Bahá’í World/Volume 4/Further Developments in the Case of Bahá’u’lláh’s House
FURTHER DEVELOPMENTS IN THE CASE OF BAHÁ’U’LLÁH’S HOUSE IN BAGHDÁD
EXTRACTS FROM THE MINUTES OF THE PERMANENT MANDATES COMMISSION OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS
1.
EXTRACTS FROM THE MINUTES OF THE SIXTEENTH SESSION
Held at Geneva from November 6th to 26th, 1929
M. PALACIOS said that one matter which might throw light on the question of the degree of maturity of the ‘Iráq people and on that of the relations between the British Government and the Government of ‘Iráq was the problem of the Bahá’í sect, a matter which had already been before the Commission.
In its report on the work of its fourteenth session the Commission had recommended that the council should invite the British Government to request the Government of ‘Iráq to redress the injustice of which the Bahá’ís had been the victims. This recommendation had been made by the Commission as a result of its examination of a petition from the Bahá’í Spiritual Assembly and of the observations of the British Government on the petition. M. Orts had been the Rapporteur.
The annual report of the mandatory Power did not refer to the matter, and it would be interesting to obtain from the accredited representative as exact information as possible regarding the measures taken by the British Government and by the ‘Iráq authorities as a result of the Council decision.
Mr. BOURDILLON said that the British authorities had informed the Government of ‘Iráq of the request of the Council, and had strongly pressed it to find a solution. The Government had suggested compensation on a monetary basis. The British authorities, although not considering this solution satisfactory, had, nevertheless, felt called upon to submit to the Bahá’ís any proposal that the ‘Iráq Government had made. As it had expected, this proposal had not been accepted. The Bahá’ís themselves had contemplated presenting a further petition, but, after discussing the question with the High Commissioner and the British advisers, they had agreed that it would not be in their best interests to do so.
Settlement of the question had been further delayed by the death of Sir Gilbert Clayton, and it would take some time for the new High Commissioner to make himself acquainted with all the details. In the meanwhile, however, the Acting High Commissioner and the Bahá’ís’ representative were following up the matter actively.
Mr. Bourdillon added that in the course of the last few days he had further discussed the question at Geneva with the Bahá’ís’ representative, and that, during this discussion, a solution had been suggested which he hoped would be ventilated shortly.
M. PALACIOS did not think this reply wholly
satisfactory. He recognised that
for [Page 238]
reasons of domestic
policy it might be advisable to employ this
roundabout method.
On the other hand, both the Mandatory
Power and the Mandates Commission had
admitted that injustice had been done. It
was desirable therefore that this injustice
should be removed without delay; such action
would serve as an example.
The CHAIRMAN recalled that the Council had endorsed the Commissioner’s opinion and that, as a result, the Mandatory Power had to follow it. The present state of affairs was, therefore, all the more serious.
M. RAPPARD said that he might employ the Bahá’í case as an argument for the contention which he had already advanced. There could be no clearer example of the necessity for action by the Mandatory Power in order to prevent injustice.
M. BOURDILLON said that it was his firm conviction that a similar injustice would not be committed at the present time. Every effort was being made to remedy this particular injustice, but he would recall that it was very difficult to provide an immediate remedy for such cases.
The CHAIRMAN asked what steps were being taken to carry out the decision of the Council. What means existed for the administration of justice when the League of Nations demanded it? A solution of this question would be very difficult to find. Mr. Bourdillon should examine the question not, of course, from the historic point of view, but in order to settle it.
2.
EXTRACTS FROM THE MINUTES OF THE NINETEENTH SESSION
Held at Geneva from November 4th to 19th, 1930
IT will be noticed that there is no mention of what is called the Bahá’í case in the report under review. This is because the year 1929 closed while the matter was still under consideration, and no definite decision had been taken. The position when I arrived in Baghdád as acting High Commissioner at the end of September last year was that the late Sir Gilbert Clayton had been taking the matter up strongly with the ‘Iráq Government, and that the then Prime Minister, Sir ‘Abdu’l-Muḥsin Sa‘dún, had undertaken to investigate the whole question with a view to deciding what steps could be taken to satisfy the claims of the Bahá’í community. The tragic death of Sir Gilbert Clayton and Sir ‘Abdu’l-Muḥsin naturally resulted in a certain amount of delay; but the first action of the present 'Iráq Government, after the conclusion of the Treaty negotiations, was to appoint a strong Committee to go into the whole question. The terms of reference of the Committee were as follows:
“To consider the question of the claim of the Bahá’í community to certain houses in Baghdád, and, without going into the past history of the case, to indicate as soon as possible, what line of action the Government should adopt for disposing of this long-outstanding question.”
