This is what happened several months ago. A teenager living in the housing society where I reside was sent to Australia to study at a university in Sydney with much fanfare. The parents, whom I often met as part of a group, would tell us how easily the boy got his admission with the help of “some well-meaning friends,” adding that they had obtained an education loan to ensure he could study at a graduate school.

On reaching Sydney, the boy’s parents—especially the father—would tell us how a place to stay had been arranged by a “very close friend” at virtually no cost, and that the boy was “extremely happy.” We would be shown photos of the boy at various spots in the city as evidence of his happiness.

But as time passed, the father began to complain that his son had to “walk a lot” from where he stayed in order to catch public transport. “He gets tired on return,” he would tell us, adding that food was another problem. “He has to prepare his own food, which he has never done. Besides, while we can afford outside food, since he is a pure vegetarian, he isn’t very comfortable with what’s available on the counter.”

A month or so later, we found that the boy had returned. The reason? He was “unable to adjust,” and his mother was quite worried about him. “She advised him to return,” the father said, adding, “We have been promised by the university to return the advance fees deposited for his studies… Good that he is back…” Ironically, the parents never revealed which agent, if any, had organized the boy’s student visa.

While this boy returned after failing to adjust to a foreign environment, a news item published in the Times of India, authored by my ex-colleague Bharat Yagnik, suggests that Australia has now clamped down on Indian students, with the country joining the US and Canada in tightening immigration norms for Indian students, and several universities halting applications from six states, including Gujarat. The universities which have cracked the whip are Federation University, Western Sydney University, Victoria University, and Southern Cross University. Apart from Gujarat, the affected students are from Punjab, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, and Jammu & Kashmir.

The news item quotes what it calls visa consultants and foreign education experts—especially from Gujarat—pointing out that they are “rattled.” In their estimate, “20% of students from the state heading abroad typically choose Australia, a figure likely to drop with these new restrictions.”

Foreign education consultant Bhavin Thaker is quoted as saying, “This has dramatically reduced the number of opportunities available to students. Of every 100 students who plan to study overseas, at least 20 are directly impacted. With Canada and the US already tightening immigration policies, and now Australia going the same way, the list of accessible countries is shrinking. While there’s no official government statement yet, the message is quite clear.”

Visa consultant Lalit Advani is cited as claiming, “The decision by Australian universities to restrict applications from certain regions within India will impact genuine students. The majority of applicants are sincere, and they can be easily identified based on their academic scores, background, and intent. Blanket bans only add to the frustration.”

No sooner had I read the news item than I forwarded it to my college friend Neeraj Nanda, who runs South Asia Times, an online periodical in Melbourne, and phoned him up to find out what was happening, and what the Australian side of the story was. Nanda, who was my colleague at Link Newsweekly in Delhi in the early 1980s, told me that this is an “old story,” pointing out that the authorities in Australia have discovered how Indian students submit fake documents to study in Australia.

The post Why’s Australian crackdown rattling Indian students? Whopping 25% fake visa applications appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Now seven decades after the tragedy on one hand we see the plight of Pakistan, sliding down on the scale of democracy, social wellbeing and progress. India which began well and strove on the path of pluralism and development is seeing the resurgence of the ‘Two Nation theory’ in the form of strengthening the communal forces which are sharpening their politics to achieve Hindu Nation. Ambedkar in his book on Partition warned that formation of Pakistan will be the worst tragedy as it may pave the way for Hindu Raj. How true was he! The attempts of Gandhi, Maulana Azad and Congress to prevent the tragedy failed to counter the British Policy of ‘Divide and rule’ greatly assisted by the ideology and politics of Communal forces of that time, Muslim League on one hand and Hindu Mahasabha-RSS on the other.

The Partition debate, the underlying two nation theory keeps surfacing time and over again in both the countries. Sectarian Nationalisms, Muslim and Hindu both, keep blaming each other for this tragedy. They undermine the deep roots of tragedy in the declining sections of society, the feudal forces, assisted by the clergy on both sides. As both these sectarian streams were on the forefront of spreading Hate, against the ‘other’ community, the communal violence went on intensifying and the figures like Gandhi, Maulana Azad could not prevent the ghastly events which followed.

While each communal stream, Hindu and Muslim have their own versions of this event, the holistic picture can be unearthed by seeing the picture through the movement and ideology of emerging Indian Nationalism and its opposition by the declining sections of Landlords and clergy on both sides.

This debate has once again come to the surface with Pakistan’s General Aim Munir. While addressing the Overseas Pakistani Convention in Islamabad, in presence of the top political leaders of the country, he eulogized the “two Nation theory”. He went on to pay tributes to the people who worked for the formation of Pakistan. Seeing one side of the picture he stated, “Our religion is different, our customs are different, our traditions are different, our thoughts are different, our ambitions are different — that’s where the foundation of the two-nation theory was laid. We are two nations; we are not one nation,”

This in contrast to the understanding particularly of Gandhi and Nehru who saw the two major communities and other smaller religious communities as interacting with each other and creating a unique syncretic culture where each component has contributed to the emergence of celebratory Indian culture. Common celebration of festivals at social level and contributions of people to all aspects of Indian culture by people of diverse religions, the unique Bhakti and Sufi traditions being the highest form of these interactions. Gandhi summed it up in his unique, Ishwar Allah Tero Naam, and Nehru articulating it as Ganga Jamuni Tehjeeb.

Two Nation theory was not a sudden articulation. As the National movement started emerging from amongst the sections of society associated with Modern Education, industries, and communication, Indian Nationalism towered over all other fissiparous ideologies. As pointed out, the other sections not associating with it and hanging on the feudal and pre-modern values threw up Muslim league on one side and Hindu Mahasabha on the other. They were exclusionist and veered round propagating the caste and gender hierarchy, standing opposed to education for Dalits and women.

The British subtly supported these trends as these were helpful for them in suppressing the National movement. One talked of Islamic Nation and the other of the Hindu Nation. Immediately after the formation of Indian National Congress the opposition to this came up in the form of Rajas and Nawabs pledging their loyalty to British rulers. Gradually these parallel streams emerged and Muslim League was formed in 1906. This was encouraged by the British. On the other side Punjab Hindu Sabha came in 1909, Hindu Mahasabha in 1915 and RSS in 1925. Both these criticized Gandhi to the hilt. Formally Two Nation theory was articulated by Vinayak Damodar Savarkar and that became the guiding light of Hindu Nationalism. Muslim nationalism started talking of Pakistan by 1930 and strongly articulated in 1940 BY Jinnah in 1940.

