While paying lip service to Ambedkar, RSS Chief Mohan Bhagwat equated him to RSS Founder K.B. Hedgewar, “Both dedicated their lives to social progress and held a common aspiration for nation’s growth”. Now what is common between Ambedkar’s dream of social equality, democratic, federalism, abolition of caste and RSS founder’s vision of a Hindu nation, based on the ancient holy books upholding caste system and patriarchy? These are polar opposites. But as paying tribute to Babasaheb has become mandatory for all for electoral compulsions, Bhagwat has to stretch things to pull Babasaheb in the ambit of list of their icons.

Not to be left behind, Narendra Modi, the Prime Minister of India went on to criticise the Indian National Congress “Congress has become the destroyer of Constitutions. Dr Ambedkar wanted to bring in equality… Babasaheb wanted every poor, every backward to be able to live with dignity and with their heads held high, to have dreams and complete them…Congress has always treated SCs, STs, and OBCs as second-class citizens.”

In a way Narendra Modi is distorting the facts. It is true that Ambedkar was critical of Congress and Gandhi at various occasions; still it was Congress and Gandhi with whom he interacted maximally to achieve his goal of social equality in particular. Gandhi is much criticized for betraying the cause of Dalits. ‘Poona Pact’ has come under severe criticism, but all said and done this was the most practical step towards affirmative action for Dalits. Gandhi was so touched by Ambedkar’s positions that he understood the ills of caste in a deeper way and made eradication of untouchability as his major mission for the next two years. Going from village to village, ensuring that Dalits are permitted entry into the temples and are able to draw water from the village wells. This also became the mission for many Congress workers.

This is the time when BJP ideology founders were singing praises for the values of the caste system and arguing that it is this system which has given stability to Hindu society! Ambedkars yeoman service to the nation was recognized by the national leaders and they were keen that Ambedkar should be part of the Constituent Assembly, In her biography ‘BABASAHEB: My Life with Dr. Ambedkar’, Savita Ambedkar quotes correspondence between Dr. Rajendra Prasad, President of Constituent Assembly, Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru, the Prime Minister-elect, Sardar Patel, the Home Minister, G. Mavalankar, Speaker and BG Kher, the CM of Bombay state to stress how all the top Congress leaders were extremely keen to have her husband elected to the Constituent Assembly unopposed. For instance Patel wrote to Mavalankar on July 5, 1947: ‘Dr Ambedkar’s nomination has been sent to PM. I hope there would be no contest and he would be returned unopposed so that he could come here on the 14th.’ “

Congress ensured that Babasaheb won the seat for Constituent Assembly and made its Chairman. The participation and Contribution of Babasaheb, well supported by Congress, yielded the fruit in the form of the Indian Constitution. On the contrary Organiser, the mouthpiece of RSS, the father organization of BJP, came out heavily saying that this Constitution has nothing Indian about it. The ideological mentor cum fellow traveller of RSS, Savakar was against it saying the “Manusmriti is the Constitution for India.”

Same way Ambedkar handled the responsibility of drafting the Hindu Code Bill, with Nehru standing behind him. The Code was opposed by some elements within but mainly by the ideologues of Hindu Nationalism, who went on to burn the effigy of Ambedkar on 12 December 1949. While RSS-BJP are upholding the Brahmanical version of Hinduism Babasaheb had already declared that I was born a Hindu but I will not die a Hindu.

Similarly as RSS was talking of Hindu Rashtra, Babasaheb in revised edition of the book on Pakistan, opposed it on the ground that this may pave the way for Hindu Raj which will be the biggest tragedy for us. BJP’s Hindu nationalist ideology is deeply opposed to Babasaheb’s dream of Annihilation of caste and has been deeply opposed by Modi’s ideology. Modi’s parent organization RSS has floated Samajik Samrasta Manch, which talks about harmony among caste rather than its annihilation.

Currently some ideologues are arguing that since annihilation is not easy, so let us resort to strengthening sub caste identities to get them more privileges! This will be a disaster for the values of our Fraternity, the core principle of Indian Constitution. RSS is also trying to wean sections of Dalits by co-option and social engineering. RSS organizations are also inventing icons of sub communities among Dalits and giving them values of patriarchy, and caste hierarchy along with Anti Muslim slant.

One could see the response of BJP to implementation of Mandal Commission, which was a major step towards social justice. In response, BJP did not oppose it for electoral calculations but instead intensified their Ram Temple campaign. The way BJP is floating the identity issues and derailing the path of social justice is highly despicable. At the same time through various manoeuvres it has also succeeded in turning a section of deprived youth as its foot soldiers who dance in front of mosques with naked swords.

On the top of that it is Rahul Gandhi of Congress who brought to fore the implementation of the Constitution as the major path for social and economic justice. Putting the blame on the plight of Dalits/OBC and neglect of Babasaheb by Congress is like putting the truth on its head! At the same time it is putting the blame of one’s own doings on others.

Disclaimer: The views expressed here are the author’s personal views, and do not necessarily represent the views of Sabrangindia.

The post Standing Truth on its Head: Ambedkar and BJP agenda appeared first on SabrangIndia.

This Statement has been issued by Madhav Deshpande with 40 plus years of experience in the field of Computer Science and its Applications and Architecture of Unique Software apart from being a consultant to the Obama administration, Prof Harish Karnick, Retd. Prof. Dept. of Comp. Sc. and Engg., IIT, Kanpur, Kaushik Majumdar, Professor Indian Statistical Institute, Sarbendu Guha, Principal Product Engineer, Digital Infrastructure For India.

Last week, April 11, US Congresswoman, Tulsi Gabbard, also Director, US National Intelligence clearly and publicly stated that, she had told a Cabinet Meeting in her country that “her office has solid evidence of massive security flaws in the EVMs enabling hackers to manipulate and flip votes,” and was therefore demanding a return to paper ballots. Fast on the heels of this much publicised statement, the Election Commission of India (ECI) that has –of late been questioned on the vulnerability of aspects of the Electronic Voting System (EVS)—made what is being viewed a far-reaching statement that Indian EVMs not connected to Internet, Wi-Fi, says Election Commission amid Tulsi Gabbard’s comments.

The statement now issued by experts, states that “at the outset we would like to state that it is shocking that the ECI responds so promptly to an official of a foreign government, even as it is obdurate and non-responsive to legitimate queries by citizens, experts and the political opposition.” Elaborating further, this team of experts enumerates, in the statement on why it “strongly disagrees” with the ECI for the following reasons:

“Manipulation of an Electronic Voting Machine (EVM) is the set of actions to make the EVM perform in the way it is not supposed to behave. Such manipulation can be effected by providing additional data to the Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) using the Symbol Loading Unit (SLU). The SLU acquires its data when connected to the ECI website after the candidate list is finalized, which only a few days before the voting day.

“While it is very difficult to alter the program instruction set in the one-time write locked EEPROM, it is entirely possible to:

1. Push a Trojan software through the USB drive when it is connected to the VVPAT for purpose of uploading the candidate list. Such Trojan software will modify the firmware as if the firmware is being “updated”. The “updated” firmware will then perform manipulated malfunction to deliver manipulated results. It is important to note that ISP (In-System Programming) is an established way of updating the firmware of a microcontroller and as such is a ubiquitously accessible technique
2. Supply additional data to the already burnt-in program. The program existing in the VVPAT must be already written to recognise the additional data and decision making branches already must exist in the program code to deliver manipulated functionality

The experts, in this statement, that the earlier version of EVMs used before 2014 Lok Sabha elections were intended to be stand-alone and therefore not open to manipulation. This earlier EVS system did not have the VVPAT unit nor the Symbol Loading Unit (SLU) and moreover, did not need data (mapping candidate/party symbol to buttons of the Ballot Unit-BU) nor any additional instruction set to be loaded into EVM-VVPAT through a physical communication port. However this is not the case since and therefore, “the ECI’s bald statement, without answering concerns by Indian Computer Science experts does not inspire confidence”.

The other issue raised by these experts is that it should be a matter of concern for citizens that “the ECI has never demonstrated publicly and opened any operational CU, BU, and VVPAT in public presence. The ECI has never allowed any open door controlled testing of any working EVM in the presence of independent experts or voters. Moreover, these EVMs are not certified by any third party, nor any neutral experts committee that can state that ‘the EVM does not emit or receive any Radio Frequency (RF) signal.’’

Demands made by this team of experts:

Indian citizens should be allowed to conduct non-invasive and non-destructive tests on the powered-on, working EVMs at three locations in every state to satisfy themselves that EVM does not respond to or create any RF communication channel. These EVMs must not be from the spare EVMs stored, but must be from those that were actually used in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections.

In addition, they demand that the ECI publishes the steps and processes followed to establish and prove data integrity across the entire Electronic Voting System or Electronic Election System: that is the ECI publishes every step taken and the process at every step to establish and prove data integrity across the BU, CU (including the procedure to establish that both copies of electronic vote stored in the CU are identical), VVPAT (the data exchange between the VVPAT and the CU) and finally the values received by the counting unit (as applicable).

Under the constitutional obligation under Article 324-326 of the Constitution, the ECI must publish the detailed protocol it follows on the day of voting and the day of counting to establish that none of the above data has been changed. “The ECI’s blanket statements that Indian EVMs are not connected to internet wirelessly /wired fashion (read external radio wave or microwave communication signals) without giving out details of the circuits is tantamount to official propaganda bereft of scientific or rational enquiry,” reads the statement.

Finally, the Symbol-Loading Unit (SLU) of the VVPAT unit is connected to the ECI’s website for a brief while – after the list of candidates and their symbols are finalised and before the date of polling. All details about the final list of candidates including their symbols are downloaded from the ECI’s website on to the VVPAT unit. There is an electronic security loophole here because it is possible to introduce a vote-stealing Trojan into the ECI’s website, with or without the ECI’s knowledge, and this Trojan can get downloaded into the VVPAT unit.

The vote-stealing Trojan can be so programmed as to get activated after a certain number of votes (say, 200 votes) have been cast, and to convert, say, every 5th vote cast thereafter to a vote for a certain political party, when the signal is transmitted from the VVPAT unit to the Control unit. The vote-stealing Trojan can also be programmed to self-destruct, say, 6 hours after the last vote has been cast, leaving no trace of its nefarious deed. The Trojan can be programmed to act only on a certain date and that too after a certain time of the day.

Further, the Trojan or the original program itself can be written to respond to additional data uploaded via SLU. Such program will (or can) display different behaviour in every constituency, based on the data uploaded from the SLU. Therefore, experts have demanded that from each constituency, at least 3 randomly selected SLUs, (selected by public), should be given to open scrutiny by a committee of experts. This scrutiny should be carried out in full public view.

On April 11, 2025 a group of over 80 Citizens including Experts had submitted a Detailed Memorandum to the Election Commission of India. This can be read here.

Related:

Memo to ECI: Make Voter’s Form 17Cs list accessible on Commission website, clean up existing, technologically messy EVS structure, say citizens

Vote for Democracy (VFD) releases report on the conduct of General Election 2024

SEC M’tra agrees to make weekly reports to CEC public, assures action on hate speech, urges every citizen to become alert voter: Vote For…

The post Computer science experts question ECI’s rebuttal of Tulsi Gabbard on Indian EVMs appeared first on SabrangIndia.

This disturbing incident has left Bengal stunned. Following the loss of their jobs due to the Supreme Court’s 3 April verdict, which annulled the recruitment of several secondary, higher secondary and non-teaching staff due to alleged corruption, the protesters were hoping to peacefully demand justice. Instead, they were met with force. The violence left several men and women grievously injured and mentally devastated.