The Chairman of the Committee was the British President of the Court of Appeal, and the three 'Iráq members were the Director-General of the Interior, the Amínu’l-‘Aṣimih, or Lord Mayor of Baghdád, and the Director of Judicial Administration. Their report was considered by the ‘Iráq Government as soon as possible after the return of the Prime Minister from London in September, and I am authorised to say that the ‘Iráq Government has decided to proceed in accordance with the recommendation of the Committee.
The decision of the ‘Iráq Government is
that the property in question, together with
a considerable area surrounding it,
should [Page 239]
be expropriated by
the Government for a public purpose—for
example, for a school,
dispensary, or public gardens.”
Statement by the Accredited Representative,
In connection with this question of minorities, Mr. Orts asked whether the solution contemplated in the Bahá’í case was such as would satisfy that community. How could the transformation of its properties into a school, dispensary or public gardens constitute that reparation which, according to the recommendation of the Council of the League of Nations, ought to be granted to the Bahá’í community for the injustice of which it was the victim?
M. Orts wished to make it quite clear that the Permanent Mandates Commission would not lose interest in the fate of this small community so long as it had not been granted the reparation which was its due. The way in which the Government dealt with this question would be a criterion of the spirit of the Government and the people.
The Commission notes a statement by the accredited representative that the ‘Iráqí Government has appointed a Commission to propose some method of providing redress for the wrong done to the Bahá’í sect by the denial of justice to that sect. It regrets that such redress has not yet been given, in spite of the Council’s endorsement on March 4th, 1929, of the Commission’s conclusions.
Letter from the Accredited Representative, dated December 5th, 1930.
I have the honour to acknowledge receipt of your letter No. 6A/ 22103/655 of November 20th, enclosing an advance copy of the observations of the Permanent Mandates Commission drawn up as a result of the Examination, at its recent session, of the administration of ‘Iráq.
2. The only comment I have to offer is that, in special observation No. 3, on the subject of the Bahá’í case, the impression might perhaps be given that the strong Commission appointed by the ‘Iráqí Government to consider this question had not yet presented its report, whereas the facts are, as I had the honour to explain to the Permanent Mandates Commission, that the report has been presented and accepted by the ‘Iráqí Government.
(signed) Hubert Young.
3.
EXTRACTS FROM THE MINUTES OF THE TWENTIETH SESSION
Held at Geneva from June 9th to June 27th, 1931
M. RAPPARD observed that this point was important in view of the Commission’s present task. It had to consider what hope there was of getting loyal cooperation as regards guarantees for minorities.
He noted one passage in the last part of the statement: "The ‘Iráqí State,” he read, "has shown itself jealous of the sanctity of international engagements.” He thought that the Bahá’í question and the question of the Kurds were not very significant of such an attitude.
Sir Francis HUMPHRYS observed that the international engagements to which he had referred were chiefly with Great Britain, Turkey, the Nejd and Persia—that was to say, with ‘Iráq’s neighbours, with whom the ‘Iráqí had a good reputation for keeping faith. There was also the list of international Conventions given on page 37 of the report. He must join issue with M. Rappard on the suggestion that the Bahá’í case could be classed in the category of international engagements.
He agreed that the decision in this case had been unfortunate; the question now was how to deal with a res judicata in a manner that was strictly legal. The idea of taking it before the Permanent Court of Interna
Bahá’ís of Pretoria, South Africa.
The Ḥaẓíratu’l-Quds of the Bahá’ís of ‘Aváshiq, the first Bahá’í edifice erected in ‘Iráq.
[Page 241]
tional Justice had been abandoned, but he hoped to be able to show the Commission that the matter was being dealt with satisfactorily.
