Vivekananda also emphasised that the message of Jesus of Nazareth was meant for all of humanity, showing us the path of truth. As he put it, “In him is embodied all that is the best and greatest in his own race, the meaning, the life, for which that race has struggled for ages; and he himself is the impetus for the future, not only to his own race but to unnumbered other races of the world.”

While Swamiji was deeply respectful of Jesus Christ and acknowledged that His message was universal, he did not fully engage with the core aspects of Jesus’ teachings, particularly His focus on addressing the profound inequalities of the material world and His sacrifice for the downtrodden.

Rather than confronting these real-world issues, Swamiji sought to place Christ in the framework of a “Great Soul,” interpreting His life and teachings through the lens of his own Vedantic philosophy. In simpler terms, Swamiji seemed to suggest that the message of Jesus was essentially an articulation of the non-dualist Vedantic thought that he himself espoused.

Although Swamiji praised Jesus extensively in his lecture, a significant part of his effort was spent creating an artificial binary between the East and the West. Influenced by Orientalist writings, Vivekananda appeared to present an East-versus-West dichotomy to a Western audience in the early twentieth century. During this time, rapid industrialization had unsettled many Europeans, prompting some to seek solace in the “spiritual” East. The Western fascination with Swamiji’s words should be understood within this historical context.

In his lecture, Vivekananda strongly argued that Jesus belonged to the Eastern world (Asia). He went even further, boldly claiming that all great souls and incarnations originated in the Orient. As he stated, “No wonder, the oriental mind looks with contempt upon the things of this world and naturally wants to see something that changeth not, something which dieth not, something which in the midst of this world of misery and death is eternal, blissful, undying. An oriental Prophet never tires of insisting upon these ideals; and, as for Prophets, you may also remember that without one exception, all the Messengers were Orientals.”

However, Vivekananda failed to recognise that human races, religions, and spiritual practices are not confined to a specific region. People live beyond the Oriental world, practicing a wide range of faiths and relating to God in diverse ways. Even the concept of God is not central to some religions. Some faiths possess sacred texts while others have no history of revealed scriptures. These complex sociological and theological practices were overlooked by Vivekananda in his effort to create a sharp distinction between the Oriental and Occidental worlds.

Vivekananda extended this argument further, making the unsubstantiated claim that European society is primarily “political,” while the Eastern world is “religious.” According to him, “‌The voice of Asia has been the voice of religion. The voice of Europe is the voice of politics.” To support this view, he asserted that “the voice of Europe is the voice of ancient Greece.” He also suggested that because the ancient Greek civilization was primarily focused on the material world, its profound influence on Europe led the continent away from religion.

As he explained, “The Greek lives entirely in this world. He does not care to dream. Even his poetry is practical. His gods and goddesses are not only human beings, but intensely human, with all human passions and feelings almost the same as with any of us. He loves what is beautiful, but, mind you, it is always external nature; the beauty of the hills, of the snows, of the flowers, the beauty of forms and of figures, the beauty in the human face, and, more often, in the human form—that is what the Greeks liked. And the Greeks being the teachers of all subsequent Europeanism, the voice of Europe is Greek.”

Vivekananda largely overlooked that an influential segment of the Western world had claimed the Greek tradition as part of its own cultural heritage. However, the image of Greece has shifted throughout history; some scholars argue that Greece was once viewed as a part of African civilization. Moreover, the dominant discourse in post-Enlightenment Western civilization has often failed to acknowledge adequately the influence of Islam and other non-Western traditions on the rise of Europe.

It appears that Swami Vivekananda spoke within the framework of the dominant European narrative, which positioned Greek culture as the foundational heritage of post-Enlightenment European civilization. However, he gave this argument an intriguing twist by attributing Europe’s secular outlook to the ancient Greeks, claiming this to be the primary cause of Europe’s distance from religion.

The binary opposition that Swamiji established between the religious East and the materialistic/secular West profoundly influenced India’s nationalist movements and post-independence politics. Decades later, when Rabindranath Tagore delivered his lectures on nationalism, he appeared to draw on a similar logic, explaining societal phenomena through binary oppositions. In his lectures, Tagore framed a dichotomy between the social and the political, famously stating, “Our real problem in India is not political. It is social.”

While Swamiji rejected both Greek and European modes of thought, he crafted his own version of religion, which he saw as complementary to the teachings of Jesus. For Vivekananda, religion was crucial in Asia, uniting people despite their differences. Although the unifying role of religion cannot be denied, Swamiji’s lecture overlooked that this so-called religious solidarity is often fractured along caste, class, and gender lines. In other words, divisions by caste, class, and gender are frequently obscured by ruling elites who use religion as a tool to artificially forge unity.

Claiming that people in Asia are inherently religious, Swamiji argued that, unlike the Greeks, Asians are not confined to the material world but instead seek to transcend it, looking for something immutable and indestructible. Drawing on Vedantic philosophy, he suggested that religious individuals in the East go beyond the empirical world in search of “the changeless.”

In his depiction of the religious individual, Vivekananda presented a figure who disregards the material world, focusing instead on what is eternal and imperishable. In contrast, materialist and Buddhist philosophies critique this denial of the material world, emphasizing the dynamic nature of existence. Interestingly, even Jesus Christ—who fought for the rights of the poor and challenged social injustices—is appropriated within the broader Vedantic framework.

In my reading of Vedantic philosophy, I find that it contains some elements of equality, particularly in its belief that God resides within all beings. Since it claims that every individual embodies God, Vedanta has the potential to broaden the social foundation of Hinduism.

Vivekananda expanded on this concept in his lecture, emphasizing that God resides within the soul of every person. This aligns with the message that all are children of God. He expressed it as follows: “As man advanced spiritually, he began to feel that God was omnipresent, that He must be in him, that He must be everywhere, that He was not a distant God, but clearly the Soul of all souls. As my soul moves my body, even so is God the mover of my soul. Soul within soul. And a few individuals who had developed enough and were pure enough, went still further, and at last found God.”