In Bankura, some teachers, overwhelmed by despair, attempted self-immolation by pouring kerosene over themselves in front of the police. This journalist was present at the time and bore witness to the chaos.

Moumita Bhattacharjee, an assistant teacher from Paharpur High School in Barjora Block, expressed her anguish: “Bengal witnessed police brutality against us on 9 April. How are we supposed to live with dignity now?”

Santanu Maity, a dismissed teacher injured in the incident, said: “We did not come here to create unrest. We only demanded that the government immediately publish the list of eligible and ineligible candidates. Our protest was peaceful. The police are not our enemies, but under the orders of the ruling TMC-led government, they beat us indiscriminately. We condemn this inhuman act.”

Many teachers and non-teaching staff, both men and women, claim they have become victims of widespread corruption in the state’s recruitment process. They believe the government is now using force to cover up the scandal. Several of them also allege that not only leaders from the ruling TMC but also some BJP leaders also are under CBI investigation in connection with the same.

The teachers’ statements have been widely shared on social media, evoking public sympathy and rage.”First, we were sacked by a Supreme Court order that deemed the recruitment process beyond redemption. Then, despite assurances from the Chief Minister, we received no concrete resolution. And now, we’ve been kicked, punched, and hit with batons on the streets for demanding justice,” said Purobi Sarkar, a non-teaching staff member of Krittibas High School in Bishnupur, Bankura.

Responding to the backlash, Kolkata Police Commissioner Manoj Verma acknowledged the issue, calling the police action “undesirable” and urged protestors not to take the law into their own hands. However, the official police statement attempted to justify the action, stating that “light force was used to bring the situation under control.”

This justification has failed to pacify the teaching community.”How can the police beat up teachers with batons? Are we criminals? Goons? An attack on one teacher is an attack on the entire fraternity. The police must apologise immediately,” said Sudipta Gupta, assistant teacher from Purba Bardhaman and President of the All Bengal Teachers’ Association (ABTA).

On 10 April, teachers across the state staged marches and demonstrations, condemning police brutality and demanding that eligible teachers and non-teaching staff be reinstated, and that the government publish the list of ineligible candidates without delay.

“Go to work—who has forbidden you? Anyone can offer volunteer service,” said Mamata Banerjee, the Chief Minister of West Bengal, while addressing over 10,000 dismissed and aggrieved teachers and non-teaching staff at the Netaji Indoor Stadium in Kolkata on the afternoon of 7 April.

Her remarks followed the 3 April Supreme Court verdict that upheld a previous Calcutta High Court order, directing the dismissal of approximately 25,752 secondary and higher secondary teachers and non-teaching staff appointed to government-aided schools in West Bengal through the West Bengal School Service Commission (WBSSC) in the 2016 recruitment cycle. As per the CBI’s initial findings, over 5,000 individuals were allegedly appointed through corrupt practices.

Despite these serious allegations, the Chief Minister offered a vague assurance, stating: “I will look after everyone. First, let me identify and secure the jobs of the eligible candidates. Then I will revisit the cases of ineligible ones. Let us examine the evidence—who is truly ineligible? My top priority now is to protect the eligible candidates.”

This meeting was officially convened to address only the eligible candidates. Entry passes were issued for this purpose. However, chaos erupted outside the stadium even before the meeting began. It was alleged that these entry passes were being sold, allowing even some of the ineligible candidates to enter. Additionally, several individuals reportedly not affiliated with teaching—including TMC loyalists from unrelated professions—were spotted inside the venue.

After the meeting concluded, many teachers and staff expressed disappointment. There was no clear resolution or action plan announced. Instead, the Chief Minister advised them to provide “volunteer service,” a suggestion that left the attendees disillusioned.

“We expected a solution but were instead advised to work like civic volunteers. We have effectively been reduced to ‘civic teachers.’ This is humiliating,” said Chinmoy Mandal, a spokesperson of the Deserving Teachers’ Rights Forum.

Bapina Ballav, an assistant teacher at Brahmandiha High School in Taldangra Block, Bankura, shared: “Most of us are the sole earners in our families. Who will bear our household expenses?”

RupaliPatra, an assistant teacher at Jajigram S.A. High School in Birbhum, added: “We are not here to offer volunteer services—we are qualified teachers.”

Post-Meeting Betrayal

Two jobless teachers, Dhritish Mandal and Mehboob Mandal, were present on stage during the 7 April meeting, where they delivered speeches in front of the Chief Minister. Mamata Banerjee publicly responded to their words, offering hope to thousands. Yet, just two days later, both teachers became targets of police action. Dhritish Mandal was beaten and hospitalized, while Mehboob Mandal, a leader of Jogyo Shikshak Shikshika Adhikar Manch, was arrested.

“We never expected this form of governance,” they said in despair.

“At the Netaji Indoor Stadium, the Chief Minister promised to stand by us. But now, the police are being used to suppress our rightful demands,” added Rupa Banerjee, a teacher at Government Colony Girls’ High School, Kulti, Paschim Bardhaman district.

Many educators across the state echoed similar sentiments: “If the state government had taken timely action, we wouldn’t be in this position today. Why is the Chief Minister now defending the undeserving? Why are those who paid bribes and those who accepted them still free?”

On 10 April, the dismissed teachers and non-teaching staff returned to the streets in protest—this time bearing both emotional scars and physical injuries. One image, widely circulated on social media, showed a teacher, Amit RanjanBhunya, being kicked by a police officer. He joined the protest march in Kolkata, visibly shaken but resolute.

“Before kicking me, a police officer tried to slap me. Are we criminals? Rapists? Murderers? The ones who committed recruitment fraud are walking free, while we—the victims—are being beaten and humiliated,” Bhunya said.

Several terminated teachers and non-teaching staff have demanded that the government release the Optical Mark Recognition (OMR) sheets of all candidates who were recruited through the 2016 WBSSC examination. “If the OMR sheets are published, the truth will be clear to all,” they asserted.

Sukumar Pain, General Secretary of the ABTA, stated: “The Supreme Court has repeatedly asked the WBSSC to submit the list of eligible and ineligible candidates along with their OMR sheets or mirror images. However, throughout the legal proceedings, the WBSSC failed to present the required documents. This led the Supreme Court to lose confidence in the state’s handling of the case, exposing serious flaws in the recruitment process.”

Lack of Clarity from the Government and School Authorities

Despite over a week having passed since the Supreme Court’s verdict, the state government has not issued any directives concerning the sacked teachers and non-teaching staff. District Inspectors of Schools and school headmasters/headmistresses are also in the dark.

“We are unable to go to school anymore. Parents and students look at us with suspicion, assuming that we all secured jobs through corruption. We feel humiliated. We cannot sign the attendance register, and the school authorities are not providing any clear explanation. The pain and uncertainty we are facing are indescribable,” said Manasi Bhoumik, an assistant teacher at Dhabani School, and Jiten Santra of Saspur High School, Bankura.

Financial Distress among Sacked Staff

Many terminated staff reported that they had taken loans to build or purchase homes and vehicles. With their salaries discontinued, they are now unable to pay their EMIs. They also face challenges in covering the cost of medical treatments for themselves or their family members.

Pijush Kanti Bera, the District Inspector of Schools in Bankura, confirmed, “We have not yet received any instructions regarding the sacked teachers.”

Uttam Khan, Headmaster of Holudkanali High School in Ranibandh, Bankura, stated, “Salaries are typically processed through the Integrated Online Salary Management System (IOSMS) by the 10th of every month. However, as of 11 April, no salary requisitions have been uploaded for the current month.” Many sacked teachers have confirmed receiving their salaries for March, but are unsure about payments for April.

Impact on Bengal’s Education System

After the Trinamool Congress came to power in 2011, the first WBSSC recruitment examination was conducted in 2016. During the Left Front regime (1998–2010), recruitment was held annually through the WBSSC.

According to the Right to Education Act (2009), the ideal student-teacher ratio is 30:1. In 2008, under the Left Front, the ratio stood at 35:1. However, the current ratio has worsened to 70:1, said Sudipta Gupta, President of the West Bengal State Committee of ABTA.

He further revealed that more than 3,98,000 teaching and non-teaching positions remain vacant across the state—from primary to higher secondary levels.

Both Gupta and Sukumar Pain warned that the situation will deteriorate further following the court’s dismissal of nearly 26,000 teachers and staff. “In many schools, the number of teachers is already below the minimum requirement. Schools in Jangalmahal—especially in Ranibandh (Bankura), Ayodhya Hills (Purulia), and Belpahari (Jhargram)—have either shut down or are on the verge of closure due to staff shortages.”

Last month, the Bankura district administration ordered the closure of seven Madhyamik Shiksha Kendras (MSKs) due to lack of teachers. In 14 years, the TMC government failed to appoint a single teacher to MSKs, leading to a sharp decline in student enrollment.

Following the verdict, several schools across Ranibandh, Sarenga, Bishnupur, Saltora, Raipur (Bankura), Joypur, Bandowan, Jhalda (Purulia), and Nayagram, Lodhasuli, Lalgarh (Jhargram) are likely to shut down higher secondary courses.

“It’s not just a few schools—numerous institutions across the state are at risk of becoming teacher-less,” warned Pain and Gupta. “Where will the students go? Will their families be able to afford private education? Many will be forced to drop out and migrate in search of work.”

Bengal already ranks second nationally in school dropout rates and incidents of child marriage. Teachers and parents fear these numbers will only rise in the aftermath of the mass terminations.

All picture by Madhu Sudan Chatterjee

Courtesy: Newsclick

The post Torn Pages, Broken Bones – The Violent Suppression of Teachers’ Voices appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Today India has turned into a grazing field for all manner of religious bigots led by the Hindutva “gang”. Even the Prime Minister himself, who has taken oath to uphold democratic-secular polity today identifies himself as a Hindu nationalist, as if to say, he is in office to serve the cause of Hindutva. Leaders belonging to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS)-Bharatiya Janata Party (BJO) have openly declared their commitment to turn India into a Hindu state where the Brahmanical Codes of Manu which reduce women and Dalits to sub-human status would be the law of the land. For them India is the Fatherland and Holyland for “Hindus only”. According to Hindutva interpretation, only those with Aryan blood, who subscribe to Caste, are of a fair colour and treat Sanskrit as a holy language can/may be considered Hindu. So, by this definition, Muslims and Christians are out as are those from faiths such as Sikhism, Buddhism and Jainism –if they believe they are independent faiths—even these can survive only as sects of Hinduism.

However, this was not the scenario 105 years back when the British rulers perpetrated one of the worst massacres in the history of the modern world. People of India shackled by the most powerful imperialist power of the world, Britain, presented a heroic and united resistance. This is not hearsay but can be proven through contemporary official British documents. These vital documents were part of the British archives which became National Archives of India after Independence. For unknown reasons these documents were made public to mark the 75^th commemoration of the Jallianwala Bagh massacre as part of an exhibition titled, ‘Archives and Jallianwala Bagh: A Saga of Independence‘.

Most of these documents, concerning the most volatile period of the Indian freedom struggle, not only showed the Britishers brazenly flouting democratic norms, indulging in barbarism while suppressing mass discontent but also brought to light hitherto hidden aspects of Indian people’s united heroic fight-back. The documents exhibited were both saddening and amazing. It was immensely saddening to watch the ‘civilized’ British indulging in acts of unprecedented violence against Indians and amazing way the people of India, collectively and individually, belonging to different faiths and Castes, rose in revolt.