M. ORTS recalled the severe criticisms made both by the Mandates Commission and the British Government itself of the supreme judicial authority of ‘Iráq and the highest authorities in the country for their partiality and weakness in connection with the Bahá’í affair in Baghdád. This affair was an example, which was not yet forgotten, of the annoyance to which the minority was exposed at a time when the British authorities were still in a position to make their influence felt.
It was said that a Special Committee which had been instructed to examine the case in question had come to a decision which appeared to have been satisfactory to both parties. The decision was to expropriate the land on which were situated the buildings of which the Bahá’ís had been unjustly deprived, and to convert the buildings into public dispensaries.
It must be recognised that, if the Bahá’ís were satisfied with the decision reached, they were not difficult to satisfy. The expropriation had led to indemnities and the latter would be paid, not to the victims of the miscarriage of justice, but to those who benefited from judicial decisions which were notoriously biassed.
At the last session the accredited representative had stated that similar occurrences could not now arise. It seemed, however, that the desire to conform with the recommendations of the Council, which should at the moment influence the actions of the ‘Iráq Government, had not been sufficient to cause it to resist the tendencies of one section of public opinion.
Sir Francis HUMPHRYS replied that the house in question had never been formally registered in the name of the Bahá’ís. In the case before the Court there had been some false swearing on both sides. The Court consisted of a British President with two other members, one of whom was a Jew and the other a Sunni Muslim. The British President had thought the decision constituted a miscarriage of justice, and the British Government agreed with that view. The case had created much feeling, not only in Baghdád and elsewhere in ‘Iráq, but also among the Shíahs of Persia. The highest court in the country had pronounced in favour of the Shíahs by two votes to one. Sir Francis Humphrys asked the Mandates Commission how this decision could be legally reversed, as there was no higher court in the country. If the Government had ordered the Shíahs to evacuate the property and had returned it to the Bahá’ís, this would have been an illegal act.
Sir Francis Humphrys admitted there had been considerable delay in arriving at a settlement. In the first place, enquiries had been made as to whether this case could be brought before the Permanent Court of International Justice. On this solution proving impracticable, it had subsequently been decided to appoint a Special Committee, with a British judge as Chairman, to suggest a practical solution which would be in accordance with the law. This committee suggested expropriating for purposes of public benefit, not only this house, but others in the district in connection with a town—planning scheme. It was not the intention that the structure of the house should be interfered with, but only that the necessary internal alterations should be made in order to convert the house into a dispensary. This had satisfied the Bahá’ís as they were willing that the house should be put to some useful purpose.
Sir Francis again pointed out that, as there was no higher court in the country, any other solution of the question would have been illegal.
M. ORTS fully realised the legal difficulties. In his opinion this did not alter the fact that the case was indicative. He would like to know, however, whether the Bahá’ís who had not obtained material satisfaction had at least obtained moral satisfaction.
Sir Francis HUMPHRYS replied that he
thought the decision must have given the
Bahá’ís some moral satisfaction, since they
would have access to the house when it
was[Page 242]
situated in a public garden.
Moreover, they were satisfied with the use of
the house as a dispensary, as it would be used
for the alleviation of misery to which the Bahá’í
religion attached great importance.
M. ORTS asked whether it could not be decided that no change should be made in the arrangements of the buildings which were of sentimental value to the Bahá’ís. Such an assurance would, no doubt, give them moral satisfaction.
Sir Francis HUMPHRYS repeated that the intention was that the building should remain, only internal changes being made for the purpose of its conversion into a dispensary.
M. RAPPARD supposed, with regard to the question of moral satisfaction that it could not be expected that the Bahá’ís would be satisfied before the solution prepared by the Government was finally adopted. But it was too soon for them to feel this satisfaction, as the funds had not yet been voted by Parliament.
The Bahá’í case was, however, not only a regrettable incident. Had it not a more general significance? An injustice had been committed which would doubtless have been avoided if the Mandatory Power had maintained greater control. If the Mandatory Power had previously withdrawn from ‘Iráq, as it now proposed to do, the injustice would not even have come to the notice of the League. The Commission was now asked to approve the withdrawal of the Mandatory Power. Was this not a very serious responsibility?
Sir Francis HUMPHRYS did not understand how the Mandatory Power could have intervened in a judicial matter, or why there should be less likelihood of such cases being brought to notice in future.