However, the limitation of this perspective is its failure to address social inequality. If all are embodiments of God, then how do we define the oppressed and the oppressors? In other words, Vivekananda’s religious theory acknowledges the existence of sorrow but does not consider the causes of sorrow in the world. To escape from sorrow, Vedantic philosophy suggests transcending the material world. Yet, the philosophers of oppressed communities urge people not only to examine the roots of inequality but also to actively work toward eliminating them. The life of Jesus, as the Messiah of the downtrodden, offers numerous examples of the fight for an egalitarian world—an aspect that Vivekananda overlooked in his Los Angeles lecture.

[The author holds a PhD in Modern History from Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. His research focuses on minority rights and social justice. Email: debatingissues@gmail.com]

Related:

Vivekananda: Monk who highlighted Humanism of Hinduism

Redefining Indian Tradition Minus Christianity & Islam is Intellectual Dishonesty

The post How has Swami Vivekananda looked at Jesus Christ? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Later in October, Jagat Guru Shankaracharya Avimukteshwaranand Swami reportedly expressed his outrage and refused to visit Shimla’s famous Ram Mandir due to the presence of a Sai Baba idol in the temple.

Although not frequent, a constant sort of attack is visible from sections of Hindutva on Sai Baba, the saint of Shirdi. The reason is evident.

Shirdi Sai Baba is the latest symbol of a pluralist Hinduism where each Hindu can have her own connection with the god of her choice. Sai Baba represents a paradigm of Hinduism which the fundamentalists of the religion cannot control. To understand how he came to be revered by crores of people across the country, we will have to understand the emergence of a composite culture in India from 10^th Century to the time of Sai Baba.

Bhakti and Sufi movements in India

Bhakti and Sufi movements in India are vital points of Indian history. They have shaped how Indian society understands and follows religion today. While the Bhakti movement is said to have originated in South India during the 7^th century—Sufi saints, often referred to as fakirs had arrived in India as early as the 12th century, promoting a message of love, devotion, and inclusivity. Their teachings attracted people from various backgrounds, blurring the lines between Islam and Hinduism.[1] Sufi shrines (dargahs) emerged as important centres of social and religious interaction, drawing both Muslims and Hindus seeking spiritual solace and guidance. Meerabai, a Bhakti poet and a devotee of Krishna is a celebrated figure in India today.[2]

These movements were radical when seen against the ritual heavy Vedic religion since they spoke about a personal connection with the god without any middlemen. See the following piece written by Kabir, arguably the most important Sufi saint who some scholars say also have been an influence on Guru Nanak[3]:

मोकों कहाँ ढूँढ़े बंदे, मैं तो तेरे पास में।

(Where do you search for me? I am with you.)

ना मैं देवल ना मैं मसजिद, ना काबे कैलास में।

(I am neither in temple nor in Masjid. Neither in Kaba nor in Kailash.)

ना तो कौन क्रिया-कर्म में, नहीं योग बैराग में।

(I am neither in Karma nor in Yogic Exercises.)

खोजी होय तो तुरतै मिलिहौं, पल भर की तलास में।

(If you search for me, I will be found within a moment of such search)

This personal connection between human and God is radical and represents a powerful departure from the traditional, ritualistic religious practices prevalent during that era. Kabir’s verses emphasize the idea that God is within each individual, accessible without the need for elaborate rituals, idols, or intermediaries. This egalitarian approach of the Bhakti and Sufi movements made them appealing across social strata, reaching out to people marginalized by caste hierarchies and orthodox religious practices.

Both movements held that devotion and sincerity of the heart are the true paths to spirituality, rather than rigid adherence to rituals or scriptures. Bhakti saints like Tulsidas, Surdas, and Tukaram, along with Sufi saints like Nizamuddin Auliya and Moinuddin Chishti, embodied these ideals. They preached in local languages, making their teachings accessible to the common people and creating a new, culturally rich poetic and spiritual tradition.

The simplicity and inclusivity of these messages posed a challenge to the established social order. By focusing on personal piety, the Bhakti and Sufi movements implicitly questioned the authority of the Brahmanical hierarchy and the rigidity of caste, albeit not directly in all cases. Additionally, these movements fostered a sense of unity and tolerance, encouraging people to transcend religious boundaries.

This spirit of inclusivity and devotion influenced later figures, such as Guru Nanak, who drew from both Bhakti and Sufi teachings, ultimately leading to the formation of Sikhism. The legacies of these movements remain significant today, highlighting the enduring value of unity, love, and a direct connection with the divine in Indian spirituality.

Composite secular culture and Sai Baba

Sai Baba’s origins are mysterious, leading to differing beliefs about his background. Some accounts suggest he was born to Deshastha Brahmin parents in Pathri and was entrusted to a fakir as an infant, while others say he was born into a Muslim family under the Nizam’s rule, reflecting Nizam Shahi traditions. Sai Baba himself remained silent on his origins and grew angry when questioned, adding to the intrigue surrounding his identity. In 1858, Sai Baba arrived in Shirdi, Maharashtra, with a wedding procession, where the temple priest Mahalsapathi welcomed him as “Sai.” He embraced the name and spent his early days under a neem tree, later residing in a masjid he named Dwarkamai.[4]

His teachings emphasised love, tolerance, and the unity of all religions. In his book ‘Shirdi Sai Baba—A Practical God, K.K. Dixit writes that Sai Baba believed that every person was free to have faith in any religion or deity they wished to follow. According to Dixit, Sai Baba never compelled anyone to withdraw themselves from their religious beliefs, but instead helped them to develop a deeper faith, whether it was in Krishna, Ram or Rahim.[5]

Sai Baba embodied a blend of Hindu and Muslim traditions, creating a composite culture that welcomed everyone and was influenced by Kabir. Living in a mosque he named Dwarkamai, he maintained a sacred fire, a Sufi tradition, while also observing Hindu customs like blowing conch shells and performing ritual offerings. He celebrated festivals like Ram Navami and Eid with equal enthusiasm, attracting followers from all backgrounds through his simplicity, compassion, and rumored miracles.

By treating everyone equally, Sai Baba promoted inclusivity, welcoming people of all castes and religions, including untouchables and lepers, into Dwarkamai, which he called a “place of shelter for everyone.” His teachings on unity transcended religious labels, emphasizing the shared essence of spirituality and the equality of all beings. When pressed about his religious identity, he reacted strongly, suggesting that his focus was beyond specific labels and centred on spiritual universality.