The saddest part has been that this treasure of visual and written narratives was put back inside the dark rooms of the National Archives, never exhibited again. It was not taken out even at the centenary commemoration of the Massacre. It seems the rulers and managers do not want that coming generations should know about the barbarism of the colonial masters as well as united great heroic resistance of the people of India.

Barbarism of the British

Photographs in the show recorded heart-wrenching scenes of the barbarity of the British rulers in coping with the unrest in Punjab during 1914-1919. Punjabis, specially, Sikhs, tied to wooden/metal frames being flogged or forced to crawl on their bellies on public roads, their naked body in full view of the public, filling all with shame and anger. Punjab had become a military camp. The rulers aiming at crushing the self-esteem of patriotic Indians, forced Indians to salute every Englishman/woman, not to ride cycles and forcibly pulling at their moustaches and beards.

There is no doubt that such repression produced revolutionaries like Bhagat Singh and his comrades.

The records narrated the story of newly married Rattan Devi had spent the night of April 13-14, 1919 by the side of her husband. Only, he was dead, lying amid the hundreds strewn all over the Bagh. The place was overflowing with blood, as she narrates in the chilling statement on display, and after removing the body of her husband to a comparatively dry place,

“I sat by his side… I found a bamboo stick which I kept in my hand to keep off dogs. I saw three men writhing in great pain and an injured boy, about 12 years old, entreated me not to leave the place, I told him that I would not go anywhere leaving the dead body of my husband. I asked him if he was feeling cold, if he wanted a wrapper, I could spread it over him. He asked for water, but that could not be produced at that place…”

This exhibition exhibited a stunning account from a Hindi daily, ‘Abhiuday’ (October 4, 1919) which narrated the story and photographs of two friends, 18-year-old Abdul Karim and 17-year-old Ramchander who came together from Lahore to attend meeting at the Bagh, held to protest against Rowlatt Act. Both were martyred here. After the martyrdom of Abdul Karim when results of Punjab University [Lahore] came out it was found that he had passed the matriculate examination in with a first class. 

Air bombardments

But what really startles viewers is the hitherto unknown fact that the British government had, during the disturbances in 1919, used Royal Air force planes to bombard the interiors of the Punjab.

A top-secret document-again, made public for the first time–was a Task 14.4.1919. It reads thus:

“Aero plane No. 4491 Type BO E-2.E. Squadron No. 31. Pilot captain Carbery. Hour at which flight started from Lahore: 14.20. Hour at which flight concluded: 16.45. [The details] 15.20: village two miles north west of Gujranwala (now in Pakistan)-dropped three bombs on party of natives 150 strong…50 rounds machine gun fired into village. 15.30 Village one mile south of above-party of 50 natives outside village. Two bombs dropped…25 rounds machine gun fired into village. About 200 natives in fields near a building. One bomb dropped, 30 rounds MG fired into party who took over in house. 15.40: Gujranwala-Bombs dropped on large crowd of natives in south of town. 100 rounds MG fired into parties of natives in the streets. At 15.50 when machine left for Lahore no natives could be seen on the streets…”

Another highlight of the exhibition was the hand-written original of Rabindra Nath Tagore’s letter to the viceroy renouncing his Knighthood to protest the repression in Punjab.

Tagore wrote:

“The time has come when badges of honors make our shame glaring in their incongruous context of humiliation, and I for me part wish to stand, shorn of all special distinctions, by the side of those of my countrymen who, for their so-called insignificance, are liable to suffer degradation not fit for human beings.”

Another heartening document was the original facsimile of the resignation letter dated March 28, 1919 of MA Jinnah from the Imperial Legislative Assembly in protest against Jallianwala Bagh massacre and repression in Punjab. His letter openly blamed the British rulers for atrocities and passing Rowlatt Act. He wrote:

“A government that passes or sanctions such a law [Rowlatt Act] in times of peace forfeits its claim to be called a civilized government.”

It is tragic that Jinnah later joined (or even led) the bandwagon of two-nation protagonists.

However, the level of anger that the Rowlatt Act generated in every part of India could be gauged by the violent resistance in the Gujarat region area generally considered to be not militant. From the documents displayed we see that, in Gujarat within the space of two days (11-12 April, 1919) protesting mobs burnt — in Ahmedabad and surrounding district offices of the Collector, the city judge, the flag staff, the Jail, the main telegraph centre and 26 police stations.

Resistance literature banned

On display were the copies of voluminous literature, poetry, prose and plays which were written and circulated against the British barbarism, but banned by colonial rulers.

This treasure again depicted the united and all-pervasive character of the resistance. It is not possible to discuss even a fraction of it while also noting that the exhibition must have been able to display only a fraction of the banned literature available in the Archives. Some of the important banned books were; Bagh-e-Jallian, a lyrical play in Hindi authored by Ram Saroop Gupta, Jallianwala Bagh, a long poem in Gurmukhi penned by Firoziddin Sharf, Punjab kaa Hatyakand, a full-fledged play in Urdu and Jallianwala Bagh, a long Gujarati play. The last two were by unknown authors in order to avoid identification by the repressive regime.    

Some of the representative lyrics read:

जुल्म डायर ने किया था रंग जमाने के लिए

हिंद वालों को मुसीबत में फंसाने के लिए।

[zulm Dyer ne kiya thaa rang jamane ke liye/Hind walon ko museebat maen phansane ke liye.]

खून से पंजाब के डायर की लिखी डायरी

रुबरु रख दी मेरी तबियत जलाने के लिए।

[khoon se Punjab ke Dyer kee likhee diary/roo-baroo rakh dee mere tabiyat jalane ke liye.]

बाग़े जलियां में शहीदों की बने गर यादगार

जायेंगे अशिके-वतन आंसू बहाने के लिए।

[Bagh-e-Jallian maen shahidon kee baney gar yaadgaar/jayenge aashiq-e-watan aansoo bahane ke liye.]

हम उजड़ते हैं तो उजड़ें, वतन आबाद रहे,

मर मिटे हैं हम के अब वतन आजाद रहे।

वतन की खातिर जो अपनी जान दिया करते हैं,

मरते नहीं हैं वो हमेशा के लिए जिया करते हैं।

[hum ujadte haen tau ujdaen, watan aabaad rahe/murr mitey haen hum ke aab watan azad rahe.

Watan kee khatir jo apnee jaan diya karte haen/marte naheen haen who hamesha ke liye jiya karte haen.]

British rulers overlooked martyrs; Independent India too remained/remains indifferent

These documents make shocking revelations about the reprehensible attitude of the foreign rules towards victims of its own perpetrated massacre at Jallianwala Bagh.

In June 1919 the home department came out with the statement which described the British causalities but kept mum on the count of Indian deaths raising an idiotic argument that whatever number would be made public by the British government would not be acceptable to Indians!

However, when the government repression in Punjab drew world-wide condemnation, the British government appointed a commission of enquiry for investigating violence in Punjab on October 14, 1919, headed by a jurist from Scotland, Hunter. This commission came to be known as Hunter Commission. It came to the conclusion that at Jallianwala Bagh 381 Indians, including males, females and even a 6-month-old baby were killed by the General Dyer’s force. This count was highly disputable as the unidentified bodies (of the people who were not Punjabis but were in Amritsar as it was a famous business/religious centre where also people from other states constantly came in search of livelihood) were disposed off.

Shockingly, even after Independence of the country nothing changed for the surviving members of the martyrs and grievously injured. They remained discarded. In India where persons who were behind bars during Emergency (1975-77) for less than a month, receive INR 10000 and less than 2 months INR 20000 as family pension, the demand of the families of the martyrs that at least they should be entitled for pension and railway concession have not been accepted.

Disgusted, ‘the Jallianwala Bagh Shaheed Parivar Samiti’ wrote a letter to the British PM that England should compensate their loss! It only shows the helplessness and hopelessness of the families of the martyrs but surely shamelessness and spinelessness of the Indian rulers.

Unsung martyr: Udham Singh (adopted the name Mohammad Singh Azad) who avenged the Jallianwala Bagh massacre

This exhibition displayed a telegram that went out on April 16 1940. That was the date of Udham Singh’s trial in London. It read:

“We understand that during the trial the accused intends to pose as a martyr and indulge in heroics. We would be glad if steps are taken to secure that press in England do not report substantially and that Reuters only carry as brief and unsensational a summary as possible.”

This telegram from the Governor General in New Delhi to the Secretary of State for India clearly showed that the Britishers, glorified as great believers in the fair-play and rule of law, germane to democracy, were masters in manipulating the fourth estate.

For more than 47 years this telegram remained a secret document in the British intelligence files and kept hidden by the free India’s governments also till 1994. There were other amazing documents displayed in 1994 which pieced together the complete story of Udham Singh which was so far known only in titbits. Explaining the reasons for killing of Michael O’Dyer at Caxton Hall, London on March 13, 1940 to the court in London he stated:

“I did it because… he deserved it. He… wanted to crush the spirit of my people, so I have crushed him. For full 21 years I have been trying to wreak vengeance. I am happy I have done the job. I am not scared of death. I am dying for my country.”

Udham Singh continued,

“I do not care about sentence of death…I am dying for a purpose… We are suffering from the British Empire…I am proud to die to free my native land and I hope that when I am gone…in my place will come thousands of my countrymen to drive you dirty dogs out; to free my country…you will be cleansed out of India. And your British imperialism will be smashed…I have nothing against the English people at all…I have great sympathy with the workers of England. I am against the imperialist government. DOWN WITH BRITISH IMPERIALISM!”

These words of Mohammad Singh Azad rang out through a London courtroom on March 13, 1940 where he was produced immediately after killing Michael O’Dyer, the Lt. Governor of Punjab, the architect of the Jallianwala massacre who order the crackdown. Mohammad Singh Azad was none other than Udham Singh. Born in a poor Sikh family and brought up in an orphanage.

Then, Udham Singh, a 20-year-old young man had vowed not to rest until he had avenged the killing of the innocent hundreds. He achieved his target 21 years later. And ‘Mohammad Singh Azad’-the name he adopted-underscored the fact that the overthrow of the British rule was impossible without the unity of the Hindu, Muslim and Sikh populace of the land.

It was 85 years ago (July 31, 1940) Udham Singh died on the gallows in the Pentonville prison of London. Through these documents– so far prohibited –we are also informed that, before reaching London he had been to Mesopotamia, Kenya, Uganda, USA and USSR, all in quest of Indian revolutionaries and ammunition. It was on reaching the English shores that he took on the alias of Mohammad Singh Azad. He even attempted to organize fellow English laborers.

Udham Singh’s choice of alias, the name as Mohammad Singh Azad was not a coincidence. He chose it to underline the cardinal fact that India could be liberated only by a collective and united effort of all Indians. There is a reasonable apprehension that if any person by the name of Udham Singh returns to India with that name today, he may be lynched!

The list of martyrs only underlines the multi-religious and multi-caste character of the anti-British freedom struggle

The Hunter Commission list of martyrs makes it clear that the protest meeting at Jallianwala Bagh held in protest against Rowlatt Act and arrests of renowned Congress leaders, Dr Satyapal and Saifuddin Kitchlew (whose son Toufique Kitchlew, an author died in penury) was attended by men, youth, women of all religions and castes.

According to the list there were 381 died due to the firing of the British army under the command of Brigadier General Reginald Dyre. His invading force mainly consisted of Nepali Gurkhas, Baluch Regiment (manned by Punjabi Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs), the 54th Sikhs and the 59th Sind Rifles soldiers making it clear that the British ruled India with the help of Indian stooges.