M. RAPPARD replied there would be no possibility of appeal to the League.
Sir Francis HUMPHRYS supposed that a case might occasionally happen in other countries that the ownership of property in dispute might be awarded to the wrong person.
This was the only case in eleven years in which the justice of a decision by the ‘Iráqí Courts had been questioned by His Majesty’s Government.
M. VAN REES asked whether there was a sentiment of hostility towards the Bahá’ís in ‘Iráq which might lead them to feel that they were in constant danger. He asked whether the judgement of the High Court reflected this sentiment of hostility or was merely a miscarriage of justice.
Sir Francis HUMPHRYS replied that he knew of no cases where Bahá’ís were apprehensive for their safety. In the present case he thought the action was taken merely to obtain possession of the property and was not particularly directed against the Bahá’ís.
M. VAN REES explained that he had asked this question, as he had heard that the Bahá’ís felt themselves to be menaced.
Sir Francis HUMPHRYS replied that he had no knowledge of it.
Sir Francis HUMPHRYS explained that he had understood Mr. Ruppel’s question to be influenced by anxiety as to the position of foreigners. He had therefore quoted from a document which was primarily concerned with that question. The intention was that the ‘Iráqís should benefit equally with the foreigners from the strengthening of the judiciary.
The CHAIRMAN asked whether the British judge would not always be in a minority, since there were three judges in each Court. This had happened in the Bahá’í case.
Sir Francis HUMPHRYS said that this had been the position throughout the period under review, and pointed out that the Bahá’í case was the only case of a serious miscarriage of justice which had come to light during these eleven years. It was to be hoped that such a case would not occur again.
[Page 243]
He (M. MERLIN) was very sorry he
could not share that conviction of the accredited
representative. He had apprehensions
on the subject, which had been strengthened
by the Bahá’í case and other cases connected
with Kurds. He noted from page 78 of the
report that certain changes in the judicial
system were proposed. Again, on page 83, it
was said that the advocates were far from
competent. He was glad to see that British
judges would remain for ten years, as he
considered they supplied the surest guarantee
of justice. He, like M. Ruppel, considered that,
far from being restricted, as was
proposed in the 1930 treaty, the number
should be increased.
4.
LETTER FROM THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT
Dated January 12th, 1931, Transmitting the Report of the Special Committee Appointed by the Government of ‘Iráq to Examine the Claim of the Bahá’í Spiritual Assembly, Baghdád, and Communicating the Measures Taken by the Government of ‘Iráq in the Execution of the Recommendations Contained in the Report.
London, January 12th, 1931.
With reference to the last paragraph of your letter No. 6A/9245/516 of March 25th, 1929, in which you brought to the notice of His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom the conclusions reached by the Council of the League of Nations in regard to a petition from the Bahá’í Spiritual Assembly of Baghdád, I am directed by Mr. Secretary Henderson to inform you that these conclusions have received the most careful consideration by the Government of ‘Iráq.
2. The Government of ‘Iráq finally decided to set up a special Committee under the Chairmanship of Mr. G. Alexander, President of the ‘Iráqí Court of Appeal, to consider the views expressed by the Bahá’í Community in respect of certain houses in Baghdád and to formulate recommendations for an equitable settlement of this question. I am now to transmit to you the accompanying translation of the report submitted by this committee to the ‘Iráqí Government on August 27th, 1930, and to request that it may be communicated to the members of the Permanent Mandates Commission for their information.
3. I am to ask that the members of the Permanent Mandates Commission may at the same time be informed that the ‘Iráqí Government have decided to accept the recommendations contained in the report, which have also been accepted in principle on behalf of the Bahá’í community, and have directed that detailed plans and estimates shall be prepared, with a view to carrying these recommendations into effect during the coming financial year. (Signed) C. W. Baxter.
