younger brother. The judge concluded that in such conditions, the late D?v?n would never have allowed D?v?n Bakhty?r to perform ceremonies at the shrine.

The plea of D?v?n ?Azmat Said Mu?ammad was rejected in both the appellate courts, the District Court Sahiwal and the LHC, because he appeared as a witness in favor of his brother D?v?n Maud?d Mas??d during the legal proceedings in the trial court on October 25, 1989, which would not have been possible in the presence of a will in his favor. Therefore, both the appellate courts declared the will produced by D?v?n ?Azmat Said Mu?ammad as a forged will of no importance.

Intra-Family Tussles, and the State Involvement in the Succession Issues: Local Moral Standing of the Sajj?da-Nish?n of the Shrine of B?b? Far?d

From the above discussion, it can be gathered that, compared to the pre-colonial scenario, the modern state assumed a mediatory role in the succession disputes at the shrine of B?b? Far?d during the colonial and postcolonial periods times. Although the nomination of a successor by the last sajj?da-nish?n was the accepted norm of B?b? Far?d’s shrine for centuries, in all the cases studied above, legal courts had to solve the disputes, which had arisen among competing claimants to the succession of a deceased sajj?da-nish?n. The change was a major one in the Sufi shrines sphere since the secular institutions of the state court system now took decisions regarding matters which earlier used to be of the sole competence of the Chisht? elders.

As far as the spiritual mediatory role of the shrine in colonial times is concerned, Richard Maxwell Eaton has written an excellent article to assess the local authority of the shrine of B?b? Far?d by drawing an inquiry into the intermediary position of the shrine and its traditional custodians, on the one hand, ‘between the followers and God’, and on the other hand, ‘between masses and the rulers’, relying on the court proceedings of the second litigation described above, i.e., 1935-42. Eaton has clearly shown that the role of sajj?da-nish?n was on the decline but opines that the local perceptions of his spiritual authority were still intact. Whatever the private person the sajj?da-nish?n was, far from the role models of B?b? Far?d or his earliest sajj?da-nish?ns in Aj?dhan, he was regarded by the local followers of the shrine as a mediator between God and themselves. Eaton is of the view that the colonial era succession cases had nothing to do with the following of B?b? Far?d in Pakpattan, and he quotes one of the witnesses from the proceedings of the 1935-42 succession case: “I am a follower of the Gaddi Nashin whosoever may be occupying it”. He further adds, “To the masses of devotees in Pakpattan; however, the little drama unfolding in the district courthouse in Montgomery was apparently irrelevant to their religious concerns.” (Eaton, 1982)

As far as the devotion of the following is concerned, Eaton is undoubtedly correct. But such is not the case regarding the coherence of the following. One of the present research findings is that the following of the shrine of B?b? Far?d was highly disturbed by the legal litigation on the matters of succession. The Chisht? clan, as well as other followers of the gadd? in Pakpattan, were divided into factions behind different claimants to the office of the sajj?da-nish?n. This phenomenon divided not only the followers but also such Chisht? elders as the sajj?da-nish?ns of various shrines. For example, M?y?n ?Al? Mu?ammad, sajj?da-nish?n of Bass? Shar?f, appeared on the side of D?v?n Ghul?m Qu?b al-D?n, while Sayyid ?l-i Ras?l ?Al?, sajj?da-nish?n of Ajmer Shar?f, appeared on the side of D?v?n Ghul?m Ras?l in 1935-42 succession case. (Judgment dated December 2, 1938, by the Sub-Judge, First Class, Montgomery, n.d.)

Furthermore, the proceedings of the cases unfolded a strange blame game, proving opposite parties’ liars, which led to the ill-repute of the custodian family of the shrine of B?b? Far?d. The shrine, which was a sign of harmony, peace, and love for centuries, became a place of intrigues and tussles. The sanctity of the descendants of Shaikh Far?d al-D?n Mas??d Ganj-i Shakar, for long so prominent locally and afar, is now on the verge of decadence because of such disputes.

In the pre-colonial scenario, the local people depended on the shrine custodian to solve their disputes. But the succession disputes at the shrine of B?b? Far?d shifted this trend and made the shrine custodians dependent on the temporal state machinery and the local masses to be helpful in their pursuit of claims to the office. Once, others used to come to the shrine custodian, and now, the latter is turning to the city, the citizens, and the temporal legal establishment of the city for the solution of their matters.