Out of 381 martyrs, 222 were Hindus, 96 Sikhs and 63 Muslims. Another significant aspect of this gathering, which reflected in the list of martyrs too, was that if on the one hand businessmen, lawyers, journalists, literary persons, government employees, intellectuals were present, on the other hand large number of audiences belonged to professions like ironsmiths, weavers, barbers, helpers, daily-wage earner, carpet knitters, masons, cobblers and safai karamcharis. Many women were also present. A notable presence there was that of Udham Singh.

This reality once again underlines the fact that before the appearance of protagonists of both Hindu and Muslim separatism, the Indian freedom struggle was a united movement over-riding religious and caste divisions. It was a genuinely anti-colonial movement for an inclusive India.

It is also no coincidence, and a tragedy in itself that, such narratives of joint struggle and joint martyrdom of Indian people lie hidden in the dark rooms of the National Archives. If only these are made accessible to the younger generation, they might quell many of the communal, Casteist and sectarian agendas running in the country.

On each anniversary of Jallianwala Bagh massacre the hypocrisy of the present Indian rulers has to be seen and believed. While this lot –as a token gesture –condemn the brutal repression by the British government and passage of the draconian Rowlatt Act, nobody questions them about far worst draconian laws like DIR, MISA, TADA, POTA, UAPA, AFSPA and several others enacted over decades. Such weaponised laws have put India under the iron heel of a repressive state which even the British rulers did not attempt or try to do.

 (For some of the author’s s writings in English, Hindi, Marathi, Malayalam, Kannada, Bengali, Punjabi, Urdu, Gujarati and video interviews/debates see the following link: http://du-in.academia.edu/ShamsulIslam)

Disclaimer: The views expressed here are the author’s personal views, and do not necessarily represent the views of Sabrangindia.

The post 106th Anniversary of Jallianwala Bagh Massacre: Documents on Jallianwala Bagh massacre and people’s resistance buried at the National Archives appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Brutal: A painting of British soldiers shooting civilians in Amritsar on April 13, 1919

Jallianwala Bagh

One of the worst political crimes of the twentieth century was committed in Punjab during 1919. Popular resentment had been accumulating in Punjab since the beginning of the War (World War I), mainly due to the ruthless drive – by the British — for recruiting soldiers and forced contribution to the war fund. Gandhiji’s call for a country-wide hartal to protest against the Black Acts received a tremendous response from Punjab on March 30 and again on April 6.

The agitated mood of the people and Hindu-Muslim solidarity demonstrated on the hartal (strike) days and on April 9 celebration of the Ramnavami festival made the Lt.Governor Michael O’Dwyer’s administration panicky.

Gandhiji’s entry into Punjab was banned: two popular leaders of Amritsar. Kitchlew and Satya Pal, were arrested. These provocations led to hartals and mass demonstrations in Lahore, Kasur, Gujranwala and Amritsar.

In Amritsar, the police firing on demonstrators provoked some of them to commit acts of violence. The next day the city was handed over to Brigadier-General Dyer. Dyer began his regime through indiscriminate arrests and ban on meeting and gatherings.

On April 13-the day of Baisakhi festival – a meeting was called in the afternoon at the Jallianwala Bagh a ground enclosed on all sides. Thousands of people, many of whom had come from surrounding villages to the fairs in Amritsar and were unaware of the ban order, gathered in the meeting.

Suddenly Dyer appeared there with troops and without any warning to the people, ordered firing on the completely peaceful and defenceless crowd. The fusillade continued till Dyer’s ammunition ran out. Atleast about a thousand people, if not more, are estimated to have been killed. This cold-blooded carnage, Dyer admitted later, was perpetrated ‘to strike into the whole of Punjab’. The massacre stunned the people and became a turning point in the history of India’s struggle for freedom.

Rabindranath Tagore’s Wrote a Strong Letter of Protest to the Viceroy, dated May 31, 1919, renouncing his Knighthood
“….The disproportionate severity of the punishments inflicted upon the unfortunate people and the methods of carrying them out, we are convinced, are without parallel in the history of civilised governments…. The accounts of insults and sufferings undergone by our brothers in the Punjab have trickled through the gagged silence, reaching every corner of India and the universal agony of indignation roused in the hearts of our people has been ignored by our rulers,-possibly congratulating themselves for what they imagine as salutary lessons….the very least that I can do for my country is to take all consequences upon myself in giving voice to the protest of the millions of my countrymen, surprised into a dumb anguish of terror. The time has come when the badges of honour make our shame glaring in their incongruous context of humiliation, and I for my part wish to stand shorn of all special distinctions, by the side of those of my countrymen, who, for their so called insignificance, are liable to suffer a degradation not fit for human beings….”

The Hunter Committee

The Hunter Committee was appointed by the British government. Halfway through its proceedings, the Hunter Committee had also suffered the setback of being boycotted by Indian nationalists, represented by the Congress, because of the government’s refusal to release Punjab leaders on bail.

Of the eight, the Hunter Committee had three Indian members. The conduct of the Indian members is a study in principled independence and courage.

Example of the Cross Examination of General Dyer

Brigadier Reginald Dyer was in charge of British troops and ordered the massacre in Amritsar

Chimanlal Setalvad: ‘You took two armoured cars with you?’
Dyer: ‘Yes.’

Chimanlal Setalvad: ‘Those cars had machine guns?’
Dyer: ‘Yes.’

Chimanlal Setalvad: ‘And when you took them you meant to use the machine guns against the crowd, did you?”
Dyer: ‘If necessary. If the necessity arose, and I was attacked, or anything else like that, I presume I would have used them.’

Chimanlal Setalvad: ‘When you arrived there you were not able to take the armoured cars in because the passage was too narrow?’
Dyer: ‘Yes.’

Chimanlal Setalvad: ‘Supposing the passage was sufficient to allow the armoured cars to go in, would you have opened fire with the machine guns?’
Dyer: ‘I think, probably, yes.’

Chimanlal Setalvad: ‘In that case the casualties would have been very much higher?’
Dyer: ‘Yes.’

Chimanlal Setalvad: ‘And you did not open fire with the machine guns simply by the accident of the armoured cars not being able to get in?’
Dyer: ‘I have answered you. I have said that if they had been there the probability is that I would have opened fire with them.’

Chimanlal Setalvad: ‘With the machine guns straight?’
Dyer: ‘With the machine guns.’

Chimanlal Setalvad: ‘I take it that your idea in taking that action was to strike terror?’
Dyer: ‘Call it what you like. I was going to punish them. My idea from the military point of view was to make a wide impression.’

Chimanlal Setalvad: ‘To strike terror not only in the city of Amritsar, but throughout the Punjab?’
Dyer: ‘Yes, throughout the Punjab. I wanted to reduce their morale; the morale of the rebels.’

Chimanlal Setalvad: ‘Did it occur to you that by adopting this method of “frightfulness” –excuse the term-you were really doing a great disservice to the British Raj by driving discontent deep?’
Dyer: ‘I did not like the idea of doing it, but I also realized that it was the only means of saving life and that any reasonable man with justice in his mind would realize that I had done the right thing; it was a merciful though horrible act and they ought to be thankful to me for doing it. I thought I would be doing a jolly lot of good and they would realize that they were not to be wicked.’

This erudite exchange on the pointed killings ordered by Dyer on April 13, 1919 – the Jallianwala Bagh massacre– took place during the hearings of the Hunter Committee. The hearings took place in Lahore on November 19, 1919. These questions were part of a detailed and rigorous cross examination of General Dyer. It was Sir Chimanlal Setalvad, a lawyer from Bharuch, Gujarat based in Bombay who had conducted this particular cross-examnation.

The bullet marks are still visible

Setalvad’s cross examination followed Lord Hunter’s and that of one more British member. Dyer had already admitted to Lord Hunter that although ‘a good many’ in the crowd might not have heard of his ban on the public meeting, he had ordered the firing at Jallianwala Bagh without giving any warning. He went further when he said before the Committee that, although he could have ‘dispersed them perhaps even without firing’. He felt it was his ‘duty to go on firing until (the crowd) dispersed’.

An eight-member committee headed by Lord William Hunter, former solicitor general in Scotland constituted the Inquiry Committee. Apart from Setalvad, then Vice Chancellor, Bombay University,  two other Indians were part of the Committee. Sir Chimanlal Setalvad, Pandit Jagat Narain, Member of the Legislative Council of the Lt. Governor of U.P. and Sultan Ahmed Khan, Member for Appeals, Gwalior State.

Lord Hunter, Justice Rankin and WF Rice, Add. Secretary to the Government of India, Home Department, Major-General Sir George Barrow, Commanding the Peshawar Dn and Smith, Member of the Legislative Council of the Lt. Governor of U.P. were the members. The questioning was done, in turn, by eight members.

Following up on the admissions by Dyer to the two British members before him, Setalvad probed Dyer on the two armoured cars that he had been forced to leave out. Dyer’s callousness stood exposed: even after the firing had left almost 400 dead and many more injured, when asked by Setalvad if he had taken any measures for the relief of the wounded, Dyer replied, ‘‘No, certainly not. It was not my job. But the hospitals were open and the medical officers were there. The wounded only had to apply for help.’

All three Indian members of the Hunter Committee displayed a remarkable degree of independence faced with sharp differences with the British members. The differences arose over the recording of conclusions.

The Hunter Committee ended up giving two reports – the majority report by the five British members and the minority report by three Indian members.

Both reports indicted Dyer, in no uncertain terms. The differences were in in the degree of condemnation, in so far as Jallianwala Bagh was concerned.

The report by the British members’ report condemned the action by Dyer on two counts: that he opened fire without warning and that he went on firing after the crowd had ‘begun to disperse’. Though his intention to create a moral effect throughout Punjab was ‘a mistaken conception of duty’, the British members thought it was ‘distinctly improbable that the crowd would have dispersed without being fired on’. Even the British members of the Hunter Committee, rejected the official stand that Dyer’s action had ‘saved the situation in the Punjab and averted a rebellion on a scale similar to the (1857) mutiny’.

The minority report, drafted by Chimanlal Setalvad, on behalf of all the Indian members was not only more severe in general. It specifically condemned Dyer for ‘suggesting that he would have made use of machine guns if they could have been brought into action.’ Members expressed strong anguish at the fact that even after the crowd had begun to disperse, Dyer had continued the firing ‘until his ammunition was spent.’

Citing Dyer’s own admission in cross examination, the Indians disagreed with the opinion expressed by the British members of the Committee that the crowd was unlikely to have dispersed without the firing. In conclusion, the Indian members of the Hunter Committee described Dyer’s conduct ‘as inhuman and un-British and as having caused great disservice to British rule in India’.

Faced with both reports, the then Viceroy of India, Chelmsford conceded that Dyer ‘acted beyond the necessity of the case, beyond what any reasonable man could have thought to be necessary, and that he did not act with as much humanity as the case permitted’. Dyer had no option but to resign and return to England in disgrace.

Apologists for the Raj in Britain however, bought into Dyer’s claim that it was this bloody firing by Dyer that had saved the Raj in India. This not only reduced the punishment meted out to Dyer, he was also treated as some sort of a hero on his return.  In fact, the inquiry itself could only be instituted only after in indemnity law had been passed protecting Dyer and other recalcitrant officers from criminal liability.

Setalvad had been knighted by the British monarch, just a few months before the Jallianwala Bagh inquiry. He was then vice-chancellor of Bombay University. In his memoirs published in 1946, Recollections and Reflections, Setalvad disclosed that within the British and Indian members of the Hunter Committee had developed ‘a sharp cleavage of opinion’.

