Pandit Lekhram


Introduction

Dharamvir Pandit Lekhram was a Hindu leader of the Arya Samaj (a group within the Hindu religion). He was born in 1858 and died in 1897.

Context

Pandit Lekhram gave Mirza Ghulam Ahmad a very hard time for a number of years. He would respond to the latter's challenges, and would show up to meet him, and also wrote in an equally tough, though more civil tone, but nevertheless very sarcastic.

Timeline

After Lekhram wrote Takzeeb Braheen-e-Ahmadiyya, he was on Mirza's radar. After the publication of Volume 4 of Braheen-e-Ahmadiyya, Lekhram responded to Mirza's One Year Stay Challenge, there was correspondence in 1885, in which Mirza wanted to clearly get rid of his response to the challenge.

First indication of prophecy about Lekhram is in 1886, when on 20 Feb, 1886, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad announced in an advertisement that he is about to publish "Siraj Muneer" (this is very interesting - as this book did not appear until immediately after Lekhram's death in March 1897, eleven years later).

In this advertisement, MGA's "Musleh Mau'ood" prophecy is mentioned as well as " prophecies about religious leaders . . . like Munshi Inderman Muradabadi and Pandit Lekhram Peshawari, about whose destiny and fate something will be written in this booklet (i.e. Siraj Muneer) provided there is enough time and the timing is right . . . I do so with a heavy heart . . . and if someone does not like a prophecy about them to be printed in this booklet . . . entitled to send me a written and signed statement by March 1, 1886, or within two weeks of the publication of this booklet . . " (Collection of Advertisements, vol 1, pp 99-100) Lekhram promptly replied with a postcard asking to publish whatever Mirza Ghulam Ahmad wanted to publish about him. (RK, Vol 5. p.250).

There was a deafening silence from Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and Siraj Muneer was put on hold indefinitely.

Mubahila

After the debate with Lala Murli Dhar ended with defeat for Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, Mirza issued a mubahila with any Arya leader, and a prize of Rs. 500, a pattern that was to become very familiar over the coming years. Pandit Lekhram formally accepted the challenge in 1889 and no harm came to Pandit Lekhram by the one-year date in 1889.

Mirza fell completely silent on this issue until 1893, all the while keeping this grudge.

In the 1890s

In March 1893, he wrote again (appendix Aina Kamalat Islam) that, "if within six years, a punishment does not descend from on this person – such punishment that is distinct from ordinary problems – is supernatural, and has Divine awe in it, then assume that I am not from God." There is no mention of death here.

Again in 1893, he mentions a debilitating disease, from which Lekhram will not recover with restored health (Barakaat-ud-Dua preface). He was very sure of this prophecy, and even let his opponents have a MAJOR point against him with respect to other prophecies – ". . . if it is not from God, then it will be my humiliation, and if I then resort to far-fetched interpretations, then I will be even more humiliated . . . ". This proves, once and for all, that MGA was aware of the possibility of far-fetched interpretations after something goes wrong, and considers it even more humiliating than taking a failed prophecy with dignity. The disarming sincerity of MGA reveals things that completes the picture.

Later in 1893, in a book, Karamaat-us-Sadiqeen, he writes in Arabic, " I prayed about him and God gave me the good news of his death within 6 years."

In March 1897, Lekhram was murdered and then, 'Siraj Muneer' was printed and the vision about the 'fearsome angel' and 'Samiri's calf' were retro-actively applied to his death and manner of murder. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was investigated by the police for the murder but was not prosecuted.

Also, murder could not have been envisioned as nasab wa azaab extra-ordinarily from God – which is excruciating grief and punishment and is the essence of the 1893 prophecy. I will spare the gory details of the murder that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and Mirza Tahir Ahmad described, but it was all over in a day. Murder is an act of man, pre-meditated by man, and the result of worldly desires and enmities.

Analysis of the death prophecy

The Ahmadiyya position is (from al-islam.org):

The prophecies relating to Lekh Ram put together foretold:
  1. that Lekh Ram will meet with a calamity which will prove fatal for him;
  2. that this calamity will take place within six years;
  3. that it will be on a day close to Eid, just before or just after.
  4. that Lekh Ram will meet the fate of the Calf of Samri; that is, dismemberment and death and dispersion of ashes into a river;
  5. that this fatal process will be carried out by a person ruddy with blood-shot eyes;
  6. that Lekh Ram will be a victim of the sword of Muhammad. "

Items 3 to 6 are very fine and fine-fetched interpretations of far-fetched explanations, applied RETRO-ACTIVELY.

The prophecy about Pandit Lekhram is one of the "strongest" of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and one that actually was predicted and occurred. However, the context is in the timeline above, and can best be described as 'clutching at straws'. In more than 10 such major death predictions, Mirza was successful about 3 times.

Reference

Ian Talbot writes in "Punjab and the Raj, 1849-1947", pg. 72-73:

"Relations grew particularly bad between the Aryas and the Muslims. Serious violence broke out in 1897 when a leading Arya Samajist called Pandit Lekh Ram was assassinated. Lekh Ram's greatest influence was in the north-west of Punjab. He had in fact joined the Peshawar Arya Samaj in 1880 and rose to prominence first as a missionary and then as editor of the Arya Gazette. At first he had limited his attacks to the Ahmadi movement of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, but he increasingly attacked orthodox Muslims as well. His pamphlet, Risala-i-Jihad ya'ri Din-i-Muhammad ki Bunyad (A Treatise on waging holy war, or the foundation of the Muhammadan Religion) caused a considerable outcry, when it was published in 1892. Until his murder by a Muslim five years later, Lekh Ram continued to stir up animosity by his vituperative writings."
Comments