Today RSS ideologues (BJP leaders and RSS leader, Ram Madhav: Decoding General, IE 19 April 2025) are presenting as if ‘Two Nation theory’ was only the making of Muslims through Muslim League. They underplay the great role of Allah Baksh, Maualana Azad and Khan Abdul Gaffer Khan who were opposed to the demand of Pakistan’s. Pakistan which was formed on the ‘Two nation theory’ just after 25 years of existence broke down into Bangladesh and Pakistan. That was the grave of “Two Nation Theory” Their abysmal condition is very obvious today.

While in India Hindu Nationalism was quietly being nurtured in the silent manner, its first dangerous manifestation came when RSS trained Godse put three bullets in the bare chest of Father of the nation. Its further starkly visible form came up the decade of 1980 with the most divisive campaign for demolishing Babri Masjid.

A Pakistani poet Fahmida Riyaz at this point wrote Arre Tum bhi Hum Jaise Nikle, Ab tak Kahan chhupe the bhai. (Oh you have turned out to be like us, where were you hiding so far!). After this the attacks on the concept of secularism, inclusive politics and values of Indian Constitution were intensified and now the emotive issues have taken the centre state. The product of “Two Nation theory” Pakistan, is in the grip of Mullahs-army and has been servile to America. The other component of “Two Nation Theory”, Hindu Nation has also more or less occupied the centre stage in India. Values and outcome of Nationalism on both sides of the divide are same, only form is different. The Criticism of ‘two Nation theory’ and attributing it only to Muslims and Muslims is half the truth!

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

Also Read:

Standing Truth on its Head: Ambedkar and BJP agenda

Striving to Promote Democracy: Values of the Constitution

The post Composite Indian Nationalism or ‘Two Nation Theory’ appeared first on SabrangIndia.

He rode camels because they were available

He ate dates because they grew around him

He used Arabic because it was his mother tongue

He covered his head because the sun demanded it.

He used miswak because toothbrushes hadn’t been invented.

He used kohl (surma) because it was a protection against desert sun and sand.

The desert terrain was hot, rough, and full of dust, dirt, and animal waste. He wore his lower garments above the ankles for hygiene, mobility, and durability, not as a divine dress code.

These were tools of his time, not eternal truths

But somehow today, we turn them into markers of piety as if Islam is a costume, not a conscience. Following the Prophet’s Arabian culture is NOT Sunnah.

No my dear Muslim friends. No.

A Muslim in a white thawb is seen as more religious than one in dhoti or any traditional dress

A woman in black abaya is called modest, but one in a saree or jeans with dignity is questioned

A child who learns Arabic alphabets is praised — even if he doesn’t understand them, but a child who reads Quran in Hindi is advised to learn how to read in Arabic.

What are we preserving – faith or performance?

We live in India. Not in tribal Quraysh.Not in the sands of Najd.

But in a country of poetry, diversity, art, and ancient spirituality. We live among Sikhs who believe in service, Hindus who light lamps for love, Jains who preach nonviolence, and Buddhists who renounce hatred.

And instead of growing with that beauty – we fear becoming “less Muslim” or  if we smile during Holi, or greet a neighbour on Diwali, or say – merry Christmas, or light a diya in remembrance, or visit a Gurdwara to pay respect.

Why is your Islam so weak it breaks with kindness?

The Prophet taught mercy, truth, and wisdom.Not brand loyalty to the Arabian Peninsula.

If Islam was meant to be Arab-only, it would’ve stayed there. But it travelled. It adapted.

It bloomed in Persia, Africa, Indonesia, and yes even India.

So why are we now trying to reverse it into cultural regression, when the message was meant to transcend culture?

You can be deeply Muslim and proudly Indian.

You can pray in Arabic and speak in Tamil, Hindi, English, Sanskrit. You can use Chandan, Jasmine, not Oudh necessarily

You can fast in Ramadan and share sweets on Diwali.

You can follow the Sunnah and wear a saree.

You can love the Quran and still find peace in Kabir’s dohas, in Rahim’s couplets, in Amir Khusrau’s verses

You follow Muhammad and still love Guru Nanak. You can listen to Hadith and still listen to Ramayana or read Guru Granth Sahib.

This isn’t syncretism. This is the soul of Indian Islam – a soul that once healed, harmonized, and humbled. Islam doesn’t demand imitation. It demands intention.

You have made culture your qibla, not truth. The Prophet didn’t teach us to erase our identity

He taught us to elevate it with integrity, not imitation.

So yes – you can be deeply Muslim and unapologetically Indian. You are still stronger because you allow your faith to coexist with diversity – the beauty of our country!!

Posted by Munaz Anjum on his Facebook

(https://www.facebook.com/share/p/18f76Liet1/)

The post Not everything the Prophet practiced was religion  appeared first on SabrangIndia.

But this was not just a case about signage or statutory interpretation. It was about what place Urdu—and by extension, linguistic and cultural minorities—continue to hold in the Indian republic. Authored by Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, who presided over the bench of the Supreme Court along with Justice K. Vinod Chandran, the judgment blends legal clarity with cultural wisdom, and reads as much like a constitutional essay as a judicial opinion. It situates the question of language within the broader context of Indian history, identity, and fraternity—invoking not only statutory text but the spirit of the Constitution, the debates of the Constituent Assembly, and the lived realities of India’s multilingual people.

What emerges is not just a dismissal of an exclusionary petition, but a powerful defence of linguistic harmony, cultural coexistence, and the right of every Indian language—especially those spoken by minorities—to be seen, heard, and respected.

The judgment begins with a line from Mouloud Benzadi that sets the tone for what follows:

“When you learn a language, you don’t just learn to speak and write a new language. You also learn to be open-minded, liberal, tolerant, kind and considerate towards all mankind.”

Facts of the case

The petition was filed by Mrs Varshatai, a former member of the Municipal Council, who objected to the use of Urdu in any form, including on signage. Her argument was that the Maharashtra Local Authorities (Official Languages) Act, 2022, permitted only Marathi. The Municipal Council had earlier rejected her plea by a majority resolution dated February 14, 2020, noting that the use of Urdu had been longstanding—since 1956—and that a significant portion of the town’s population was Urdu-speaking.

