अमर शहीद अशफ़ाक़उल्ला ख़ाँ: व्यक्तित्व और कृतित्व (काकोरी के अमर शहीद का जीवन व रचनाएँ)

( 102 )
He admits that Ashfaqullah never gave him any instructions. He
also says that Ram Prasad did "pairawi" for the Hindus concerned
in the riots, but here again his only reason for this statement is that
he saw Ram Prasad occasionally with these Hindus. Ata
Husain Khan (D. W. 9) who was convicted in connection with the
riots, states that he was with Ashfaqullah and other Muhammadans
one day during a tazia procession. It was rumoured that the
Hindus of the Katiatola mohalla would stop the procession. They did
not, however, do so as the Muhammadans were in a great major-
ity. They saw groups of Hindus about as they passed through 10
this mohalla and amongst them Ram Prasad. That evening a
Muhammadan was murdered in Katiatola mohalla. He asked
Ashfaqullah, who was still with him, why these Congress people
(meaning Ram Prasad and the Hindus with him) created trouble
in this way and Ashfaqullah said that it was very bad of them.
O. P. 160. Ata Husain says nothing whatever about Ashfaqullah doing
"pairawi" for him. Matlub Husain (D. W. 10) gives similar and
equally vague and unconvincing evidence. He also was prosecuted
in connection with the riots but acquitted. He was formerly a
police constable but resigned in connection with the non-co-opera- 20
tion movement. Like another defence witness whose antecedents
are not above suspicion, namely Ashiq Ali Khan, he is at present
employed in the Army Clothing factory at Shahjahanpur. He
slightly improves on the story told by Ata Husain, saying that
Ram Prasad and Ashfaqullah stared at each other when the pro-
cession passed through Katiatola mohalla. Anwar Hasan Khan
(D. W. 16), was convicted during the riots under sections 325, 147
and 149 I. P. C. and sentenced to three years' imprisonment, this
sentence being subsequently reduced to two years. He says that
Ashfaqullah and other Muhammadans assisted him in the case; 30
Ashfaqullah attended the trial every day. It will be observed that
the evidence of these witnesses is to some extent contradictory,
in that it is sought to show on the one hand that Ashfaqullah blam-
ed Ram Prasad for interesting himself in these communal distur-
bances, while on the other it is alleged that Ashfaqullah himself
was actively engaged on the other side. Even if it is believed that
Ashfaqullah and Ram Prasad were on opposite sides during these
riots and that they were so is not altogether improbable, though
the evidence to prove it cannot be described as convincing, I see
no reason to think that there was anything in the nature of a 40
quarrel between them. They may very well have casually sup-
ported co-religionists with whom they were friends without com-
ing into conflict themselves, or regarding it in any way as a per-
O. P. 161. sonal matter. There is no clear evidence to show that either
played any particular part in the riots or assisted any accused
materially in the cases afterwards. I have already shown that
the policy of the revolutionaries was to put religious questions into
the background. If we may judge from the literature found with
him and his friendship with Banarsi Lal, Ashfaqullah was unusually