(Large portions of this article have relied upon excerpts from the autobiography of Sir Chimanlal Setalvad, Recollections and Reflections; Sir Chimanlal Setalvad was the great grandfather of Teesta Setalvad )

The post Bloodbath on Baisakhi: The Jallianwala Bagh Massacre, April 13, 1919 appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Supreme Court’s judgment went beyond a mere procedural rebuke by invoking its discretionary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, thereby ensuring the immediate implementation of the stalled bills. These bills included critical legislation on social justice and education reforms. Using the office of the Governor to undermine state governments ruled by the opposition is not only a means to undermine federalism but also a means to coerce state governments into incorporating themselves into the neoliberal project. Consent for this two-pronged offensive is sought to be manufactured through the activation of the third prong involving an attempt to saffronise India. Let’s see how.

Role of Governors in Undermining Federalism

The constitutional office of the Governor, serving at the behest of the Union government (aka “pleasure of the President of India”), was conceived as a means to limit authentic federalism, whereby the Union government sought to indirectly influence the working of state governments.

However, since 2014, this role has been explicitly weaponised to try and subvert opposition-ruled states. The case of Tamil Nadu exemplified this misuse: the Governor withheld assent to many bills for over two years. The Governor of Tamil Nadu has become the ideological fulcrum of Hindutva opposition to the progressive ethos of the state. This progressive ethos is derived from a complex synthesis of the work of Periyar, Ambedkar, and Marx and remains a work in progress.

The Supreme Court’s unprecedented step to invoke Article 142 in the case of Tamil Nadu underscored the severity of the crisis of federalism under the neo-fascist dispensation. By directing the Union government to facilitate presidential assent within 15 days, the Court effectively bypassed the Governor’s office, which it felt had become a “tool of partisan sabotage”. This intervention is reflective of the higher judiciary’s awareness of the structural imbalance in India’s federal framework. Similar patterns of gubernatorial obstruction have emerged in all opposition-ruled states, including deliberately delaying legislative sessions, illegal interference in administrative procedures, and refusing assent to bills passed by the state legislatures. It is arguable that such gubernatorial actions violate the Basic Structure doctrine, which enshrines federalism as a foundational principle of the Constitution of India. These anti-constitutional maneuvers are not isolated procedural violations but part of a deliberate strategy to centralise power by paralysing state legislatures. Thereby, the neo-fascist dispensation undermines the democratic ethos that posits that India’s existence as a constitutional republic derives from unity in diversity and not uniformity.

Attenuation of Federalism along the Neoliberal Trajectory

The practice of federalism was always tenuous, but the explicit transition to a neoliberal trajectory since the 1990s has refortified the anti-federal proclivities of the Union government of India. The proliferation of the neoliberal project under the hegemony of international finance capital has involved ongoing attempts to systematically dismantle the fiscal autonomy of states. Early measures, such as the Reserve Bank of India’s (RBI) restrictive credit policies, pushed states into debt traps, with interest payments consuming a large fraction of non-developmental expenditures by the 2000s. Subsequent Finance Commissions have institutionalised conditionalities, tying debt relief to neoliberal policies like de facto or de jure privatisation of power, water, and other types of infrastructure. Besides, states were forced to cede jurisdiction over many economic activities, which resulted in their deepening fiscal dependency on the Union government of India.

The Goods and Services Tax (GST), implemented in 2017, epitomises this assault on federalism. GST stripped states of their constitutional authority to levy indirect taxes, a critical revenue source. The GST Council, though nominally representative of states, structurally favors the Union government of India, which holds an effective veto on all decisions. This quasi-unitary fiscal regime has had dire consequences. For instance, during the COVID-19 pandemic, states faced severe liquidity crises due to deliberately delayed GST compensation, crippling their ability to fund healthcare and welfare schemes, resulting in millions of (officially unacknowledged) deaths.

Other unilateral decisions made by the Union government of India, such as Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) and demonetisation, further illustrate this attenuation of federalism. FTAs negotiated without state consultation—like those with ASEAN—have devastated Kerala’s plantation economy through import surges. Likewise, demonetisation in 2016 had disproportionately adverse consequences on cash-dependent states. Co-operative banks, which are vital to the economies of Kerala and Maharashtra, were excluded from currency exchange, resulting in the exacerbation of economic distress by the working people. These policies, which the mainstream media presents as episodic initiatives unrelated to any larger project, in fact reflect a broader attempt to undermine federalism, thereby reducing states to passive implementers of the neoliberal agenda.

Judicial interventions since 1991 have, by and large, been in sync with the dictates of the neoliberal project. Consequently, judicial review tends to focus on overt constitutional violations by this or that functionary but does not interrogate the neo-fascist dispensation that enables these violations.

Hindutva as Ideological Driver of Anti-Federalism

The neo-fascist dispensation’s project to irredeemably attenuate Indian federalism, thereby hegemonising the neoliberal project in India, involves the deployment of Hindutva. The latter is deployed to manufacture consent for this hegemony. This deployment is based on two pillars: one, cowardice with respect to metropolitan capital, as evidenced most recently by the servile response to Trump’s tariff war; second, a reinvention of history whereby unscientific claims about the ostensibly unitary origins of Indian civilisation and its alleged redemption after centuries of purported alien rule have hegemonised the public space.

For instance, the neo-fascist dispensation has unleashed an unprecedented wave of saffronisation of education with two objectives. First, the drive for saffronisation of education amounts to an acceptance of the permanence of India’s location at the lower and lower-middle reaches of the technological ladder that pertains to global production networks. Second, the saffronisation of education seeks to manufacture consent for its privatisation, commercialisation, and homogenisation. The use of the National Education Policy to redouble the imposition of Hindi, illegitimately trying to take over state universities, and the insistence on the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test for medical admissions (that disadvantage the working people) are illustrative of this drive for saffronisation.

Likewise, the ongoing efforts to engage in delimitation of electoral constituencies disadvantage states that are outside North India and are completely antithetical to the constitutional prerogative of federalism. The neo-fascist dispensation seeks to cement its hegemony by disparaging federal initiatives that directly challenge this homogenising drive of Hindutva, whereby people’s movements in states like Tamil Nadu (that resist the imposition of Hindi), Kerala (that seeks to craft an alternative to the neoliberal project), and Punjab (that seeks to defend the peasantry and workers against corporate encroachment in agriculture) are framed as “anti-national”.

The neo-fascist dispensation’s deployment of fiscal levers and gubernatorial obstruction to suppress such federal movements reveals a strategic maneuver, under the hegemony of international finance capital, to try and make India secure for the neoliberal project by homogenising the country.

Conclusion: Federalism as Democratic Practice

The Supreme Court’s 2025 Tamil Nadu verdict, though significant, is a corrective to a symptom of the deployment of Governors to undermine opposition-led state governments. It does not engage with the underlying phenomenon of the neo-fascist dispensation’s attempt to extinguish federalism in order to secure the neoliberal project in India under the aegis of international finance capital.

The struggle for federalism is inseparable from the fight for India’s democracy as embodied in the Constitution of India and its practice by the democratic movement. Resisting the neo-fascist dispensation’s offensive against federalism is necessary to prevent the eroding of the pluralism that defines the nation.

To reclaim the constitutional republic, parties in the INDIA Bloc and people’s movements that lead the resistance to the neo-fascist dispensation must evolve democratic alternatives to the neoliberal project and eschew vain attempts to operate under the hegemony of international finance capital through the ideological trajectory of cosmopolitan neoliberalism. As argued previously, neo-fascism and cosmopolitan neoliberalism are two different routes of operating under the aegis of international finance capital. Federalism is a central plank of crafting a democratic alternative to the neo-fascist dispensation’s timidity towards international finance capital.

Shirin Akhter is Associate Professor at Zakir Husain Delhi College, University of Delhi. C Saratchand is Professor, Department of Economics, Satyawati College, University of Delhi. The views are personal.

Courtesy: Newclick

The post Confronting the Neo-fascist Assault on Federalism appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A rustic clock crafted from reclaimed wood.Photo/Instagram

A passion beyond money

From a young age, Aziz was deeply fascinated by animals, plants, and the natural world. While others chased financial security, for him, money was never the priority — expressing himself through art was. In 2021, he took a bold step to reconnect with his inner self and envision a future rooted in creativity. That’s when he founded Stick and Bones, his official brand dedicated to transforming waste into meaningful art.

While juggling a corporate job, he spent five months in the profession before making a life-changing decision in 2024 — he quit. “Something didn’t feel right,” he recalls about his career choice.

“I committed to my passion full-time last year, turning it into a larger project. Now, I don’t just create décor from waste for the love of my craft — I also inspire countless young people who aspire to build careers in arts and crafts,” Aziz said.

The viral turning point

Despite his talent, Aziz’s work initially reached only a limited audience. He started sharing his art on Instagram, but his content was scarce, and his followers remained at 8,000.

The rustic table lamp that became Aziz’s first big hit started with a simple discarded piece of wood he found in his backyard. He chiselled it down, shaped it, and manually carved a plank of wood to serve as the base. Once the structure was ready, he carefully added lights, transforming what was once waste into a unique, functional piece of art.

“It was a surprise for everyone because no one knew that lamps could be made out of waste wood and something as basic as a wicker-wood hat, that too at home,” he recalled. This creation marked his breakthrough moment, proving that discarded materials could hold new life and purpose.

“I posted the making of it on Instagram. The reel went viral globally and brought me 40,000 followers overnight,” he added

This sudden surge in recognition changed everything. His work began inspiring young artists, encouraging them to explore sustainable art.

Defying criticism and carving his own path

As a master’s student of ichthyology, Aziz faced harsh criticism for his passion. Many warned him that he was straying off the right path and insisted that a stable nine-to-five job was the only way to secure his future.

“I still remember my parents doubting me and others laughing at what I did, telling me it was a useless dream. But I picked up the discarded animal bones and wood anyway and kept carving them with dedication, turning waste into intricate art,” he said.

But while the world questioned him, there was one person who never doubted his talent — his brother, Khaleel.

“I always believed in my brother and knew he would take things to a different level. Even though he’s my younger brother, I look up to him because he sees the world differently. He never follows trends or conventions — he simply does what he loves. Every piece of his art tells a story of its own, revealing what’s happening behind the curtain. What he is best known for is his ‘behind-the-scenes’ process, capturing the journey of creation as much as the final masterpiece,” Khaleel said.

Khaleel further added, “I’m proud that my brother earns his bread and butter through his passion. What makes it even more special is that he has kept his prices affordable, ensuring that everyone can access his art. More than just an artist — he is a storyteller, weaving narratives into every piece he creates.”

Recognition and government support

That one viral Instagram reel was just the beginning. Today, Aziz’s work has gained global recognition, inspiring many young people to turn waste into art. His unique approach has even caught the attention of the government, which has praised his innovative take on animal bone art.

Beyond simply working with waste, Aziz fuses his creations with Kashmir’s rich heritage, adding vibrant papier-mâché art to his bone carvings.

Exhibiting at Kashmir Arts Emporium

The former Director of Handicrafts and Handlooms, Mahmood Ahmad Shah, applauded Aziz’s creativity, stating:

“His art is truly amazing and unique in a way that sets it apart. While many have been reinventing art from waste materials, what makes his work different is how he seamlessly fuses heritage into each piece. We had the honour of exhibiting his work at Kashmir Arts Emporium in 2023. I believe that all art forms hold value, but when art is sustainable, it becomes even more significant, carrying both meaning and responsibility.”

A legacy in the making

From discarded bones and fallen trees to intricate wall decor and heritage-infused masterpieces, Aziz-ur-Rehman is not just creating art, he is redefining it. With passion, resilience, and an unshaken belief in his craft, he has transformed waste into wonder.