The appellant then moved an application under Section 308 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils Act, 1965, before the Collector, who allowed it, citing a government circular that mandated 100% use of Marathi in government proceedings. However, this was later set aside by the Divisional Commissioner, leading to a challenge before the Bombay High Court, which dismissed her petition. She then filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court.

During the pendency of the case, the 2022 Act came into force. In an earlier round, the Supreme Court disposed of the SLP, stating that the High Court order may not stand in light of the new law but leaving it open to the aggrieved party to seek appropriate remedy. The matter was then heard afresh by a division bench of the High Court, whose ruling in favour of the Municipal Council was challenged once again—bringing the issue back before the Supreme Court.

The final decision, delivered on April 15, 2025, rejected the challenge and upheld the High Court’s ruling.

The legal position and the Court’s reasoning

The Supreme Court first dealt with a procedural infirmity in how the challenge to the Municipal Council’s resolution was brought about. The appellant had approached the Collector under Section 308 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils Act, 1965, seeking suspension of the Council’s decision to retain Urdu on its signboard. However, a crucial amendment to Section 308 in 2018 had changed the law: after this amendment, the Collector can no longer act on complaints made by individuals or councillors, even if they were former members. The power to bring a resolution to the Collector’s attention rests solely with the Chief Officer of the Municipal Council.

The Court made this limitation clear:

“After the amendment… the Collector can exercise powers only when the Chief Officer of the Municipal Council brings it to the Collector’s notice… In this case, the application was admittedly not made by the Chief Officer… which should not have been entertained in the first place.” [Para 11]

In other words, the entire chain of proceedings initiated by the petitioner before the Collector was legally untenable from the outset, as she had no standing under the amended law to invoke the Collector’s jurisdiction. This aspect alone could have disposed of the case. However, given the persistence of the challenge and the deeper constitutional concerns it raised, the Court moved to examine the substance of the matter as well.

At the heart of the substantive issue was the interpretation of the Maharashtra Local Authorities (Official Languages) Act, 2022—a law that declares Marathi as the official language for all local government bodies in the state. The petitioner’s argument hinged on a narrow and rigid reading of this Act—that once Marathi was declared the official language, the use of any other language, including Urdu, became impermissible.

The Court decisively rejected this interpretation, emphasising that the Act mandates the use of Marathi for official communication, but does not prohibit the use of additional languages for supplementary or public-facing purposes, such as signboards. It quoted the High Court’s clear reading of the law:

“All that [the Act] does, is to ensure that the business and affairs of the Council, are to be conducted in Marathi language… it does not prohibit use of an additional language… the use of an additional language… would not indicate any violation of the provisions of the Act of 2022.” [Para 14]

The Supreme Court agreed with this view, observing:

“The High Court to our mind rightly concluded that the 2022 Act, on which the appellant placed significant reliance, does not prohibit the use of an additional language, which is Urdu in the present case, on the signboard of the Municipal Council building.” [Para 15]

This distinction—between mandating a language and prohibiting others—is constitutionally important. The 2022 Act ensures that Marathi is used, but does not insist that it be used exclusively. As such, Urdu can co-exist on a signboard without violating the law.

Further, the Court reframed the debate entirely by shifting attention from legality to constitutional purpose. Why use Urdu at all? The Court’s answer was simple but deeply rooted in the values of inclusivity and effective governance:

“The purpose here for the use of Urdu is merely communication. All the municipal council wanted to do was to make an effective communication.” [Para 19]

This clarity of purpose is crucial. The use of Urdu on the signboard was not a political gesture or an assertion of religious identity. It was a functional, inclusive, and locally appropriate decision, intended to reach and welcome a section of the population that reads Urdu. The Court highlighted that this was neither new nor radical—Urdu had been used on the Patur Municipal Council’s signage since 1956.

Finally, in what is arguably the most important paragraph in terms of grounding the decision in the lived realities of governance and citizenship, the Court stated:

“Coming to the present case, it must be stated that a Municipal Council is there to provide services to the local community of the area and cater to their immediate day-to-day needs. If people or a group of people, residing within the area covered by the Municipal Council are familiar with Urdu, then there should not be any objection if Urdu is used in addition to the official language i.e. Marathi, at least on the signboard of the Municipal Council. Language is a medium for exchange of ideas that brings people holding diverse views and beliefs closer and it should not become a cause of their division.” [Para 46]

This is where the Court moved beyond a narrow legal resolution and reminded the petitioner—and the country—that language, at its best, is a bridge, not a barrier. The Municipal Council exists to serve the community—not to assert a singular linguistic identity at the cost of alienating others. If part of the community reads Urdu, there is no reason—legal, moral, or constitutional—to exclude it from a signboard.

By recognising this, the Court reclaimed the space of local governance as one that is responsive to local needs, identities, and realities, not one dictated by abstract notions of linguistic nationalism.

A powerful history lesson

Where this judgment truly shines is in its cultural, historical, and constitutional depth. The Court does not stop at interpreting a statutory provision or addressing procedural irregularities. It goes much further—into the idea of language as identity, as history, and as belonging. In doing so, it delivers a clear and courageous rebuke to the growing communalisation of Urdu and the false binaries that have been constructed around it.

The Court directly confronts the widespread tendency to associate Urdu with Islam, and to treat it as a foreign or sectarian language. It challenges this prejudice head-on by making a series of powerful and clarifying declarations. Perhaps the most quoted and impactful of them is this:

“Let our concepts be clear. Language is not religion. Language does not even represent religion. Language belongs to a community, to a region, to people; and not to a religion.” [Para 17]

This simple but profound line dismantles the politicised narrative that seeks to conflate Urdu with a religious identity. It restores to language its proper meaning—not as a marker of religious belonging, but as a tool of expression, identity, memory, and connection. Language, the Court reminds us, cannot be confined to a single group or cast as exclusive to one faith.

The Court deepens this point by offering a civilisational and cultural defence of Urdu, recognising it as a product of the ganga-jamuni tehzeeb—India’s long-standing tradition of cultural syncretism, particularly in the northern and central plains.