Sai Baba’s unique blend of spirituality and charisma drew followers, many of whom were Hindu. Although he appeared as a faqīr and resided in a mosque, his Hindu followers wished to worship him in their own ways, sometimes even as a deity. Initially, Sai Baba resisted such worship but eventually allowed and adapted to Hindu rituals. By 1908, his followers began congregational worship with traditional Hindu ceremonies like āratīs and devotional songs. Though he refused a palanquin, he permitted processions with devotees. In 1913, he accepted Hindu customs, like applying sandal paste, and remarked, “As the country, so the custom,” showing his openness to diverse practices.[6]

This later culminated into many Hindus seeing Sai Baba as an incarnation of Dattatreya, a god who is a combination of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva—a supreme being. This information about Sai Baba being an incarnation of Dattatreya is also mentioned in the Shri Sai Satcharita published by the Shir Saibaba Sansthan Trust, Shirdi.[7] Sai Baba is revered across India and especially in south India and not many know of this connection of his to Hindu pantheon. He is revered nevertheless.

It is important to note that Sai Baba’s secular teachings were happening in modern India at a time when British was trying to divide and rule the Indian polity. Therefore, the spirit of his teachings—of unity and of finding one’s connection to one’s own god are of importance today too, as fundamentalist forces try to sow divisions in the society

Conclusion

Whether or not one believes Sai Baba to be a god, his contributions to a secular, inclusive view of spirituality are undeniable. His approach—encouraging devotees to honour their own gods—stood in contrast to fundamentalist ideas that promote worship of a single set of deities within Hindu society. This stance is why he faces criticism from fundamentalist forces. In an era of increasing polarization, Sai Baba and his followers serve as powerful examples of pluralism within Hinduism.

(The author is part of the organisation’s research team)

[1] Mratkhuzina, G.F., Bobkov, D.V., Khabibullina, A.M. and Ahmad, I.G., 2019. Sufism: Spiritual and cultural traditions in India. Journal of History Culture and Art Research, 8(3), pp.434-441.

[2] Das, A. and Mittapalli, R., 2023. The Contribution of Akka Mahadevi and Mirabai to Bhakti Literature: A Comparative Study from the 21st-Century Perspective.

[3] Mann, G.S., 2010. Guru Nanak’s Life and Legacy: An Appraisal. Journal of Punjab Studies, 17, pp.1-2.

[4] https://sai.org.in/en/history

[5] Dixit, K. K. Shirdi Sai Baba: A Practical God. Sterling Publishers Pvt. Ltd, 2011.

[6] der Orientalistik, H., Handbook of Oriental Studies. Erste Abteilung. Der Nahe und.

[7] Dabholkar, G.R, Shri Sai Satcharitra, Shri Saibaba Sansthan Trust, Shirdi.

Related:

Baba Chamliyal: The Healing Saint of Unity and Faith across Borders

Watch: Sufism and its influence on Indian music

Gujarat 1992: Hindus who saved a dargah in Surat

The post Sab ka Malik Ek: Sai Baba and pluralism within Hinduism appeared first on SabrangIndia.

zindaa hae,

Zindaa hone per sharminda hae!

Human beings are still alive;

They are ashamed to be alive!

[Renowned cultural-political-human rights activist of Pakistan, Shahid Nadeem’s Urdu couplet on the silence of the civil society on attacks on minorities in Pakistan. He received forty lashes for writing and singing these lines by the Zia regime in Pakistan. It would be no different in present day India ruled by RSS-BJP.]

For almost all of the past three decades, on every anniversary of the horrific 1984 massacre of Sikhs in India, this author has been reminding the nation of how the Indian State and judiciary did not bother to punish the perpetrators of this horrendous mass killing of innocents of the second largest religious minority of our country. On every anniversary the author had hoped that thereafter justice would be done and he would not have to write the painful story once again as a reminder. This has not happened this year 2024 either. The saga of the criminal betrayal by the Indian Republic has no end and the author along with victims continues to cry before a deaf and dumb Indian State. Shockingly, on the 40^th anniversary of the genocide of Sikhs, the Indian State has even stopped making the claim that it continues to strive to get justice for the victims, like in the past!

What is the status of justice delivery for 2,700 Sikhs[1] massacred in Delhi? Renowned advocate H S Phoolka, who battled along with victims, puts it succinctly:

“The number of commissions and committees set up to probe the murders… is more than the number of convictions…One such commission was the G T Nanavati Commission, set up in 2005 by the Atal Bihari Vajpayee-led NDA government. According to its report, 587 FIRs were registered in Delhi in relation to the riots. While 241 of these have been filed as untraced, 253 ended in acquittal. Of the remaining, 40 FIRs are pending trial and one is pending investigation. Eleven FIRs have been quashed, and in 11 other FIRs, the accused have been discharged. Three cases have been withdrawn. To date, just 27 cases have ended in convictions. Of these, just 12 are convictions in murder cases.”

‘Anti-Sikh riots: Four decades on, just 12 murder cases have ended in conviction’, The Indian Express, Delhi, October 31, 2024.

https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/delhi/anti-sikh-riots-four-decades-on-just-12-murder-cases-have-ended-in-conviction-9646833/

Two kinds of justice

Whenever the country witnesses large-scale violence against the minorities and Dalits, the search for perpetrators continues endlessly and the criminals are rarely identified or punished. Major incidents of violence against minorities like Nellie massacre (1983), Sikh massacre (1984), Hashimpura custodial massacre of Muslim youth (1987), pre/post- Ayodhya mosque demolition violence against Muslims (1990-92), Gujarat carnage (2002) and Kandhmal cleansing of Christians (2008) and continuing blood-bath of Kuki Tribals (who are mostly Christians) in Manipur  are testimony to this reality.

When the victims are Dalits or minorities no such urgency is shown. In such cases the Indian State is fond of playing the commission-commission game. Enquiry Commissions after commissions would be constituted to see that the heinous crimes disappear from the public memory. The horrendous massacre of Sikhs in different parts of India in 1984 is a living testimony of this attitude of the Indian justice system with the motto in Sanskrit: ‘Yato Dharma Tato Jaya’ [Where there is righteousness and dharma, there is victory]. The higher Judiciary must explain what it means by Dharma. Does it include religions of minorities and right of Dalits also?