Translation of Report on the Bahá’í Case
In accordance with the Secretary to the
Council of Ministers’ letter No. 2003, dated
July 12th, 1930, addressed to the Ministries
of the Interior and Justice, stating that
we were appointed to form a special Committee
to consider the case of the claim of
the Bahá’í community relating to certain
houses in Baghdád and to examine the
“method” which the Government should
adopt for dealing with (or remedying) this
question, we have held three meetings—on
July 28th, 1930, August 25th, 1930, and
August 27th, 1930—and, having gone
through the proceedings of the Permanent
Mandates Commission of the League of Nations
and previous papers on the case and
a note by the Chairman of our Committee
notifying that the Prime Minister has
authorised him to inform the Committee that
the object of its formation was to find out
what measures can be adopted to constitute
a suitable solution of the Bahá’í case
referred to above, having regard to existing
circumstances and conditions, and after
careful discussion and deliberation on the
subject, we have resolved as follows:
[Page 244]
I. The competent courts have already
considered the dispute over the houses in
question which arose between two Bahá’í
individuals by the name of Muḥammad
Hasan and Núrí, heirs of Bahá’u’lláh, of one
part, and Muḥammad Javád and Bíbí, two
Shias, of the other part, and issued final
judgement to the effect that the first party
had no right to the said houses. Therefore it
is neither possible nor justifiable to consider
the case from the aspect of the claim of the
first party to the ownership of the houses.
2. If there be any justification at all to consider this case, it can only be on the ground of state interests and policy. On this assumption and having regard to the principles of the laws in force in this country and to present conditions and circumstances, only one course of action is possible—namely that of appropriating the houses for purposes of public benefit by means of expropriation for such purposes of public benefit.
3. Such expropriation may be carried out either for the public benefit of the Government or for that of the Municipality. As, however, the case regarding the houses has a “past reputation” (sic) arising from the fact that it had arisen between two parties of different creeds, and that their expropriation now is likely to be taken as a pretext for taking away the houses from those in whose possession they are at present, who belong to a special creed, and as such will give rise to public agitation among the followers of that creed, and in order to avert such risk, the operation of expropriation should be an extensive one and should cover the said houses together with other surrounding houses and properties in order to give out that the purpose is one of public benefit. Assuming that expropriation is to take place, we suggest that the operation of expropriation should be extensive so as to cover the properties surrounding the houses in question for the opening of a road or the laying out of a garden if expropriation is to be made for a municipal purpose, or for a hospital (or dispensary) or a school, to be built in the middle of a square, if the expropriation is to be on behalf of and for the Government.
It should be observed that the state of the houses at Shaykh Bashshár quarter is such as will justify Government action in opening a wide square adequate for laying out a garden, or especially a play-ground for children and a promenade ground for women. The success of the children’s playground and women’s recreation ground at North Gate furnishes the strongest proof that such a project of public benefit is essential.
As houses in Baghdád West are crowded and in a bad state and there is no playground for children, it appears to us that the Government will be perfectly in the right in expropriating a number of the houses surrounding the Bahá’í houses and in the laying out of a public garden (park). If necessary, these (the Bahá’í) houses may be used for the construction of a special dispensary for women and children.
The existing dispensary to the North near Parliament House is common for both sexes. If the Bahá’í houses are used for a dispensary for children and women, such dispensary will be centrally situated among the crowded quarters and not on their extremity. As such, it should prove very useful for the inhabitants.
4. As will be plainly observed from the above details, the scheme will have to take financial conditions into consideration, as it will require a large provision of money. Also political considerations should be attended to, since religious feelings may be involved.
Therefore, and as the Council of Ministers are more competent to appreciate these circumstances, we leave it to them to consider what is advisable in the circumstances.
Dated August 27th, 1930.
(Signed) G. ALEXANDER
- NASRAT AL FARISI
- SUBHI AL DAFTARI
- NASHAT As SINAWI
Early believers of Sísán, Persia
The Ḥaẓíratu’l-Quds of the Bahá’ís Ṭihrán, the first edifice of its kind erected in Persia.
5.
EXTRACTS FROM THE MINUTES OF THE TWENTY-FIRST SESSION
Held at Geneva from October 26th to November 13, 1931
M. ORTS wished to know whether the question raised by the Bahá’ís’ petition had at last been settled. The Mandates Commission had examined this petition in November 1928,1 and, on the basis of its report, the Council of the League2 had, in March 1929, invited the British Government to remedy the wrong done to those people.
At the twentieth session of the Mandates Commission3 the accredited representative had said that no steps had yet been taken. As the accredited representative was now perhaps before the Commission for the last time, M. Orts wished to ask him whether effect had been given to the Council’s resolution. It might be argued that, as so much time had elapsed, the affair was of no further interest. It was, however, characteristic of the Muslim spirit of intolerance and the fears that spirit caused the ‘Iráqí Government. Those fears seemed to be stronger than the Government’s desire, particularly at the present time, to avoid any appearance of disregarding the opinion of the League Council.