“Language is culture. Language is the yardstick to measure the civilizational march of a community and its people. So is the case of Urdu, which is the finest specimen of ganga-jamuni tahzeeb, or the Hindustani tahzeeb, which is the composite cultural ethos of the plains of northern and central India. But before language became a tool for learning, its earliest and primary purpose will always remain communication.” [Para 18]

By invoking this shared cultural history, the Court reclaims Urdu as Indian, not just linguistically but emotionally and historically. It reminds us that Urdu is not a cultural intruder—it is a civilisational creation, a language born out of coexistence, shared spaces, and mutual exchange. The judgment acknowledges that Urdu’s elegance, refinement, and poetic tradition are the legacies of this syncretic past, which the Constitution was meant to preserve, not erase.

The Court also situates this discussion in constitutional history, tracing how Hindi and Urdu were not seen as oppositional or incompatible during the freedom movement and in the early years of the republic. Instead, they were regarded as two forms of the same evolving language—Hindustani—that could serve as a common national medium. The Court draws on the work of Granville Austin, whose scholarship on the Constituent Assembly debates and post-independence linguistic compromise is widely regarded as authoritative.

Referring to the language debates before and after Partition, the Court notes:

“Partition killed Hindustani and endangered the position of English and the provincial languages in the Constitution.” [Para 34]

This line, taken from Austin, captures the tragic turning point at which a shared language—Hindustani, made up of both Hindi and Urdu—was discarded, and its components polarised. Urdu, in particular, bore the brunt of this rupture. The judgment acknowledges that post-Partition nationalism rejected Urdu not because of linguistic reasons but because of political and communal ones—a move that was neither just nor historically accurate.

The Court quotes Jawaharlal Nehru, who had been a staunch advocate of Hindustani as the people’s language—a bridge between Hindi and Urdu, and a language capable of uniting India’s many regions:

“Hindustani (Hindi or Urdu)… is bound to become the all-India medium of communication, not displacing the great provincial languages, but as a compulsory second language.” [Para 31]

This vision—of Hindustani as an inclusive, flexible, people’s language—was derailed by Partition, but the judgment shows that it remains constitutionally relevant even today. By citing Nehru, the Court not only restores this vision but places its ruling in a long constitutional arc that includes freedom movement ideals, the Constituent Assembly’s balancing act, and post-independence compromises.

The judgment also brings in Mahatma Gandhi, who warned against linguistic purism and the dangers of reducing language to a narrow, communal identity. Gandhi understood language as dynamic and inclusive, and his approach to Hindustani reflected this. The Court quotes him with quiet force:

“To confine oneself exclusively to Hindi or Urdu would be a crime against intelligence and the spirit of patriotism.” [Para 36]

Gandhi’s words underscore that linguistic plurality was never seen as a threat to national unity—it was the foundation of it. In quoting both Nehru and Gandhi, the Court implicitly argues that today’s efforts to banish Urdu from public spaces are not just unconstitutional—they are a betrayal of the nation-building vision of those who fought for India’s independence.

Together, these references and insights make this portion of the judgment a masterclass in cultural constitutionalism. It does not approach the question of language as a dry administrative matter, but as a living symbol of India’s diversity—something that must be protected not just by law, but by respect, memory, and a shared sense of belonging.

By restoring Urdu to its rightful place—as an Indian language, a people’s language, and a constitutional language—the Court reaffirms that inclusion, not exclusion, is the heart of our constitutional identity.

Debunking the myth that Urdu is alien

One of the most important contributions of this judgment is the way it confronts and dismantles the deep-rooted prejudice against the Urdu language—a prejudice that has been allowed to flourish in public discourse, often unchallenged. The Court recognises that the hostility towards Urdu is not grounded in linguistic fact, but in a political fiction, born out of Partition-era anxieties and perpetuated by majoritarian narratives.

In a critical passage, the Court squarely addresses and rebuts the idea that Urdu is somehow foreign or un-Indian:

“The prejudice against Urdu stems from the misconception that Urdu is alien to India… Urdu, like Marathi and Hindi, is an Indo-Aryan language. It is a language which was born in this land.” [Para 27]

This statement is not only accurate in terms of linguistic classification—Urdu, like Hindi and Marathi, evolved from Prakrit and Apabhramsha and belongs to the same Indo-Aryan family—but also essential in its rejection of the false notion that Urdu is inherently Islamic. The Court affirms what should be a basic and accepted truth: that Urdu is Indian in its origins, Indian in its development, and Indian in its usage.

It goes further to remind us that Urdu arose from real, lived interactions among people in India—particularly in the north and centre of the country—where different communities needed to communicate across linguistic and cultural lines. Over centuries, this led to the development of a sophisticated, inclusive, and adaptable language, enriched by multiple traditions and serving as a lingua franca in many regions. In fact, it was not born out of exclusivism, but out of coexistence.

The Court then makes a subtle but powerful observation about the everyday presence of Urdu, especially in the speech of people who may not even recognise its origins:

“Even today, the language used by the common people of the country is replete with words of the Urdu language, even if one is not aware of it.” [Para 37]

This insight challenges the idea that Urdu is used only by a particular religious or social group. On the contrary, the vocabulary of Urdu has become so woven into the fabric of everyday Hindi and Indian speech that it is impossible to separate the two without distorting both. From the language of friendship and affection to politics and cinema, Urdu has left a profound mark.

The Court also offers a striking example of how deeply entrenched Urdu is in the Indian legal system. It lists several key legal terms that are of Urdu origin and are still widely used in courts across the country—even in the Supreme Court, where the official language is English. The judgment notes:

“Urdu words have a heavy influence on Court parlance… Adalat, halafnama, peshi, vakalatnama, dasti…” [Para 38]

These are not minor or incidental terms. They are core procedural and functional terms used in both civil and criminal proceedings, known to every lawyer, judge, and litigant across India. ‘Adalat’ (court), ‘halafnama’ (affidavit), ‘peshi’ (appearance), ‘vakalatnama’ (power of attorney), and ‘dasti’ (by hand)—these are foundational building blocks of legal vocabulary.

This point is underscored further in the next line:

“Even though the official language of the Supreme Court… is English, yet many Urdu words continue to be used in this Court till date.” [Para 38]

In making this observation, the Court underlines an important irony: Urdu is being spoken, written, and relied upon at the highest levels of India’s judiciary, even as efforts continue in some quarters to stigmatise it. This lived reality gives lie to the claim that Urdu is somehow alien or inappropriate for official or legal use.