The scenario for anti-Dalit violence is no different. The major incidents of persecution and massacre of Dalits; 1968 Kilvenmani massacre, 1997 Melavalavu massacre, 2013 Marakkanam anti-Dalit violence, 2012 Dharmapuri anti- Dalit violence (all in Tamil Nadu), 1985 Karamchedu massacre, 1991 Tsundur massacre (all in AP), 1996 Bathani Tola Massacre, 1997 Laxmanpur Bathe massacre (all in Bihar), 1997 Ramabai killings, Mumbai, 2006 Khairlanji massacre, 2014 Javkheda Hatyakand, (all in Maharashtra), 2000 Caste persecution in (Karnataka), 5 Dalits beaten/burnt to death for skinning a dead cow 2006, 2011 killings of Dalits in Mirchpur (all in Haryana), 2015 anti-Dalit violence in Dangawas (Rajasthan) are some of the thousands of incidents of the Dalit persecution. In almost all these cases perpetrators are yet to be identified. Even if identified the prosecution rate has never exceeded 20%.

On the other hand, in the reverse, in cases where Dalit, working class and minority ‘perpetrators’ of violence are efficiently put on trial by constituting special investigation teams and punished by fast track courts. In order to meet the end of ‘justice’, ‘national security’ and ‘wish of the society’ they are hanged and jailed. The over-all reality is that whenever victims are minorities, working class and Dalits the State and judiciary go into coma.

Betrayal by governments until 2014

After giving free run to the killer gangs, the government appointed one man Marwah Commission to find out the perpetrators of the 1984 ‘riots’. As this exercise was proving inconvenient, it was asked to disband itself within short period of its existence and a sitting Supreme Court Judge Ranganath Mishra was asked to conduct inquiry into 1984 ‘riots’ who submitted his report in 1987. Shockingly, this fact finding (or fact-hiding) commission headed by Misra observed that

“riots which had a spontaneous origin later attained a channelized method at the hands of gangsters”.

The full-fledged massacre was reduced to ‘riots’ as if Sikhs equally participated in the violence. This was a brazen manipulation. The ‘apostle of justice’, Mishra, champion of the theory of spontaneity was not, naturally, able to find out from where these gangsters came! According to Jarnail Singh author of the book I Accuse: The Anti-Sikh Violence of 1984 for this service to the State he was awarded a seat in the Rajya Sabha.

Over the next two decades, not less than nine commissions of inquiry were instituted. For the Indian State it became a routine to announce constitution of some new commission or some more compensation to the families of victims in order to deflect the mounting anger at the times of elections. Highlighting the anti-minority bias of such commissions, H. S. Phoolka, a renowned lawyer, commented that instead of getting convicted many of the political perpetrators get promoted to seats of power!

In the latest development Supreme Court of India on August 16, 2017 ordered the constitution of a panel comprising two of its former judges to examine the justification for closing 241 anti-Sikh riot cases probed by SIT in next 3 months; these three months are yet to be over!

Betrayal by the RSS-BJP regime

The RSS always claims to have always stood for Hindu-Sikh unity. It occasionally expresses its gratitude to Sikhism for “saving Hinduism from the Muslim aggression”. It may not be irrelevant to note here that RSS does not treat Sikhism as an independent religion, which discarded Casteism and Brahmanical hegemony, but part of Hinduism. The RSS/BJP leaders have blamed the Congress for anti-Sikh violence Modi while addressing a public rally during last parliamentary elections at Jhansi, UP (October 25, 2013) asked Congress leaders to explain who “killed thousands of Sikhs in 1984” and “has anyone been convicted for the Sikh genocide so far”. Modi during Punjab elections and 2014 general elections kept on referring to ‘qatl-e-aam’ or genocide of Sikhs.Modi after becoming PM in a message (October 31, 2014) said that anti-Sikh riots in the aftermath of Indira Gandhi’s assassination were like a,

“dagger that pierced through India’s chest…Our own people were murdered, the attack was not on a particular community but on the entire nation.”

Hindutva icon, RSS whole-timer and PM Modi lamented the fact that culprits were yet to be booked and tried for this massacre. However, Modi did not tell the nation what NDA governments which ruled this country from 1998 to 2004 did to persecute the culprits. Modi also forgot to share the fact that as per the autobiography of LK Advani (page 430); it was his Party which forced Indira Gandhi to go for army action infamously named as Operation Blue Star which killed large number of Sikh pilgrims.Renowned journalist Manoj Mitta, author of the book When a Tree Shook Delhi: The 1984 Carnage and Its Aftermath straight forwardly tells that

“Despite the BJP rule, there has hardly been any will to enforce accountability for the massacres that took place under the Congress. It’s as if there is a tacit deal between the sponsors of 1984 and 2002″.

It was no over-sight that during 2024 parliamentary elections 1984 massacre was totally forgotten. This is not what outsiders or critics of the RSS have been telling. The perusal of contemporary RSS documents show that major focus was on condemning the Sikh extremism, eulogizing Indira Gandhi and welcoming the crowning of Rajiv Gandhi as new prime minister.

RSS ideologue Nanaji Deshmukh’s questionable attitude on the Sikh massacre

The most important proof of such a dehumanized attitude towards the massacre of Sikhs is a document circulated by Nana Deshmukh, a prominent whole timer and ideologue of the RSS [now deceased]. This document titled as ‘Moments of Soul Searching’ was circulated by Deshmukh on November 8, 1984, may help in unmasking the whole lot of criminals involved in the massacre of innocent Sikhs who had nothing to do with the killing of Indira Gandhi. This document may also throw light on where the cadres came from, who meticulously organized the killing of Sikhs. Nana Deshmukh in this document is seen outlining the justification of the massacre of the Sikh community in 1984.