He started on his own, without tools or a proper workspace. He built a small shed in his backyard and began buying hand tools and power tools with his pocket money. Whatever he earned, he used to buy more tools and manage his expenses.

“I have sold more than 2,000 articles, both small and large,” he says, looking back at his journey. His workshop at his home in Srinagar, is where he puts in all his effort. Every piece he makes is not just art—it’s the result of hard work and dedication. And he’s just getting started!

(Edited by Megha Chowdhury and Leila Badyari for The Better India)

(This feature has already appeared in The Better India)

Courtesy: Kashmir Times

The post Kashmiri Artist Quits Corporate Job to Create Art from Discarded Animal Bones & Fallen Wood appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In an in-depth analysis of real estate in Bengaluru, Chennai, Hyderabad, Kolkata, Pune, the National Capital Region (NCR), and the Mumbai Metropolitan Region (MMR), in a series of reports it has sent to Counterview as email alert, the consultant Anarock states that NCR and Bengaluru have recorded the highest jumps in housing prices—34% and 20%, respectively.

According to Anarock, average prices in the seven cities collectively have risen from INR 7,550 per sq. ft. at the end of Q1 2024 to INR 8,835 per sq. ft. by the end of Q1 2025. However, at the same time, the annual supply share of affordable homes has declined—from 40% in 2018 to 16% in 2024.

The reason, says Anarock, is that the target clientele of affordable homes, consisting of “blue-collar workers, lower-paid workforces, and those just starting out in their careers, were severely cash-strapped,” leading to a situation where “buying homes did not feature among their immediate priorities.”

According to data released by Anarock, in 2018, cities like Pune, Kolkata, Chennai, and NCR were witnessing a consistently “high supply of such homes, riding on stimuli such as lower GST rates and tax breaks.”

Defining affordable housing as units priced under INR 40 lakh, the consultant comments that, judging by their sagging sales and supply in India over the past few years, now “it is easy to forget that this segment was once the housing industry’s veritable poster child,” which Indian real estate developers took “very seriously, regularly engaging with their architects to design smaller units to contain prices and ensure sales continuity.”

Pointing out that this trend peaked when the Union government in 2015 made “concerted efforts” to promote affordable housing via the ‘Housing for All’ programme under the Pradhan Mantri Awaas Yojana – PMAY (Urban), Anarock says the government at that time announced “many attractive incentives for buyers and developers of such housing.”

In fact, “the affordable housing story took on an appealingly patriotic ‘nation-building’ sheen, and even big-brand developers got into the fray…”

Noting that things changed during the pandemic when the demand for “larger and multi-functional homes with a comprehensive spread of lifestyle amenities” surged, Anarock says the demand shifted to houses that could effectively serve “as both residential facilities and offices… This trend continues even today, and essentially small-sized affordable housing plays no role in it.”

At the same time, it says, “at the developers’ end, constantly rising input costs—comprising land, labour, and construction materials (compounded by the low profit margins of affordable housing and the withdrawal of all relevant fiscal benefits)—caused their previous enthusiasm for affordable housing to dwindle. Instead, they turned their focus to what was and continues to sell well: bigger units with good lifestyle amenities.”

The result is that today, Bengaluru is “devoid of any supply in this segment. Hyderabad and Chennai are seeing only a minimal 2% supply share. The only cities with any sizeable activity in this segment are Kolkata and MMR. In both these cities, nearly 31% of the total upcoming supply is priced below INR 40 lakh. NCR has witnessed a drastic reduction in its share of affordable housing, falling from 62% in 2020 to only 11% in 2024.”

Ironically, despite the sharp downward trend in affordable housing, Anarock research suggests the real estate sector remained a dominant contributor in 2024 in fundraising via qualified institutional placements (QIPs), “both in terms of capital raised and the number of issues.” Notably, 2024 saw twice the number of QIP issues as the previous year. In fact, the sector “recorded the highest number of issues in a single year” in 2024.

However, Anarock regrets, “Skyrocketing residential prices, coupled with geopolitical headwinds, have slowed the Indian housing market’s bull-run in Q1 2025. Latest Anarock data finds that the year’s first quarter saw sales drop 28% across the top seven cities compared to the same period in 2024. Approximately 93,280 units were sold in Q1 2025 in the top seven cities, in sharp contrast to all-time high sales of over 1.30 lakh units in Q1 2024.”

Noting that approximately 93,280 units were sold in Q1 2025—a 26% decrease over Q1 2024—Anarock suggests the main reason for this was, “Average residential property prices across the top seven cities saw a significant jump in the last one year—ranging between 10–34% in Q1 2025 compared to Q1 2024.”

“This,” it insists, “was primarily due to steep new supply additions in the luxury and ultra-luxury segment, and overall strong demand. NCR and Bengaluru recorded the highest annual price jump of over 34% and 20%, respectively.”

In fact, Anarock asserts, private equity (PE) investments in the Indian real estate sector have shown signs of softening. Offering details in its report titled Anarock Capital Flux FY25 Annual Edition, it reveals that PE investment volumes in Indian real estate “have steadily declined over the past five years, dropping from USD 6.4 billion in FY21 to approximately USD 3.7 billion in FY25.”

This represents a 43% decrease from FY21 levels, primarily driven by reduced foreign investor activity amid heightened global macroeconomic uncertainty and geopolitical volatility,” Anarock underlines, adding that this is accompanied by a significant increase in “concentration of capital in fewer, larger transactions.”

Thus, says Anarock, in FY25, the top 10 deals accounted for 81% of total PE investment value, up from 69% in FY24. This spike is largely attributed to the mega Reliance–ADIA–KKR hybrid deal, which alone contributed to ~42% of FY25’s total value.

The “mega Reliance–ADIA–KKR hybrid deal” refers to a financing transaction in which Reliance Industries secured a blended capital infusion from two heavyweight global investors, the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority (ADIA) and Kohlberg Kravis Roberts (KKR), an American global private-equity and investment company.

Stating that “FY25 saw a significant deviation in funding structure, with hybrid deals surging to 42% of total PE capital—primarily due to the Reliance-ADIA-KKR transaction,” Anarock notes that “logistics and warehousing” have emerged “as the clear frontrunner in FY25, attracting 48% of PE funding, the highest in five years.”

As for the residential sector, Anarock says its average deal size dropped to USD 117 million (Q2–Q4 FY25) from USD 233 million (Q1 FY23–Q4 FY25). Offices also saw a “steep decline in investment”—USD 806 million in FY25 versus USD 2.2 billion in FY24.

However, retail “continues to thrive on strong consumer demand,” with mall operators like DLF, Nexus, and Phoenix expanding aggressively.

Courtesy: CounterView

The post Whither PMAY? Affordable housing in decline as Indian real estate shifts focus to premium segments appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The image of Egyptian Islamist thinker Sayyid Qutb at a protest rally in Kozhikode, Kerala, may appear a trifle during political discord. But in reality, it holds great and troubling importance that deserves closer examination—especially in a country like India, where democratic values and peaceful coexistence are continuously under challenge.

The rally was meant to be a protest against the Waqf Amendment Bill. Most of the Muslim groups in India interpret this bill as the central government meddling in Muslim religious and charity funds. But when an image of Sayyid Qutb was flashed—carried aloft by protesters—the protest meant something different and was something more than what it was intended to be.

To understand why this was a big issue, you need to know who Qutb was, what he thought, and how his thoughts influenced some of the most violent factions in recent history.

Sayyid Qutb: The Radical Intellectual

Sayyid Qutb was an Egyptian writer, intellectual, and influential member of the Muslim Brotherhood of the 1950s and 60s. He began as a literary critic and secular nationalist, but Qutb changed his religion after he went to the United States and later to an Egyptian prison under Gamal Abdel Nasser’s regime.

While in prison, he wrote prolifically—his best-known works are Fi Zilal al-Qur’an (In the Shade of the Qur’an) and Ma’alim fi al-Tariq (Milestones). In Milestones, Qutb declared that modern Muslim societies had fallen into Jahiliyyah, a Qur’anic term that was originally used to describe a time of ignorance before Islam existed in Arabia. Qutb believed that governments and societies of the present day that did not conform to Shari’ah were in this state of ignorance and were therefore illegitimate.

He argued that only a few believers—the vanguard—should arise and topple these regimes in order to establish Islamic rule. While Qutb never directly promoted suicide bombing or attacks on civilians, his model of viewing modern secular states as illegitimate has been widely adopted by militant and terrorist groups, including Al-Qaeda and ISIS.

Even Qutb’s brother, Muhammad Qutb, travelled to Saudi Arabia with his thoughts and assisted in spreading them through schools and mosques. Osama bin Laden is said to have been influenced by these ideas.

Why Qutb’s Ideas Will Not Fit for India

India is not an Islamic state. India is a secular democracy and multicultural. Muslims, Hindus, Christians, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists, and others live in India. The Indian Constitution provides individuals the right to practice their religion, personal laws, and safeguards for minority rights.

Qutb sees the world very differently from this world. He does not think that you should co-exist or bargain with a secular democratic order; he desires to combat and re-shape it through revolutionary means.

Using his face in an Indian protest sends a chilling message: that to be Muslim in India is to be identified with a global Islamist idea and not with the Indian Constitution. This symbolism can be (and already has been) used by right-wing political elements to claim that Indian Muslims are shaped by foreign, extremist ideas.

It must be remembered that this is not just an optics issue. In the volatile communal environment of India, even a symbol can be inflammatory. The picture of Qutb was not just misread—it was fundamentally in conflict with the very message that the protest was attempting to convey: that Indian Muslims wish to defend their religious buildings within the framework of Indian democracy.

A Self-Defeating Symbol for a Legitimate Cause

Protests against Waqf Amendment Bill are political and legal. Muslim communities are within their rights to protest against government intervention in religious trusts. Waqf boards have been a feature of India’s legal landscape since British times and play significant religious and charitable roles.

When demonstrators hold the image of the man who was demonstrating against non-religious government, they weaken their case. The message changes from “defend our rights in the Indian system” to “reject the Indian system altogether.”

This causes confusion among allies, inspires enemies, and feeds into current Islamophobic discourses. It provides political fuel for those who blame the Muslim community for being separatist, even when the community is calling for constitutional rights.

Alienating the Broader Public One of the most significant tasks of a protest in a democracy is not merely to be heard by those who already agree with it, but to convince the undecided and to touch the emotions of the wider public. This requires a clear message and well-considered symbols.

By mentioning Qutb, even as an aside, the protest drove away non-Muslim Indians who otherwise could have lent their support. The average Indian citizen will not differentiate between Qutb’s political ideology and the legitimate call for religious freedom. What they will listen to is a protest which seems to identify itself with figures known worldwide for Islamist extremism.

Indian Muslims do not accept most of these beliefs. Indian Islamic history has overall been one of moderation, acceptance, and coexistence with other faiths—either through Sufi tradition, reform efforts, or efforts to interact with the constitution. Qutb does not represent the real life of Indian Muslims.

The Danger of Misplaced Solidarity

In a world where Muslims are being treated unfairly and exposed to war, it is no wonder that some protest movements draw inspiration from international Islamic leaders. Many are driven to mobilize in favour of Muslim causes worldwide, from Egypt to Palestine. But such acts of solidarity must be well-considered.

There exists a tremendous difference between displaying a Palestinian flag and displaying a photo of Sayyid Qutb. The flag represents the resistance of a nation against occupation; the photo represents an idea that has been used to justify brutal domination and violence.

India’s Muslim citizens need to recognize this difference. Solidarity does not equal symbols. Borrowing other people’s symbols, particularly those of nations with complicated histories, is a potential issue in India’s unique democratic and plural environment.