Together, these points form a comprehensive and compelling rebuttal of the misconceptions surrounding Urdu. The Court not only reaffirms that Urdu is as Indian as any other regional language, but also that it remains active, visible, and essential—not just culturally, but administratively and judicially.

Language as a bridge—not a weapon

In one of the segments of the judgment, the Court engages deeply with linguistic scholarship to challenge the idea that Hindi and Urdu are separate languages. This part of the judgment goes beyond the immediate question of signage and moves into the realm of intellectual history and sociolinguistics, showing how the binary between Hindi and Urdu was not a natural evolution but a consciously created political divide.

To support this, the Court draws on the works of prominent scholars such as Gyan Chand Jain, Amrit Rai, Ram Vilas Sharma, and Abdul Haq—all of whom have extensively studied the origins, development, and mutual influence of Hindi and Urdu.

“It is absolutely clear that Urdu and Hindi are not two separate languages… Even though Urdu literature and Hindi literature are two different and independent literatures, Urdu and Hindi are not two different languages.” [Para 41]

“Hindi-Urdu are not two separate languages; they are basically one and the same… There are no two other languages in the world whose pronouns and verbs are one hundred per cent the same.” [Para 42]

This is an emphatic and almost scientifically framed observation—what unites Hindi and Urdu is not merely poetic sentiment but the structural bedrock of language. The judgment notes that while their scripts differ (Devanagari for Hindi, Perso-Arabic for Urdu), and while each has drawn vocabulary from different classical sources (Sanskrit for Hindi, Persian and Arabic for Urdu), their spoken forms remain nearly indistinguishable in everyday use across north India.

In referencing Amrit Rai’s influential work, the Court aligns itself with the understanding that Hindi and Urdu emerged from the same linguistic root—Hindavi or Hindustani—and that the divide between them was sharpened over the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, not by natural evolution but by colonial language policies and post-Partition communal politics. Amrit Rai’s thesis, A House Divided, showed how political forces came to assign communal identities to languages that had once coexisted fluidly.

The judgment does not stop at historical analysis—it goes further to expose the consequences of this artificially constructed divide. By making language a marker of religious identity, a shared cultural and linguistic inheritance was fractured. Urdu came to be falsely viewed as “Muslim”, and Hindi as “Hindu”—a split that ignored centuries of shared grammar, mutual influence, and bilingual expression in the public sphere.

These scholarly citations give the judgment a rare academic depth. It is unusual—though deeply welcome—for the judiciary to cite literary historians and linguists so prominently. And yet, in doing so, the Court performs a vital task: it returns the conversation about language to the terrain of fact, scholarship, and nuance, rather than leaving it to be defined by prejudice and politicised emotion.

And then, poetry

The judgment ends with a poetic flourish, quoting Iqbal Ashhar’s nazm where Urdu speaks for itself:

““urdu hai mirā naam maiñ ‘Khusrav’ kī pahelī

kyuuñ mujh ko banāte ho ta.assub kā nishāna

maiñ ne to kabhī ḳhud ko musalmāñ nahīñ maanā

dekhā thā kabhī maiñ ne bhī ḳhushiyoñ kā zamāna

apne hī vatan meñ huuñ magar aaj akelī

urdu hai mirā naam maiñ ‘Khusrav’ kī pahelī” [Para 48]

“Urdu is my name, I am the riddle of ‘Khusrav’

Do not hold me for your prejudices

I never considered myself a Muslim

I too have seen happier times

I feel like an outsider in my homeland today

Urdu is my name, I am the riddle of ‘Khusrav’”

The Court then reflects:

“Let us make friends with Urdu and every language. If Urdu was to speak for herself, she would say…” [Para 48]

A verse that speaks of belonging, alienation, and identity—reminding the reader that Urdu, like any other Indian language, asks not for supremacy, but for space to exist.

Why this judgment is important

This is more than a legal ruling—it is a profound affirmation of India’s constitutional soul. It reasserts that the Constitution protects not only freedom of religion, but freedom of language, identity, and culture. India’s commitment to pluralism is not merely symbolic—it is embedded in its constitutional text and historical experience. This judgment operationalises that commitment with clarity and courage.

It is important because:

• It clarifies the law, confirming that there is no legal bar on using additional languages like Urdu on public signboards under the 2022 Act.
• It safeguards linguistic and cultural rights, especially of minority communities, and affirms that state recognition does not require the exclusion of others.
• It dispels the myth that Urdu is alien, asserting its deep roots in India’s linguistic heritage and constitutional imagination.
• It confronts majoritarian narratives, refusing to allow language to be communalised or weaponised.

This judgment stands out for its clarity, depth, and conviction. It does not merely interpret a statute or settle a procedural flaw—it reaffirms foundational constitutional values. By recognising the legitimacy of linguistic diversity and rejecting efforts to erase or marginalise a language rooted in India’s soil, the Court has underscored that governance must serve all, not just the dominant voice. In doing so, it reminds us that the Constitution protects not just rights in the abstract, but the dignity of communities, cultures, and the many languages in which India speaks.

The complete judgment may be read here.

Related:

When Courts Fail Survivors: How patriarchy shapes justice in sexual offence against women cases

A Judgement of Conscience: Bombay High Court orders SIT Probe into alleged fake encounter in Badlapur

Supreme Court slams UP police for criminalising civil disputes, calls it a ‘complete breakdown of rule of law’

Uttarakhand HC orders unsealing of Madrassa, SC steps in to hear Jamiat’s petition against Dhami govt’s crackdown against Madrassa

The post “Urdu Is Not Alien”: Supreme Court reclaims the language’s place in the Indian Constitutional fabric 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.

If we observe the glorification of Dr. BR Ambedkar by the RSS-BJP rulers on his birth anniversary, it appears that they, the sangh parivar are the most loyal followers of him, none other. According to Prime Minister Modi, Ambedkar was ‘architect of the Constitution of India’ and ‘Messiha of the Schedule Castes’.

The UP government has announced a grand celebration of ‘Ambedkar Jayanti’ beginning with a series of programmes from the morning of April 13 (2025), leading up to the main celebrations on April 14 at Lucknow which will be attended by the Hindutva icon, chief minister, Adityanath. These programmes “aim to acquaint the younger generation with Dr Ambedkar’s remarkable life, visionary leadership, and his unwavering commitment to justice, equality, and social reform”.