This document also reflects the degenerate and fascist attitude of the RSS towards all the minorities of India. The RSS has been arguing that they are against Muslims and Christians because they are the followers of foreign religions. Here we find them justifying the butchering of Sikhs who according to their own categorisation happened to be the followers of an indigenous religion. In this document we will hear from the horse’s mouth that the RSS like the then Congress leadership believed that the massacre of the innocent Sikhs was unavoidable.This document was published in the Hindi Weekly Pratipaksh edited by George Fernandes, who later became Defence Minister of India in the NDA regime, in its edition of November 25, 1984 titled ‘Indira Congress- RSS collusion’ with the following editorial comment:

“The author of the following document is known as an ideologue and policy formulator of the RSS. After the killing of Prime Minister (Indira Gandhi) he distributed this document among prominent politicians. It has a historical significance that is why we have decided to publish it, violating the policy of our Weekly. This document highlights the new affinities developing between the Indira Congress and the RSS. We produce here the Hindi translation of the document.”

The original pages of the Hindi Weekly Pratipaksh edited by George Fernandes, may be seen below.

Deshmukh in his document, “Moments of Soul Searching” on the massacre of the Sikh community in 1984. His defence of the carnage can be summed up as in the following:

1. The massacre of Sikhs was not the handiwork of any group or anti-social elements but the result of a genuine feeling of
2. Deshmukh did not distinguish the action of the two security personnel of Indira Gandhi, who happened to be Sikhs, from that of the whole Sikh community. According to his document the killers of Indira Gandhi were working under some kind of mandate of their
3. Sikhs themselves invited these attacks, thus advancing the Congress theory of justifying the massacre of the Sikhs.
4. He glorified Operation Blue Star and described any opposition to it as anti- national. When Sikhs were being killed in thousands he was warning the country of Sikh extremism, thus offering ideological defense of those killings.
5. Sikh community as a whole was responsible for violence in
6. Sikhs should have done nothing in self-defence but showed patience and tolerance against the killer
7. These were Sikh intellectuals and not killer mobs which were responsible for the massacre. They had turned Sikhs into a militant community, cutting them off from their Hindu roots, thus inviting attacks from the nationalist Indians. Moreover, he treated all Sikhs as part of the same gang and described attacks on them as a reaction of the nationalist
8. He described Indira Gandhi as the only leader who could keep the country united and assassination of such a great leader such killings could not be avoided.
9. Rajiv Gandhi who succeeded Mrs. Gandhi as the PM and justified the nation- wide killings of Sikhs by saying, “When a huge tree falls there are always tremors felt”, was lauded and blessed by Nana Deshmukh at the end of the
10. Shockingly, the massacre of Sikhs was being equated with the attacks on the RSS cadres after the killing of Gandhiji and we find Deshmukh advising Sikhs to suffer silently. Everybody knows that the killing of Gandhiji was inspired by the RSS and the Hindutva Ideology whereas the common innocent Sikhs had nothing to do with the murder of Indira
11. There was not a single sentence in the Deshmukh document demanding, from the then Congress Government at the Centre or the then home minister Narsimha Rao (a Congress leader dear to the RSS who later silently watched demolition of Babri masjid by Hindutva goons as prime minister of India in 1992) remedial measures for controlling the violence against the minority community. Mind it, that Deshmukh circulated this document on November 8, 1984, and from October 31 to this date Sikhs were left alone to face the killing gangs. In fact November 5-10 was the period when the maximum killings of Sikhs took place. Deshmukh was just not bothered about all
12. It is generally believed that the Congress cadres were behind this genocide. This may be true but there were other forces too which actively participated in this massacre and whose role has never been investigated. It could be one of the reasons that actual perpetrators remain unknown. Those who witnessed the genocide were stunned by the swiftness and military precision of the killer/marauding gangs (later on witnessed during the Babri mosque demolition, burning alive of Dr. Graham Steins with his two sons, 2002 pogrom of the Muslims in Gujarat and cleansing of Christians in parts of Orissa) which went on a burning spree of the innocent Sikhs. This, surely, was beyond the capacity of the thugs led by many Congress
13. It is shocking that Deshmukh presented 1984 massacre of Sikhs as an issue between Sikhs and Hindus. He wrote: “I feel proud of all those Hindu neighbours who protected lives and property of troubled Sikh brothers without caring for their lives. Such things one being heard from all over Delhi. These things have practically increased the faith in natural goodness of human behavior and particularly faith in Hindu nature.” He remained oblivious to the fact that these were not only Hindus but Muslims, Jains, Buddhists, Christians, Atheists, Communists who defended Sikhs’ lives and

RSS problematic attitude towards the Sikh massacre

The Deshmukh document did not happen in isolation. It represented the real RSS attitude towardsthe Sikh genocide of 1984. It may be relevant to know here that the RSS cadres did not come forward in defence of the Sikhs. The RSS is very fond of circulating publicity material, especially photographs of its khaki shorts-clad cadres doing social work. For the 1984 violence they have none. In fact, Deshmukh’s article also made no mention of the RSS cadres going to the rescue of Sikhs under siege. This shows the real intentions of the RSS during the genocide.

The RSS English organ, Organizer in its combined issue dated November 11 & 18, 1984 carried an editorial titled ‘Stunning Loss’ which praised Indira Gandhi in the following words:

“It will always be difficult to believe that the Indira Gandhi is no more. One had got so used to hearing her myriad voices for so long, that everything looks so blank without her. The violent manner of her death is the most shocking horror story, giving the nation the creeps…It is a case of treacherous fanatics stigmatizing the whole nation by butchering a remarkable specimen of Indian womanhood…She literally served India to the last drop of her blood according to her own lights.” The same editorial ended with the words supporting newly installed PM, Rajiv Gandhi who “deserves sympathy and consideration”. 

Organizer also carried statement of RSS Supremo; Bala Deoras titled ‘Balasaheb condemns assassination, Delhi carnage’ in a single column. He mourned and condemned the carnage but not even once referred to the fact that Sikhs were under attack. For him it was “infighting in the Hindu Samaj”. He also overlooked the fact that it was not only Delhi where Sikhs were butchered/burnt but in many other parts of India too. According to this statement “swayamsevaks have been instructed to form or help in forming Mohalla Suraksha Samitis” for restoring peace and rehabilitation of the sufferers. However, there are no documents available in the contemporary RSS archives to show how these Samitis functioned. It is a fact that RSS which is fond of displaying photographs of its cadres doing social work did not publish any visual of the activity of these Samitis.