A Lesson in Political Messaging

What we witness from the Kozhikode protest is that messaging is important. Symbols are important. And context is most important of all.

The photo of Qutb was probably employed by some or a limited number of protesters and not the key protest organizers. But in today’s world of rapidly spreading images and political openings, a single image can represent an entire movement.

In Kerala, it served to divert the national discussion from the significant issues regarding the Waqf Bill to the sensational allegations of Islamist support. This is not a victory for the protesters. It is a distraction—and a destructive one.

Moving Forward: Responsible Protest and Clear Vision

 Indian Muslims are confronted with serious challenges: increasing marginalization, communal violence, and increasing state surveillance of their institutions. Their political action and protests have to be strategic, disciplined, and Constitution-based. Individuals such as B.R. Ambedkar, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, and Sir Syed Ahmad Khan are better role models for demonstrations than Sayyid Qutb. These leaders were of the opinion that they should speak, learn, reform, and cooperate with the Indian state—instead of boycotting it.

There is power in moderation, and strength in clarity. As one Hadith of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ says:

خَيْرُ الْأُمُورِ أَوْسَطُهَا

“The best of affairs are those that are moderate.”

(Musnad Ahmad)

If Indian Muslim activists want their demands to be heard and respected, they must also speak a language that resonates with India’s constitutional and pluralistic values—not imported ideologies that sow division.

Courtesy: New Age Islam 

The post Why Sayyid Qutb’s Symbolism during a Waqf Protest Was dangerous and self-defeating appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Surprisingly, I vividly remember that the story of Nathuram Godse, the assassin of Gandhi, was narrated to us by a Brahmin teacher in my village. What struck me even more was the tone of his narration—it seemed to express a subtle sympathy for the killer of Bapu. Yet, that same teacher never took the time to tell us who Babasaheb Ambedkar was.

The entry of Dr. Ambedkar into my life came quite late. I cannot say exactly when I first heard his name, but my real engagement with his work began when I enrolled in a postgraduate programme in Political Science in Delhi.

Traditional Political Science syllabi gave very little space to Ambedkar’s ideas, although they readily imposed the political thoughts of Manu and Kautilya—both of whom were staunch upholders of the caste-based social order—on students. If someone wants to pursue research on Manu, they are free to do so. But I am still unable to understand the rationale behind compelling every student to study Manu at the undergraduate or postgraduate level in a course on Indian political thought.

It may be understandable that M. S. Golwalkar, one of the key ideologues of the Hindutva ideology, praised Manu as “Lord (Bhagwan)” and called him as “the greatest lawgiver of mankind.” However, the disproportionate space assigned to Manu in political science textbooks raises serious questions about the fragility of the secular character of India’s educational system. That Ambedkar—one of the staunchest critics of the caste-based social order and a vocal opponent of “Hindu Raj”—has remained neglected in the mainstream educational system and media should not come as a surprise to many.

My stay at Delhi’s two universities over a span of 11 years—two years at Jamia Millia Islamia and nine years at Jawaharlal Nehru University—brought me significantly closer to the thoughts and legacy of Babasaheb Ambedkar. In the classroom, our professors did make references to Ambedkar’s ideas, but I found myself unsatisfied with the way they interpreted and explained his work. I noticed that they had a vested interest in highlighting only certain aspects of Ambedkar while concealing others. The professors soon lost their influence over us when many of us realized that their discussions of Ambedkar inside the classroom and their actions outside were quite disconnected. For them, teaching Ambedkar, writing about him, publishing books, and getting projects in his name seemed more like career-building strategies. For many of us, however, Ambedkar was a ray of light—an inspiration to escape the darkness of an unequal social order. I began to look beyond the classroom and found that engaging with Ambedkarite activist-scholars at the university and those actively involved in Ambedkarite movements was far more fruitful than simply taking notes from careerist professors.

Since Ambedkar wrote in lucid prose, he was not particularly difficult to understand. Unlike many other politicians, he never neglected the importance of scholarship. He read, researched, and wrote until his last breath. The focus of his scholarship was not on fairy tales, nor was he interested in metaphysical or divine questions. As an organic intellectual, he wrote about the problems faced by the most marginalized sections of society—people whom the caste-based system did not even consider human, let alone treat as equals. Ambedkar’s writings, spread across thousands of pages, continue to serve as a torchlight for marginalized communities. Those who uphold the status quo are trying hard to appropriate Ambedkar, but they cannot bury the power and truth of his dozens of volumes of writings.

But unlike armchair scholars confined to the ivory towers of the establishment, Ambedkar believed that the process of thinking is intrinsically linked to action. In contrast to the so-called “objective” scholarship of the mainstream, his writings had a clear purpose and stood firmly with the downtrodden. He recognized that the cloak of “objectivity” and “neutrality” often serves to maintain the status quo and reinforces existing hegemonies. That is why he not only wrote but also acted. He agitated, and he penned. In Ambedkar’s philosophy, the process of thought and action-oriented programmes are inseparable. He was truly a “concerned” scholar and an organic politician.

In my understanding, Ambedkar belongs to the tradition of materialist-rationalist thoughts shaped by Buddhism, Kabir, and Jyotirao Phule. Consequently, he was deeply critical of metaphysical, idealist, Vedantic, and Brahminical frameworks for interpreting the world. Unlike Brahminical thinkers, Ambedkar did not shy away from confronting material reality. Nor did he resort to explaining concrete problems through metaphysical abstractions or the construction of myths. In contrast to the Brahminical scholarly tradition, he categorically rejected the notion of divinity and the role of supernatural beings.

Although he acknowledged the social significance of religion, his conception of it was radically different—his vision of religion excluded the presence of God. For Ambedkar, religion was not about ritual performance or appeasing a higher power; rather, it was a social space where marginalized communities could assert their dignity and forge collective solidarity.

In essence, Ambedkar deconstructed Brahminical myths and laid the groundwork for a new social order rooted in the ideals of equality, liberty, and fraternity. Throughout his life, he remained deeply uneasy with the idea of human beings surrendering—whether to divine forces or to fellow humans. For him, both the worship of gods and the veneration of heroic figures were equally unacceptable.

Ambedkar was a staunch advocate of equality in the political, social, and economic domains. Continuing the legacy of Buddha, Kabir, and Phule, he offered a scathing critique of the caste-based social order. As an iconoclast, he denounced the religion into which he was born and criticized the Hindu social order and its religious texts for perpetuating caste-based discrimination.

Since most of us are raised within a Brahminical social milieu, we are trained from childhood to perceive the caste hierarchy as “natural” and the prevailing social system as one that fosters “harmony” and “equilibrium.” From structural-functionalist scholars to most upper-caste leaders and intellectuals, there has long been a tendency to normalize and defend the caste order. However, the emergence of Dr. Ambedkar on the broader political stage began to challenge this entrenched narrative. His powerful call for the annihilation of the caste system resonated with millions who had long been treated as pariahs by the upper castes.

Ambedkar’s enduring contribution lies in his ability, much like a skilled doctor, to diagnose the deep-seated stagnation of Indian society. He prescribed a clear remedy: without the annihilation of caste, the achievement of political, social, and economic equality, and justice for women and minorities, the nation cannot truly progress.

While it is true that the mainstream Indian Left—whose leadership has largely been dominated by Brahmins and other upper castes—ignored Dr. Ambedkar and excluded Dalit leadership until the Ambedkarite movement brought him into public consciousness, this should not be used to validate the Hindutva narrative that portrays Ambedkar as an “enemy” of Marxism or socialism. Marxism and socialism are not monolithic ideologies; they are interpreted and shaped by prevailing parties or dominant leaders, and thus, no single definition is universally accepted. What matters is that Ambedkar engaged with Marxism on his own terms, expressing both agreement and disagreement with its dominant interpretations during his time.

Given that Marxism is a materialist philosophy that advocates for the removal of class-based inequality and the establishment of material equality, Ambedkar’s own work resonates strongly with Marxist principles. His efforts to organize the working class, his emphasis on eradicating economic inequality, and his commitment to a materialist, scientific, and rational worldview align him closely with Marxist ideals and practice.

However, Dr. Ambedkar differed from the dominant Marxist interpretation on the questions of class, the dictatorship of the proletariat, and the use of violence. Unlike mainstream Marxist thinkers, Ambedkar’s understanding of class emphasized the social identities of labourers and rejected the notion of the working class as a homogenous entity. His key contribution lay in highlighting the lack of solidarity among workers, despite their shared exploitation.

While Marxists called for unity among labourers, Ambedkar insisted that unity could not be achieved without first addressing the internal divisions created by caste. Upper-caste comrades were often eager to bring about revolution, overlooking the fundamental reality that caste—structured around graded inequality—stood in the way of genuine worker solidarity. Ambedkar argued that caste must first be annihilated to lay the foundation for a truly classless society. This view diverged sharply from that of upper-caste Marxists, who often saw the caste question as a distraction or even a threat to working-class unity. The mainstream Left’s continued failure to enact meaningful social transformation should prompt a serious re-examination of Ambedkar’s nuanced perspective on class and caste.

No doubt Ambedkar was a great scholar, a brilliant lawyer, and an influential Parliamentarian. The construction of his image as a legal scholar holding the Constitution of India has created the impression that Ambedkar only believed in legal and constitutional methods, and therefore, had no ideological connection with Marxists, who are often associated with violent means. To support such a claim, Ambedkar’s famous speech titled “Buddha or Karl Marx” is frequently cited.

It is true that Ambedkar acknowledged that both Buddhism and Marxism opposed private property. However, according to him, Buddhism diverged from Marxism on the question of violence. Ambedkar emphasized that Buddhism, unlike Marxism, rejected violence. That said, his critique of Marxism in this regard must be situated within the historical context of his time. It is a matter of historical record that some communist leaders, backed by the brute force of the state, resorted to violence in their attempt to establish a “class-less” society.

Supporters of such violent methods might argue that radical social change and reordering of class relations cannot be accomplished through purely constitutional and legal means, and that violence by the oppressed is not a violation but an act of liberation. While Ambedkar may have agreed with the goal of achieving a class-less society, he preferred to pursue a different strategy—one that did not involve violence. This belief was deeply held and unwavering, despite criticism from the Left, who at times dismissed Ambedkar as “at best a radical bourgeois leader.”

Ambedkar and his critics held different perspectives on these issues. However, the failures of various communist regimes—though not of Marxism as a philosophy—have led even some of his critics to reconsider his principled critique of violence. Importantly, Ambedkar’s rejection of violence does not imply a lack of belief in peaceful yet radical movements. His famous call to “educate, organise, and agitate” reflects a commitment to constitutional and legal methods, but not a confinement to them.

Consider the historic Mahad Conference of 1927, where Ambedkar led thousands of untouchables to assert their right to access a public tank that had been denied to them by caste-based restrictions. During this agitation, upper-caste aggressors attacked Ambedkar and his followers, yet he stood his ground. His editorials in Bahishkrit Bharat are a testament to his unwavering message urging Dalits not to accept caste discrimination and to rise in rebellion. In one editorial dated May 20, 1927, Ambedkar clearly stated that no one would grant Dalits their rights out of charity—they had to be prepared to fight for them. Is this not strong evidence that Ambedkar was far more than merely a legal scholar? His call to struggle against discrimination and exploitation, and his insistence on securing a life of dignity, align him with mass movements—and place him ideologically close to the Left.

However, one of my biggest attractions to Babasaheb Ambedkar is his theory of minority rights, which is inherently linked to the broader concept of social justice. In light of the rise of right-wing forces in India and elsewhere, Ambedkar’s ideas have become even more relevant today. As previously mentioned, Ambedkar was a staunch opponent of any dictatorial or authoritarian regime. He understood well that the suppression of liberty is often justified in the name of lofty goals, and he consistently cautioned marginalized communities not to fall prey to such narratives.