Dr. Ambedkar is receiving fullsome praise after his death. In life, the RSS and its bandwagon which included the VD Savarkar-led Hindu Mahasabha, never missed an opportunity to denigrate him, often resorted to the burning of his effigy! If Dr. Ambedkar were to appear now, in the India ruled by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) cadres, make no mistake, he would be either lynched or put in jail under terror laws for his trenchant opposition to Caste and the attendant denigration of Sudras, Women. Especially his sharp critique of Privileged Castes hegemony and Hindutva.

1. Ambedkar supported the burning of Manusmriti

The RSS wants Indian constitution to be replaced by the Manusmriti or Manu Code or laws of Manu which is known for its derogatory and inhuman references to Sudras, Untouchables and women. This is the very Book that Babasaheb burned.  The Constituent Assembly of India finalised the Constitution of India on November 26, 1949, RSS was not happy. Its organ, Organiser in an editorial on November 30, 1949, complained:

“But in our Constitution, there is no mention of the unique constitutional development in ancient Bharat. Manu’s Laws were written long before Lycurgus of Sparta or Solon of Persia. To this day his laws as enunciated in the Manusmriti excite the admiration of the world and elicit spontaneous obedience and conformity. But to our constitutional pundits that means nothing.”

By demanding promulgation of laws of Manu in an Independent India, the RSS was simply following its mentor, philosopher and guide VD Savarkar who declared that,

“Manusmriti is that scripture which is most worship-able after Vedas for our Hindu Nation and which from ancient times has become the basis of our culture-customs, thought and practice. This book for centuries has codified the spiritual and divine march of our nation. Even today the rules which are followed by the crores of Hindus in their lives and practice are based on Manusmriti. Today Manusmriti is Hindu Law.”

It is to be noted here that a copy of Manusmriti was burnt as a protest in the presence of Dr. BR Ambedkar during historic Mahad agitation on December 25, 1927. He also called for burning Manusmriti on December 25 each year.

2. Ambedkar held ‘High’ (Privileged) Caste Hindus which control Hindutva politics responsible for the miserable life of Hindus and hatred for Muslims

He was crystal clear in his view, that,

“[The] high caste Hindus are bad as leaders. They have a trait of character which often leads the Hindus to disaster. This trait is formed by their acquisitive instinct and aversion to share with others the good things of life. They have a monopoly of education and wealth, and with wealth and education they have captured the State. To keep this monopoly to themselves has been the ambition and goal of their life. Charged with this selfish idea of class domination, they take every move to exclude the lower classes of Hindus from wealth, education and power, the surest and the most effective being the preparation of scriptures, inculcating upon the minds of the lower classes of Hindus the teaching that their duty in life is only to serve the higher classes. In keeping this monopoly in their own hands and excluding the lower classes from any share in it, the high caste Hindus have succeeded for a long time and beyond measure…

“This attitude of keeping education, wealth and power as a close preserve for themselves and refusing to share it, which the high caste Hindus have developed in their relation with the lower classes of Hindus, is sought to be extended by them to the Muslims. They want to exclude the Muslims from place and power, as they have done to the lower-class Hindus. This trait of the high caste Hindus is the key to the understanding of their politics.”

[B.R. Ambedkar, Pakistan or the Partition of India (Bombay: Government of Maharashtra, 1990), p. 123, first Published December 1940, Thackers Publishers, Bombay.]

3. Ambedkar renounced Hinduism

Ambedkar, in his historic speech in Nagpur on October 15, 1956, a day after he had embraced Buddhism, said,

“The movement to leave the Hindu religion was taken in hand by us in 1935, when a resolution was made in Yeola. Even though I was born in the Hindu religion, I will not die in the Hindu religion. This oath I made earlier; yesterday, I proved it true. I am happy; I am ecstatic! I have left hell — this is how I feel. I do not want any blind followers. Those who come into the Buddhist religion should come with an understanding; they should consciously accept that religion.”

If he tries to convert now we can imagine what terrible fate he will meet!

4. Ambedkar fought for equal rights for women

For the RSS Hindu women are inferior in every respect. The outfit, demands promulgation of Manusmriti as constitution of India which shockingly denigrates women as we will see in the following [few out of dozens]:

1. Day and night woman must be kept in dependence by the males (of) their (families), and, if they attach themselves to sensual enjoyments, they must be kept under one’s control.
2. Her father protects (her) in childhood, her husband protects (her) in youth, and her sons protect (her) in old age; a woman is never fit for independence.
3. Women do not care for beauty, nor is their attention fixed on age; (thinking), ‘(It is enough that) he is a man,’ they give themselves to the handsome and to the ugly.
4. Through their passion for men, through their mutable temper, through their natural heartlessness, they become disloyal towards their husbands, however carefully they may be guarded in this (world).
5. (When creating them) Manu allotted to women (a love of their) bed, (of their) seat and (of) ornament, impure desires, wrath, dishonesty, malice, and bad conduct.
6. For women no (sacramental) rite (is performed) with sacred texts, thus the law is settled; women (who are) destitute of strength and destitute of (the knowledge of) Vedic texts, (are as impure as) falsehood (itself), that is a fixed rule.

Sharply to the contrary, Dr. Ambedkar believed in equality for women. He was clear that, “We shall see better days soon and our progress will be greatly accelerated if male education is persuaded side by side with female education…” He went on to stress that “I measure the progress of community by the degree of progress which women had achieved”. He advised Dalit women, “Never regard yourself as Untouchables, live a clean life. Dress yourselves as touchable ladies. Never mind, if your dress is full of patches, but see that it is clean. None can restrict your freedom in the choice of your garments. Attend more to the cultivation of the mind and spirit of self-Help.”

Liquor was a bane in Dalit families and in order remedy it he asked women “do not feed in any case your spouse and sons if they are drunkards. Send your children to schools. Education is as necessary for females as it is for males. If you know how to read and write, there would be much progress. As you are, so your children will be.”

5. Ambedkar did not subscribe to the idea of Hindu nation and decried Hindutva

Dr. Ambedkar, a keen researcher of the communal politics in pre-independence India, while underlying the affinity and camaraderie between Hindu Mahasabha and Muslim League on the issue of Two-Nation Theory wrote:

“Strange it may appear, Mr. Savarkar and Mr. Jinnah instead of being opposed to each other on the one nation versus two nations issue are in complete agreement about it. Both agree, not only agree but insist that there are two nations in India—one the Muslim nation and the other Hindu nation.”