In the same statement Deoras reacting to the assassination of Indira Gandhi stated,

“It is shocking beyond words to express  the  feelings  at the murder of PM Mrs.               Indira Gandhi by some fanatic elements. She had been carrying on almost the entire burden of the country since 1966. She was loved and respected not only in this country but all over the world. Her passing away at this critical juncture will create a void in India and also in the world.”

According to  the above mentioned Organizer, “RSS Sarkyavah, Rajender Singh issued instructions to all the branches in  the country to hold a special meeting in Shakha condemning the dastardly murder of the PM and paying  homage  to the departed             soul. He also issued instructions to cancel all public functions to be held by RSS during the period of mourning”.

Of course, the RSS archives do not contain any instructions from RSS top brass instructing the mourning of Sikh victims.

RSS against former PM Manoham Singh’s apology for the 1984 massacre

That the RSS continues to downplay 1984 Sikh massacre is alsoe clear by the perusal of charter of demands submitted to the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) in last July. The senior RSS  ideologue, Dina Nath Batra on behalf of RSS-affiliated Shiksha Sanskriti Utthan Nyas submitted five pages containing list of items to be removed from school text-books. Batra demanded that any reference to violence against minorities in the text-books should be removed which included references to a simple apology tendered by the former PM Manmohan Singh over 1984 violence.

It is to be noted that in an apology in Parliament on August 12, 2005, Manmohan Singh, the then PM of India stated:

“I have no hesitation in apologising to the Sikh community. I apologise not only to the Sikh community, but to the whole Indian nation because what took place in 1984 is the negation of the concept of nationhood enshrined in our Constitution.”

So the search for finding the perpetrators of Sikh massacre of 1984 continues endlessly. The present RSS/BJP rulers who claim to be co-religionists of Sikhs prove no different from Congress. The only hope is that those Indians who have stakes in continuation of democratic-secular Indian polity will come forward to force the Indian State to identify and punish the killers. Scholars who have been involved in the study of religious violence are unanimous in the conclusion that if 1984 massacre was not allowed to happen, there would not have been 1992-93 (violence against Muslims in pre/post Babri mosque demolition period), 2002 (massacre of Muslims in Gujarat), Kandhmal 2008 (cleansing of Christians) and many other massacre of the minorities of India. Allowing the 1984 massacre the Indian State, let it be known to all the majoritarian fascist organizations that in such criminal happening the former would remain silent! 

Nana Deshmukh awarded ‘Bharat Ratna’

As if it was not enough injustice to the martyrs and survivors of the 1984 massacre, on the eve of the last Republic Day (January 25, 2019) RSS/BJP rulers of India, bestowed the highest national award, the Bharat Ratna (gem of India) on Nanaji Deshmukh. PM Modi praising Deshmukh said, “He [Nana Deshmukh] personifies humility, compassion, and service to the downtrodden. He is a Bharat Ratna in the truest sense”.If anybody wants to understand the exact meaning of the proverb ‘to rub salt into the wound’ this Bharat Ratna to Deshmukh is the fittest example!

This photograph is of a street theatre performance titled ‘Sadharan Log (common people) by Nishant Natya Manch against massacre of Sikhs in 1984. It was performed at more than two thousand places. The author is also doing a role.

Link of a 2023 interview of the author on the same tragedy:

https://www.academia.edu/107044638/Victims_Will_Never_Forget_The_Violence_Shamsul_Islam_On_1984_Massacre_of_Sikh

Link for the full English text of the RSS ideologue Nana Deshmukh’s document: https://www.academia.edu/4890979/RSS_IDEOLOGUE_ NANA_DESHMUKH_J USTIFIED_MASSACRE_OF_SIKHS_IN_1984_From_RSS_archives_

[1] This is the official figure, according to the civil rights organisations around 3,000 were killed!

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

The post Fortieth anniversary of the forgotten mass 1984 killing of Sikhs, rapist and killers yet to be identified and punished appeared first on SabrangIndia.

One had expected much better from Dabholkar who has adapted the original Pradeep Dalvi play in Marathi Mee Nathuram Godse Boltoy (I am Nathuram Godse speaking). I had seen it more than 25 years ago in Mumbai. Even then people had clapped, I immediately wrote a report for the Times of India where I was working, it was, however, suppressed. The Marathi version was directed by Vinay Apte, who was associated with the Sangh Parivar, and the actor Sharad Ponkshe, playing Godse, remains to this day a great admirer of Godse in real life.

Dabholkar is much better educated than Dalvi, has a much better social exposure with his experience in advertising and other fields; he is financially better off. I have enjoyed some of his humour. Unfortunately, he leaves a a much worse taste in the mouth, with this play, than the earlier one. He claims to be impartial but gave himself away during the bow to the audience after the performance when he announced that those who wanted to see the clothes and other belongings of Godse could see them in Godse’s house in Pune. This clearly shows his bias in favour of Godse. He retains some of the wildest distortions of the original with clearly fake characters and scenes regarding the trial.

As Y.D. Phadke[1], the eminent scholar and political science professor, wrote in response to the Marathi play that characters of inspector Shaikh and sub inspector Sawant simply did not exist in real life, in the trial. There is so much nonsensical fiction thrown into the play, Devdas Gandhi , son of the Mahatma, is shown to be a lawyer who wants to take up the case of Godse, his meetings with Godse are shown. In fact, no such meetings took place and Devdas was not a lawyer. More ludicrous is the scene of a burqa clad Zubeida, showing her great afffection, respect for Godse, and she is the sister of the fictitious inspector Shaikh who also becomes an admirer of Godse! Too many falsehoods to be mentioned here.

A note. Since the issue dealt here is sensitive, comments if any may be moderate in tone. (This was for Meta Facebook where the post appears) Extremists, please look elsewhere if you want to write on this.

The volume, Beyond Doubt, A Dossier on Gandhi’s Assassination, edited and introduced by Teesta Setalvad brings to light the report of the Kapur Commission which was appointed by the Government of India in 1965 to examine the depth and scope of the conspiracy that lay behind the killing of Gandhi.

This three-volume report has been absent from the public domain though it contains invaluable evidence—intelligence reports, oral and documentary evidence—of the extent of complicity behind the hate-driven conspiracy that resulted in the Mahatma’s killing.