Sir Francis HUMPHRYS repeated the explanations which he had given at the June session. There was, unhappily, no doubt in the mind of His Majesty’s Government that a miscarriage of justice had taken place, and he explained at length the various difficulties, legal and otherwise, which stood in the way of a revised settlement. The ‘Iráqí Government had, however, accepted in principle a solution of the problem which he regarded as satisfactory, and was determined to carry it out.
1 Sec Minutes of the Fourteenth Session of the Permanent Mandates Commission (document C.368. M.179.1928.VI), pages 189 and 190, 221 and 222, 261 to 264, 276.
2 See Official Journal, April 1929, Minutes of the Fifty-fourth Session of the Council, page 506.
3 See Minutes of the Twentieth Session of the Permanent Mandates Commission (document C.422.M. 176.1931.VI), pages 127 to 129.
If the case had been cognisable by the Permanent Court of International Justice, it would no doubt have been settled by now, and he reminded the Commission that occasional miscarriages of justice were not peculiar to ‘Iráq. He much regretted the delay which had occurred and hoped the matter would be disposed of before next summer.
M. ORTS fully appreciated the difficulties of the situation. It should not be forgotten, however, that the ‘Iráqí courts had created that situation by their partiality and the ‘Iráqí Government by its weakness. He noted that no progress had been made in the matter. Religious passion was at the bottom of this injustice and it was clear that the delays in righting the wrong were due to the same cause; the ‘Iráqí Government was not strong enough to make a majority respect the right of a minority. That was a point which should not be forgotten.
M. Orts thought that the Commission would have to report to the Council that its 1929 resolution had remained without effect.
M. RAPPARD concluded from the explanations given that the case would have been settled if it had been subject to the jurisdiction of a supreme court. This would seem to denote, therefore, that there was merely a legal difficulty. He asked whether it would have been possible to overcome the legal difficulty if there had been no question of any religious fanaticism.
Sir Francis HUMPHRYS replied that the
legal difficulty was that the highest court in
the country had awarded the property to
the people who were now in possession, and
there was no appeal against that judgement.
Up to now, it had not been found
possible[Page 247]
to settle the matter
by negotiation out of court.
M. ORTS observed that the effect of the denial of justice had been to deprive the lawful owners—namely, the Bahá’ís—of their property. The solution of expropriating that property could hardly be accepted as a reparation for the denial of justice. The present holders, who had no right to the property, would receive the compensation for expropriation, whereas the despoiled Bahá’ís would obtain no other satisfaction than being, like every other inhabitant of Baghdád, allowed to enter the public garden and apply to the dispensary. At the very least, a decree might have been issued (as had already been suggested) that no change should ever be made in the arrangement of the places to which they attached a sentimental value.
Lord LUGARD asked whether it would be possible for the ‘Iráqí Government to
make restitution by an Act of Parliament without reversing the judgement.
Sir Francis HUMPHRYS replied that a majority would not be obtained in Parliament.
M. RAPPARD asked whether the mandatory Power had had any hope of redressing the legal judgement when it enquired into the matter. Had there been any subsequent occurrence to destroy that hope?
Sir Francis HUMPHRYS said there must have been, he thought, over a hundred consultations with the King, the Prime Minister, legal advisers, etc., with a view to finding a solution, but without success. He referred to his remark at the previous session1 that this was the only case in eleven years in which the justice of a decision by the ‘Iráqí courts had been questioned by His Majesty’s Government. He would do his best to see that the proposed solution was put into effect next summer.
6.
Extracts from the Report to the Council of the League of Nations on the ordinary work of the Twenty-First Session of the Permanent Mandates Commission, held at Geneva from October 26th to November 13th, 1931.
“The Commission learned with regret that the Mandatory Power had not yet succeeded in obtaining redress for the Bahá’í Community in respect of the miscarriage of justice of which it was the victim and to which allusion was made in the Commission’s two previous reports to the Council on ‘Iráq.”
——————-
1 See Minutes of the Twentieth Session of the Permanent Mandates Commission (document C.422. M.176.1931.VI), page 129.