With the advent of democracy and the introduction of universal suffrage, Ambedkar recognized the transformative potential of the right to vote for bringing about social change. However, he did not believe that formal political equality alone was sufficient to ensure justice and equality in society. He argued that social reform, economic equality, and robust safeguards for minority rights were essential complements to political democracy. In other words, while equal voting rights represent a significant achievement, they are only truly effective when accompanied by social and economic justice, along with institutional protections for minorities.

Ambedkar frequently cautioned that democracy as an institution can only survive when social and economic equality is achieved. While he did not believe in using violent methods to bring about radical change, he also disagreed with liberals who believed that formal equality and a market-driven economic order would eventually lead to a just society. In various writings and speeches, Ambedkar highlighted the threat that class-based inequality poses to the sustainability of democracy.

Today, economic inequality in India has increased significantly compared to Ambedkar’s time. The ongoing crisis of Indian democracy and rising societal instability can largely be attributed to this widening economic gap. If Ambedkar were alive today, his foremost agenda would likely include launching mass movements for full employment, equitable access to quality public education, and comprehensive healthcare for all. He would also have been at the forefront of resisting reactionary and conservative forces that disguise themselves as nationalist. He would have strongly opposed the conflation of religion and politics, and any attempts to align the Indian state with the majority religion. No one denounced Hindu nationalism as forcefully as Ambedkar, who called it “the greatest calamity for this country.” Undoubtedly, he would have aligned himself with the Left.

Ambedkar’s democratic theory and his idea of social justice are closely linked with his concept of minority rights. He opposed authoritarianism and dictatorial regimes because he believed that one person, one party, one caste group, or one class cannot be entrusted with safeguarding the interests of all. He was acutely aware of the fact that ruling castes often attempt to serve their own interests under the guise of “nationalism,” dismissing the legitimate concerns of marginalised communities as “communalism.”

Perhaps he was among the first to expose the trope of nationalism versus communalism as a tool to silence the voices of the oppressed. His critique of nationalism does not imply support for communal politics. Rather, Ambedkar demonstrated how the category of nationalism has been co-opted by sections of the upper castes to present their own interests as “national interests”, while branding those who question this dominance as “communal.”

Ambedkar has also been unfairly accused of being a supporter of British imperialism. However, the historical reality is that he was not against India’s freedom. While the upper castes considered the mere transfer of power from British rulers to Indian elites as the attainment of Swaraj, Ambedkar pressed nationalist leaders to explicitly define the rights and safeguards that minorities would receive in post-Independence India. These upper-caste leaders often appeared “radical” in their political critique of British rule but remained deeply conservative and status quoist when issues concerning Dalits, Adivasis, lower castes, and religious minorities were raised.

Ambedkar’s critique of Indian nationalism stemmed from a commitment to social justice. Throughout the freedom struggle, he consistently raised the issue of caste-based inequality and worked to amplify the voices of the marginalised. He firmly believed that caste-based social order was a significant obstacle to fostering fraternity among Indians. Without addressing the caste question, he argued, the process of nation-building could not be complete.

In contrast, upper-caste leaders and their allies in the Hindutva camp often promoted an ascriptive theory of nationalism, asserting that the idea of the Indian nation has existed for thousands of years. In tracing the nation back to ancient times, Hindu right-wing ideologues positioned the Hindu community as the authentic nation and cast minorities and non-Hindus as outsiders. Since the minorities were not considered fully part of the Hindu nation, their patriotism was constantly questioned. As a display of loyalty, the Hindu right demanded that minorities abandon their distinct identities and assimilate into the dominant culture in order to receive validation as true patriots. Ambedkar was acutely aware of the dangers posed by religious and communal interpretations of nationalism and citizenship. That is why, he opposed strongly communal majority. That is why he strongly opposed attempts by upper-caste Hindus to forge a communal majority.

For Ambedkar, the antidote to the politics of communal majoritarianism—which posed a serious threat during his time and continues to endanger India’s social fabric—was the establishment of mechanisms to check authoritarian tendencies and institutionalize safeguards for minorities. One of the greatest threats to democracy, in his view, was the concentration of power. In other words, Ambedkar was a strong opponent of absolute power and an ardent advocate of power-sharing among communities.

As a true democrat, Ambedkar was disheartened by the suppression of opposition voices during Nehru’s regime. While numerous books celebrate Nehru’s democratic credentials and openness to dissent, little attention is paid to the fact that he dismissed the first democratically elected communist government in Kerala, played a key role in the centralization of power, and presided over a Parliament that lacked an official Leader of the Opposition until 1967—during the peak of the Congress system. Ambedkar himself noted that he was not granted his ministry of choice in Nehru’s cabinet, even as some ministers were assigned multiple portfolios. Today, under BJP rule, the marginalization of opposition voices and the stifling of dissent has intensified manifold. That is why Ambedkar’s unwavering commitment to defending dissent and opposition remains profoundly relevant in today’s political climate. Ambedkar’s critique of hero-worship also offers a powerful lens through which to understand the rise of populist right-wing leaders. We still await a critical analysis of Narendra Modi’s rise through the lens of Ambedkar’s political thought.

Ambedkar was deeply pained to witness the Congress Party using its own Dalit leaders to silence him whenever he raised his voice. Today, the BJP has perfected the art of delegitimizing authentic Dalit leadership by grooming its own representatives through the ideological apparatus of the Hindutva laboratory. Consequently, while Dalits are now nearly proportionally represented in legislative bodies, most of these leaders—elected through joint electorates and reliant on their party’s backing—tend to remain silent or toe the party line on critical issues affecting their communities.

It is important to remember that Ambedkar strongly demanded a separate electorate for the Depressed Classes during the Round Table Conference, a demand that the British Government ultimately granted. However, he was compelled to give it up following Gandhi’s fast. He observed that authentic Dalit voices often struggle to garner support from both mainstream political parties and caste Hindu voters, resulting in their continued marginalization.

It is unfortunate that most mainstream scholars of India’s electoral system rarely acknowledge the structural inequality inherent in the first-past-the-post system. There is little advocacy for proportionate and effective minority representation, a demand that Dr. Ambedkar passionately championed. While many European countries have embraced proportional representation for minorities, Indian intellectuals often take pride in pointing out the shortcomings of other nations rather than engaging in introspection and learning from successful democratic models to advocate for reform at home.

While Ambedkar contributed significantly to the shaping of democracy, the safeguards for the interests and rights of minorities were especially close to his heart. It is important to note that the term minority, for Ambedkar, was not confined to religious minorities alone. He defined minorities broadly to include socially discriminated groups. According to Ambedkar, the category of minority applies not only to religious communities such as Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, and Parsis, but also to Dalits and Adivasis.

Several political scientists have later classified minorities into types such as religious, linguistic, caste-based, and tribal (Adivasi) minorities. Ambedkar believed that the true measure of a successful democracy lies in how well it protects the interests and rights of its minorities. He was acutely aware that, in a democratic polity, governments are formed based on majority support—meaning that minorities are often excluded from power. To address this structural inequality, Ambedkar warned against the creation of a communal majority.

Today, the danger Babasaheb foresaw has become increasingly apparent. The deliberate strategy of stoking communal tensions and demonizing the Muslim minority as the “other” in Indian society is designed to unite the majority community through a shared religious identity and thereby forge a communal majority. From Ambedkar’s perspective, the formation of a communal majority is anathema to democracy, as it inevitably leads to the suppression of minority rights.

Keeping in view these dangers, Ambedkar clearly stated that a government formed through majority rule should not be regarded as holy or sacrosanct. Speaking at the Annual Session of the All-India Scheduled Castes Federation held in Bombay on May 6, 1945, Ambedkar said, “Majority Rule is untenable in theory and unjustifiable in practice. A majority community may be conceded a relative majority of representation but it can never claim an absolute majority.”

In simple terms, Ambedkar argued that while the formation of a government may occur through majority support, it must never overlook the necessity of respecting the consent of the minority. For this reason, Ambedkar opposed the enactment of any law that lacked the approval of minority communities, warning that such disregard could provoke rebellion. Law after law directly affecting minorities—especially the Muslim minority—is being enacted by the Modi-led BJP Government without seeking their consent. In fact, the recent enactment of the Waqf Amendment Bill (2025) is widely seen as a majoritarian assault on minority rights.

On multiple occasions, Ambedkar demanded both proportionate and effective representation for minorities. It is important to note that while proportionate representation is necessary, it is not sufficient. The term effective is crucial in Ambedkar’s framework for safeguarding minority rights. Once the principle of effective representation is acknowledged, it essentially grants the minority a form of veto power. This veto power serves as an assurance that minorities need not fear majority rule, as no law would be passed and no policy formulated without their equal participation and consent.

In other words, the success of democracy lies in ensuring that minorities feel confident, secure, and prosperous. Ambedkar, the Chairman of the Constitution Drafting Committee, sought to give the country a strong and just constitution, and he did his utmost to safeguard the interests of weaker sections within it. However, Ambedkar was also aware that, without the active participation of minorities and other marginalized groups in policymaking, even a good law would not ensure justice. To emphasize his point, Ambedkar argued that if marginalized communities are included in decision-making processes, they can interpret even a bad law to deliver justice. But if they are excluded from executing policies, even the best of laws will fail to serve their interests.

One of Babasaheb Ambedkar’s greatest achievements was securing constitutional, institutional, and legal protection for the policy of social justice and reservations—thus removing it from the whims of any individual, whether in the executive or the judiciary. Ambedkar understood that justice could not be achieved without addressing gender inequality and legally granting Hindu women equal rights. This is why he pushed hard for the passage of the Hindu Code Bill in its undiluted form.

No one understood better than Ambedkar the suffering of Hindu women during the post-Buddhist era, particularly under the social codes of Manu, which stripped them of their rights and severely restricted their mobility. As a feminist, Ambedkar recognized that the caste system was perpetuated by controlling the sexuality of Hindu women and prohibiting inter-caste marriages. He aimed to eliminate these social evils and liberate women through the Hindu Code Bill. Unfortunately, the Hindu Right—both within the Congress party and outside it—conspired against him. When he found himself isolated, Ambedkar was forced to resign. To this day, Ambedkar’s mission to liberate Hindu women remains unfulfilled.

As is evident today, the philosophy and goals of Dr. Ambedkar are more relevant than ever before. However, the struggle for emancipation from the caste-based social order can only succeed if broader solidarity is forged. I find that Ambedkar’s thoughts and programs align more closely with Leftist agendas. When I use the term “Left,” I refer to the broader Marxist and socialist philosophy. While I acknowledge that Ambedkar did not agree with every aspect of mainstream Marxist and socialist interpretations, that does not mean Ambedkar—and by extension, Ambedkarites—are not natural allies of the Left. Here, the term “Left” does not refer to any specific political party. Nor am I ignoring the reality that leadership within mainstream Left parties in India has historically been dominated by upper castes, who often neglected caste issues and hesitated to elevate Dalit leaders to top positions. Nevertheless, the historical failures of certain Left organizations should not become a permanent obstacle to an alliance between Ambedkarite and Leftist forces.

That is why, for me, my Ambedkar is a Leftist Ambedkar.

Dr. Abhay Kumar holds a PhD in Modern History from the Centre for Historical Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University. His forthcoming book explores Muslim Personal Law. Email: debatingissues@gmail.com

The post My Ambedkar is a leftist Ambedkar appeared first on SabrangIndia.