On November 12, 1964, at a programme organized in Pune, Dr G.V. Ketkar, the grandson of Bal Gangadhar Tilak, disclosed that six months before the actual criminal act, Nathuram Godse had disclosed his intentions to kill Gandhi. This information was passed on by him via others to the Chief Minister of the then Bombay state, B.G. Kher. Not only was Ketkar arrested but a furore ensued in the Maharashtra State Assembly and the Indian Parliament at the time. In 1965, the Government of India set up a Commission of Inquiry into the Conspiracy to Murder Mahatma Gandhi, headed by Justice Jeevan Lal Kapur, a former judge of the Supreme Court. The commission examined evidence not produced during the trial. Justice Kapur concluded that the facts showed that a clear conspiracy existed on the part of Hindu supremacist groups.

(The author, a senior journalist with The Times of India wrote this on meta/Facebook; https://www.facebook.com/share/p/gnM6x6wsr1ykaXp7/?mibextid=WC7FNe; this version has been edited slightly–Editors)

[1] Communalism Combat, in October 2000 published, in translation, extracts from noted historian, YD Phadke’s book in Marathi, Nathuramayan. This was titled, The murderer as martyr https://sabrang.com/cc/comold/oct00/cover1.htm. It is also available on https://sabrangindia.in/murderer-martyr/#:~:text=In%20independent%20India%2C%20politics%20has,his%20statement%20to%20the%20court. This article by eminent historian YD Phadke had exposed Pradeep Dalvi’s claim about his play, Mee Nathuram Godse Boltoye, being based on historical facts as completely bogus. Nathuramayan is a compilation of a series of incisive articles by the (The article in Marathi was first published in the Marathi eveninger, Apla Mahanagar and translated for us into English by Mukta Rajadhyaksha). 

The post Bharat Dabholkar’s adulation of Nathuram Godse is titled Nathuram Godse Must Die appeared first on SabrangIndia.

To fully understand the significance of September 17, it’s important to look at the historical context. Unlike many other princely states, Hyderabad wasn’t annexed or attacked during the British Raj from the late 18^th century onwards. In fact, it was one of the first princely states to accept the British policy of subsidiary alliance. Under this arrangement, Hyderabad allowed British forces to station in the capital in exchange for protection against external threats. In return, the Nizam was not only required to dissolve its own army but also required to pay the British and, if unable to do so, ceded territory as compensation. It was through this alliance that the districts of Anantapur and Kurnool, among others, were handed over to the British.

This system allowed the Nizam to maintain a degree of autonomy, making Hyderabad a unique case in the larger narrative of British India. However, by 1947, the situation had changed dramatically. As India gained independence, the princely states were faced with a choice: accede to India, join Pakistan, or remain independent. The Nizam chose the latter option, setting the stage for the Indian government’s military action in 1948 termed as ‘Operation Polo’

Operation Polo and the subsequent annexation of Hyderabad state into Indian Union remains a watershed moment in Telangana’s history for two significant reasons.

First, the administrative changes that followed the annexation sowed the seeds for demands for a separate Telangana state. Outsiders were recruited into key positions in the newly annexed administration, which gradually led to resentment among locals. This discontent would later fuel the Telangana statehood agitation, culminating in the formation of Telangana as a separate state in 2014.

Second, the annexation brought to the surface the rebellious, anti-feudal spirit of Telangana’s society. The anti-feudal sentiments that emerged during this period have remained a defining feature of Telangana’s political culture. Many political analysts believe that this very sentiment played a crucial role in shaping the narrative of the 2023 Telangana assembly elections, where the Indian National Congress (INC) positioned itself as the party fighting against feudal tendencies, particularly targeting former Chief Minister K. Chandrashekhar Rao (KCR).

Congress and the “Praja Palana Dinotsavam”

The Indian National Congress, having played a pivotal role in the military action to annex Hyderabad, could have claimed this event as a cornerstone of its legacy. However, the current INC leadership, under A. Revanth Reddy, has chosen to commemorate September 17 as ‘Praja Palana Dinotsavam’—or ‘People’s Governance Day.’ According to the Congress narrative, this day marks the end of the Nizam’s monarchy and the beginning of democracy in Telangana.

However, this interpretation is not without its flaws. Following the annexation, Hyderabad was placed under military rule, led by General J.N. Chaudhary, until 1949. It was only then that a civilian government was installed, with M.K. Vellodi, an ICS officer from outside Telangana, taking charge. Furthermore, the last Nizam, Mir Osman Ali Khan, was appointed as Rajpramukh (Governor) by the Indian government. True democratic governance only began after the 1952 general elections, raising questions about the Congress’s claims that democracy took root immediately after annexation.

Another issue with Congress appropriation of this day was that there was large scale communal violence after the military action in the Hyderabad State. The Sundarlal Committee appointed by the Union to look into the communal violence reported that the districts of Osmanabad, Gulbarga, Bidar and Nander were the most affected by the communal violence. Notably, these were also the districts the Razakars were powerful. For example, the committee noted that in the town on Latur, where there was a population of 10,000 Muslims-only 3 remained; 2-3 thousand people were killed and the rest, fled.  A rather baffling part of the report was the participation of sections of the Army in the violence against Muslims.[1] This shabby handling of the annexation surely takes away the credibility the Congress seeks to have. Although the people of Telangana largely remember Operation Polo to be a Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel’s initiative, Congress has stopped appropriating any part of it, whatsoever. The word ‘Praja Palana’ was actually an election slogan given by the Congress as a promise during the Assembly Election 2023.

BRS’s ‘National Integration’ Day

On the other side is the Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS), which, although was only formed in 2001 as Telangana Rashtra Samithi (TRS), played a leading role in the Telangana statehood movement. After coming to power in 2014, the BRS adopted a neutral, federalist stance, celebrating September 17 as ‘National Integration Day.’ This approach allowed the party to acknowledge the importance of the day without getting mired in the political or historical controversies surrounding the annexation. In 2016, BRS MLC and then Member of Parliament K. Kavitha reportedly stated that Moderate Telangana people do not believe in the Liberation Day and that the party believes in a day where Telangana state was merged into the Indian union. In 2023 the All India Majlis-E-Ittehadul Muslimeeen also conducted a Tiranga Rally on September 17^th, last year and celebrated the day as National Integration Day like their tacit ally-the BRS-did.