According to him, the idea of “Hindustan for Hindus…is not merely arrogant but is arrant nonsense”. He was emphatic in warning that,

“If Hindu Raj does become a fact, it will, no doubt, be the greatest calamity for this country… [It] is a menace to liberty, equality and fraternity. On that account it is incompatible with democracy. Hindu Raj must be prevented at any cost.”

6. Ambedkar believed in Socialism

Jawaharlal Nehru introduced the Objective Resolution [OR] on December 13, 1946. Dr. Ambedkar’s turn to respond to OR came on 17 December 1946. He stated:

“If this resolution has a reality behind it and a sincerity, of which I have not the least doubt, coming as it does from the mover of the resolution [Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru], I should have expected some provision whereby it would have been possible for the state to make economic, social and political justice a reality and i should have from that point of view expected the resolution to state in most explicit terms that in order that there may be social and economic justice in the country, that there would be nationalisation of industry and nationalisation of land, I do not understand how it could be possible for any future government which believes in doing justice socially, economically and politically, unless its economy is a socialistic economy.”

7. Ambedkar’s antipathy towards ‘Hindutva ‘nationalists’ & ‘Patriots’

Dr Ambedkar, as early as 1931, said that whenever he demanded equality for lower Castes, marginalised sections and Depressed classes he would be called a communalist and anti-national. He was forthright in telling the ‘nationalists’ & ‘patriots’:

“India is a peculiar country, and her nationalists and patriots are a peculiar people. A patriot and a nationalist in India is one who sees with open eyes his fellowmen treated as being less than men. But his humanity does not rise in protest. He knows that men and women for no cause are denied their human rights. But it does not prick his civic sense to helpful action. He finds the whole class of people shut out from public employment. But it does not rouse his sense of justice and fair play. Hundreds of evil practices that injure man and society are perceived by him. But they do not sicken him with disgust. The patriot’s one cry is power and more power for him and for his class. I am glad I do not belong to that class of patriots. I belong to that class which takes its stand on democracy, and which seeks to destroy monopoly in a very shape and form. Our aim is to realise in practice our ideal of one man one value in all walks of life, political, economic and social.”

[Dr BR Ambedkar in the Plenary Session of Round Table Conference, London, 8^th Sitting, January 19, 1931.]

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

Related:

Rediscovering Ambedkar to Fight Against Hindutva

Hindutva Forces Want to Appropriate Ambedkar but not Impart his Teachings

Babasaheb Ambedkar’s Scathing Attacks on Hindutva and Hindu Rashtra

The post On his 135th birth anniversary, we ask, would Ambedkar be allowed free speech in India today? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Directed by Govind Nihalani and based on Bhisham Sahni’s haunting novel, Tamas dared to hold a mirror to the nation’s soul. Not just to remind us of the agony that the Partition caused us, but to expose the political machinery that breeds communal hatred – systematically, with precision, with horrifying ease.

As a young adult, when I sat before the small screen, I remember how I flinched, not once, but many times, throughout. The movie – then in the form of a mini-series – made me numb. It was so intense. Scene after scene took me far into the dark days, much before my time – beyond its frames.

Tamas wasn’t a cinematic spectacle. It was truth stripped to the bone. I can see them even today, clear and dark. A pig carcass thrown into a place of worship. A whisper becoming a riot. Neighbours morphing into enemies overnight. Women killing themselves to avoid dishonour at the hands of rioters.

This was four years before the demolition of the Babri Masjid. The movie did not predict it. Nor did it predict the Gujarat pogroms; rather, it laid bare the anatomy of such events long before they happened. Each of the series started with this warning : “Those who forget their history are condemned to repeat it.”

It was as if the future was being acted out on film, but no one was listening. We simply looked away.

Today, Empuraan, a cinematic spectacle, has the country watching and debating it. It is a hard-hitting movie that drags truth and trauma to the surface. It revisits India’s recent history of hate and division, conspiracies and treachery, and blurs the distinction between fiction and unsettling facts. However, unlike Tamas, which grieved, warned, and peeled the layers of hatred, Empuraan trembles with the thrill of revenge. It blows into the fire not to extinguish it but to fan it, challenge it and eventually burn and bury the symbols of hate in retribution, gory and violent.

The distinction matters.

Because the fire that is burning is not one that can be doused by fire.

Over the past years, dominant Hindutva voices have publicly advocated for a Hindu Rashtra. Boycotts and harassment of minorities happen in broad daylight. Hate speeches that incite violence have gone unchallenged. The bulldozer, once a symbol of development, is now a mascot of retribution.

Attacks by self-styled vigilantes rise daily, while hate speeches against minorities have become so common that the media barely notices them anymore.

But what of us? The ordinary citizens? The neighbours, coworkers, and relatives?

What about the people at the dinner table, quietly consuming WhatsApp propaganda? What of the colleagues who once believed in secularism but now laugh at the abuse of the other? What about the polite silence from friends and relatives that accompanies every slogan, slur, and destroyed home?

What of the urban educated, who rationalise lynchings but rage over “vote bank politics”?

What of our complicity?

Too many of us – educated, articulate, even progressive, once – have fallen into the trap of propaganda. Our quiet is no longer innocuous. It is consent. It is a collaboration.

And perhaps the most unsettling issue that Tamas wanted us to see all along was not just the horror of violence or the hysteria of mobs, nor was it only about the silent concurrence of the government, but about us: the ordinary people who turned away.

Tamas encountered legal and political challenges in the late 1980s. The government attempted to prevent the series from airing. Petitions were filed. Courts were approached. The administration dreaded the consequences. There was fear it would provoke unrest.

It didn’t.

There were no riots, only discomfort. It provoked something far more powerful: conscience.

That was a different India. One that still flinched.

Do we still flinch?

When we see mobs lynching in broad daylight – do we flinch? When classmates assault a schoolchild on religious grounds at the command of a teacher, do we flinch? When hate becomes humour and cruelty becomes normal content, do we still flinch?

Or have we all actually become one, as in the title of the movie Tamas, which in Sanskrit would mean darkness, ignorance, delusion, or inertia. Tamas is a state of being – one where truth is obscured, and actions are guided by fear, hatred, or confusion.

If Empuraan disturbed us, it should.

Not just for the conspiracies it hints at or the wounds it reopened, but for who we are: a culture that justifies and forgets.