Conclusion

Conclusively, it can be summed up that a significant paradigmatic shift occurred regarding the succession issues to the offices of custodians in Sufi institutions from under medieval to the modern state in the Indian subcontinent. Regarding the succession disputes of the shrine of B?b? Far?d in Pakpattan, it is noted that the state assumed the mediatory role, which was a prerogative of the Chisht? elders in medieval times. In comparison to the pre-colonial scenario, the state policies, under the modern state after the mid-19th century and later in postcolonial times, became more critical for the sajj?da-nish?n of the shrine of B?b? Far?d, and this made him gradually more and more dependent upon official settings. The intensification of the intra-family tussles about succession to the office, control over the validity in the office through the mediation of succession disputes by the state judiciary in deciding the lawful office bearers, and the swivelling of the sajj?dag? within the family grievously harmed the established prestige and moral and religious standing of the office of sajj?da-nish?n. The religious prominence of the shrine as B?b? Far?d’s house and being the principal sacred space in the region has remained intact amongst the faithful; however, the custodians’ instability and shakiness also weighed in the evolution of their local socio-religious standing, though, the norm of institutional usage, established at the shrine during the medieval period, prevailed even during the contemporary litigations of succession disputes.

References

• Anderson, M. R. (1993). Islamic law and the colonial encounter in British India. Institutions and Ideologies: A SOAS South Asia Reader, 15(10), 165.
• Anjum, T. (2009). Sons of Bread and Sons of Soul: Lineal and Spiritual Descendants of Bābā FarÄ«d and the issue of succession. In S. S. and I. D. Gaur (Ed.), Sufism in Punjab: Mystics, Literature and Shrines (pp. 63-79). AAKAR Books.
• Benton, L. (2002). Law and colonial cultures: Legal regimes in world history, 1400-1900. Cambridge University Press.
• Bigelow, A. B. (2004). Sharing saints, shrines, and stories: Practicing pluralism in North India. University of California, Santa Barbara.
• Calder, N. (n.d.). TaḳlÄ«d. In Encyclopaedia of Islam (2nd ed.). Brill. Civil suit No. 4 of 1886 dated May 25, 1886.
• Eaton, R. M. (1982). Court of Man, Court of God: Local Perceptions of the Shrine of Baba Farid, Pakpattan, Punjab. Journal of Developing Societies, 17(44).
• Eaton, R. M. (1984). The Political and Religious Authority of the Shrine of Bābā FarÄ«d in Pakpattan, Punjab. Moral Conduct and Authority: The Place of Adab in South Asian Islam, 333-356.
• Ewing, K. (1983). The politics of Sufism: Redefining the saints of Pakistan. The Journal of Asian Studies, 42(2), 251-268.
• Fyzee, A. A. A. (1963). Muhammadan Law in India. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 5(4), 401-415.
• Gilmartin, D. (1988). Empire and Islam: Punjab and the making of Pakistan. University of California Press Berkeley.
• Hunter, W. W. (1887). Religions of India. RSA Journal, 36, 401.
• Inquiry Report dated April 30, 2001. (n.d.).
• Judgment (1942), by the Privy Council.
• Judgment dated April 10, 1890, by the Chief Court Punjab.
• Judgment dated April 28, 1888, by District Judge Montgomery.
• Judgment dated December 2, 1938, by the Sub-Judge, First Class, Montgomery.
• Judgment dated July 19, 1993, by the Court of Civil Judge Class II, Pakpattan.
• Judgment dated May 29, 2006, by the Lahore High Court Lahore
• Judgment dated May 6, 1941, by the Chief Court Punjab.
• Judgment dated May 8, 1996, by the Additional District Judge Sahiwal.
• Judgment dated November 6, 1894, by the Privy Council
• Judgment dated October 29, 2007, by the Lahore High Court, Lahore.
• Kugle, S. A. (2001). Framed, blamed and renamed: the recasting of Islamic jurisprudence in colonial South Asia. Modern Asian Studies, 35(2), 257- 313.
• Liebesny, H. J. (1967). Stability and Change in Islamic Law. Middle East Journal, 21(1), 16-34.
• Masud, M. K. (n.d.). Anglo-Muhammadan law. In Encyclopaedia of Islam (3rd ed.). Brill.
• Metcalf, T. R. (1997). Ideologies of the Raj 4. Cambridge University Press.
• Muhammad Mubeen. (2015). Evolution of the ChishtÄ« shrine and the ChishtÄ«s in Pakpattan (Pakistan). In Devotional Islam in Contemporary South Asia (pp. 119-137). Routledge.
• Mulla, S. D. F. (1907). Principles of Mahomedan Law. Thacker Spink.
• Order No. SOP 5(17) 1, January 16, 2007, Office of the Chief Administrator Auqāf Punjab Lahore.
• Order No. SOP 5(17)A dated May 30, 2006, Office of the Chief Administrator Auqaf Punjab Lahore.
• Singha, R. (2000). A despotism of law: Crime and justice in early colonial India. Oxford University Press.