It is now the time to watch Tamas again. Not for nostalgia. Not even for mourning.

But to turn the mirror inward.

Because hate is not yelled. It is whispered. It is nodded at. It is forwarded. It is lived quietly in homes like ours.

And in the end, the most dangerous place for a country to arrive at…

..is when it no longer flinches.

Sridhar Radhakrishnan is an environmental and social justice activist. He writes on democracy, ecology, agriculture, and civil society movements.

Courtesy: The Wire

The post Tamas and the Shadow Over Empuraan: A Nation Still Disturbed With Itself appeared first on SabrangIndia.

First Published on: 11 Apr 2016

On his 189^th Birth Anniversary, April 11, we bring to you excerpts from Jyotiba Phule’s path breaking work, severely criticising Brahminism and the Caste System

Jyotiba Phule was born on April 11, 1827

If a Bhat happened to pass by a river where a Shudra as washing his clothes, the Shudra had to collect all his clothes and proceed to a far distant spot, lest some drops of the (contaminated) water should be sprayed on the Bhat. Even then, if a drop of water were to touch the body of the Bhat from there, or even if the Bhat so imagined it, the Bhat did not hesitate to fling his utensil angrily at the head of the Shudra who would collapse to the ground, his head bleeding profusely.

On recovering from the swoon the Shudra would collect his blood- stained clothes and wend his way home silently. He could not complain to the Government Officials, as the administration was dominated by the Bhats. More often than not he would be punished stringently for complaining against the Bhats. This was the height of injustice!

It was difficult for the Shudras to move about freely in the streets for their daily routine, most of all in the mornings when persons and things cast long shadows about them. If a `Bhat Saheb’ were to come along from the opposite direction, the Shudra had to stop by the road until such time as the `Bhat Saheb’ passed by – for fear of casting his polluting shadow on him. He was free to proceed further only after the `Bhat Saheb’ had passed by him.

Should a Shudra be unlucky enough to cast his polluting shadow on a Bhat inadvertently, the Bhat used to belabour him mercilessly and would go to bathe at the river to wash off the pollution. The Shudras were forbidden even to spit in the streets. Should he happen to pass through a Brahmin (Bhat) locality he had to carry an earthen-pot slung about his neck to collect his spittle. (Should a Bhat Officer find a spittle from a Shudra’s mouth on the road, woe betide the Shudra!)…….

[[The Shudra suffered many such indignities and disabilities and were looking forward to their release from their persecutors as prisoners fondly do. The all-merciful Providence took pity on the Shudras and brought about the British raj to India by its divine dispensation which emancipated the Shudras from the physical (bodily) thraldom (slavery). We are much beholden to the British rulers. We shall never forget their kindness to us. It was the British rulers who freed us from the centuries-old oppression of the Bhat and assured a hopeful future for our children. Had the British not come on the scene (in India) (as our rulers) the Bhat would surely have crushed us in no time (long ago.)]]

Some may well wonder as to how the Bhats managed to crush the depressed and down-trodden people here even though they (the Shudras) outnumbered them tenfold. It was well-known that one clever person can master ten ignorant persons
(e.g. a shepherd and his flock). Should the ten ignorant men be united (be of one mind), they would surely prevail over that clever one. But if the ten are disunited they would easily be duped by that clever one. The Bhats have invented a very cunning method to sow seeds of dissension among the Shudras. The Bhats were naturally apprehensive of the growing numbers of the depressed and down- trodden people. They knew that keeping them disunited alone ensured their (the Bhats’) continued mastery ever them. It was the only way of keeping them as abject slaves indefinitely, and only thus would they be able to indulge in a life of gross indulgence and luxury ensured by the `sweat of the Shudras’ brows. To that end in view, the Bhats invented the pernicious fiction of the caste-system, compiled (learned) treatises to serve their own self-interest and indoctrinated the pliable minds of the ignorant Shudras (masses) accordingly.

Some of the Shudras put up a gallant fight against this blatant injustice. They were segregated into a separate category (class). In order to wreak vengeance on them (for their temerity) the Bhats persuaded those whom we today term as Malis (gardeners), Kunbis (tillers, peasants) etc. not to stigmatise them as untouchables.

Being deprived of their means of livelihood, they were driven to the extremity of eating the flesh of dead animals. Some of the members of the Shudras community today proudly call themselves as Malis (gardeners), Kunbis (peasants), gold-smiths, tailors, iron smiths, carpenters etc, on the basis of the avocation (trade) they pursued (practised), Little do they know that our ancestors and those of the so¬called untouchables (Mahars, Mangs etc.) were blood-brothers (traced their lineage to the same family stock).

Their ancestors fought bravely in defence of their motherland against the invading usurpers (the Bhats) and hence, the wily Bhats reduced them to penury and misery. It is a thousand pities that being unmindful of this state of affairs, the Shudras began to hate their own kith and kin.

The Bhats invented an elaborate system of caste-distinction based on the way the other Shudras behaved towards them, condemning some to the lowest rung and some to a slightly higher rung. Thus they permanently made them into their proteges and by means of the powerful weapon of the `iniquitous caste system,’ drove a permanent wedge among the Shudras.

It was a classic case of the cats who went to law! The Bhats created dissensions among the depressed and the down- trodden masses and are battening on the differences (are leading luxurious lives thereby).

The depressed and down­trodden masses in India were freed from the physical bodily) slavery of the Bhats as a result of the advent of the British raj here. But we are sorry to state that the benevolent British Government have not addressed themselves to the important task of providing education to the said masses. That is why the Shudras continue to be ignorant, and hence, their ‘mental slavery’ regarding the spurious religious tracts of the Bhats continues unabated. They cannot even appeal to the Government for the redressal of their wrongs. The Government is not yet aware of the way the Bhats exploit the masses in their day to day problems as also in the administrative machinery. We pray to the Almighty to enable the Government to kindly pay attention to this urgent task and to free the masses from their mental slavery to the machinations of the Bhats.

I am deeply beholden to Shri Vinayak Babji Bhandarkar and Rao Saheb Shri Rajanna Lingu for their continued encouragement to me in the writing of this treatise.

(From the Introduction to ‘Slavery’ by Mahatma Jyotiba Phule)
­­­­­­­

The post Jyotiba Phule’s Trenchant Critique of Caste: Gulamgiri appeared first on SabrangIndia.