Even in 2024, after the BRS found itself in opposition for the first time since 2014, the party continued to celebrate National Integration Day. On September 17, K.T. Rama Rao (KTR), BRS’s working president, unfurled the national flag at the party headquarters, reinforcing the party’s message of unity and integration.

BJP’s Hyderabad Liberation Day

Meanwhile, in contrast, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has chosen to frame the event differently. Rather than focusing on the broader integration narrative, the BJP has appropriated the legacy of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, who oversaw the military action that led to Hyderabad’s annexation. For years, the BJP has advocated celebrating September 17 as ‘Hyderabad Liberation Day,’ a term that reflects their view of the event as a victory over the Nizam’s autocratic rule.

In 2022, the Ministry of Home Affairs officially declared September 17 as Hyderabad Liberation Day, stating that the Prime Minister Narendra Modi has decided to celebrate the day under a government order. A press release from the ministry emphasized the BJP’s recognition of the Hyderabad Liberation Movement—a term notably absent from much of the historical literature on the Telangana armed struggle. In 2022, Home Minister Amit Shah attended the 75th anniversary celebrations, and the BJP launched a series of public outreach initiatives, including bike rallies and public meetings, to further solidify its claim to the day. In March 2024, the Ministry of Home Affairs published a Gazette Notification saying that the government has decided to commemorate September 17 as Telangana Liberation Day.

While the BJP had been using the term ‘Hyderabad Liberation Day’ well before 2009, it was only after 2022 that the central government officially recognized the term, signalling a broader political effort to claim this moment in history for itself. Ideally, this should have worked-for the larger population in somehow associating BJP’s commemorative events and the Telangana Armed Struggle, but it has not.

For example, Telangana BJP leader Guduru Narayana Reddy producer a film called Razakaar and released it just before the 2024 Parliament Elections. The pre-release function for the movie was attended by the who’s who of the State BJP unit. However, a surprising presence among the attendees was the famed Telugu leftist film maker R.Narayana Murthy who took the opportunity to school the fundamentalist leaders on the event’s stage itself while everyone watched. This was possible because of a strong commune memory about a struggle between people of Telangana and the Nizam. The fact that the recent Telangana Agitation for separate statehood borrowed tactics, art, and inspiration from the earlier struggles of Telangana has imprinted a fresh recall of the Telangana Armed Struggle. This has made the task to claim and appropriate September 17 more difficult for the BJP.  On top of this, the Bharatiya Jana Sangh-BJP’s predecessor- took a good 3 elections to achieve a meagre 2% vote share in combined Telangana and Andhra Pradesh after independence. Therefore, the problem for BJP in its mission to appropriate September 17^th is that it simply has no history fighting for the state, and those who are intrinsically linked to the rebellion and have spearheaded it are its political enemies.

Communists and September 17 (1948)

The Telangana Peasant Struggle was significantly shaped by the Communists, who mobilised local populations against the Nizam and his feudal agents across various districts. While contemporary fundamentalist forces often depict the Hyderabad state’s exploitative dynamics in a communal context, they tend to ignore that many local feudal lords under the Nizam were predominantly Hindu. Recognising the class nature of the struggle, the Communists took decisive action.

During this time, Qasim Rizvi led the Razakars, a private militia aimed at establishing Hyderabad as a Muslim-only state. Although separate from the police, the Razakars collaborated with them to suppress Communist peasants and proponents of Indian integration. In response, the Communist Party organized guerrilla squads, redistributed grain, and secured explosives from coal miners to disrupt Razakars operations. They also fought for land redistribution, tenant rights, and the cancellation of unjust loan deeds, promoting social justice amid conflict.

Despite being banned, the Communists participated in Hyderabad State elections through the ‘People’s Democratic Front,’ winning five out of 11 parliamentary seats in the Telangana region, equal to the Indian National Congress (INC). In the legislative assembly, the Communists became the principal opposition with 42 seats with 36 of them coming from Telangana region, showcasing significant local support that rivalled that for Congress- which got 38 seats from the Telangana region-and underscoring their influential role during this transformative period.

The two main Communist Parties in the State- the CPI and the Communist Party of India (Marxist)[CPI(M)] commemorate September 17 but barely attract any media to cover their stories except their own party-run newspapers. The CPI has been conducting a Commemoration Week since 2017 and the CPI(M) too has been holding various activities on the day, every year. However, their parties’ participation in the Telangana Armed Struggle remains relatively unknown to younger generation.

What does this mean for Telangana and its people?

The attempts by fundamentalist forces to distort the significance of September 17 reflect a broader agenda to stoke division. However, the people of Telangana have largely resisted these efforts. Instead of focusing on one day, many recognise the complexities of the entire 1946-1952 period, viewing it as a prolonged struggle rather than a single transformative event. This understanding shows a maturity that political parties have struggled to emulate. Although Operation Polo may have been the single biggest event, the population remembers the stories of their villages being raided by the local feudal lords, and their goons-thus decimating the fundamentalist narrative of Hindu Population versus Muslim King.

Now, it surely is the responsibility of the current Congress-led government to take a clear stance on this historical narrative. In a state where the principal opposition is a non-BJP party, the Congress has a unique need to reinforce its secular identity. By presenting a more complete picture of the Telangana struggle, rather than allowing fundamentalist views to take root, the government can ensure that the nuances of history are not lost. How the ruling party addresses this will influence the state’s political landscape in future. The choice is between engaging meaningfully with Telangana’s past or allowing divisive forces to shape the conversation moving forward.

(The author is a legal researcher with the organisation)

[1] Pandit Sundarlal Comiittee Report on massacres in Hyderabad, 1948, Available at: https://archive.org/details/pandit-sundarlal-committee-report-on-the-massacres-in-hyderabad-1948/page/n12/mode/1up

Related:

Role of progressives in Telangana land struggle – Part III

Understanding role of progressives in Telangana Peasant Armed Struggle is crucial to combatting Hindu majoritarianism

Role of Progressives in Telangana Peasant Armed Struggle

The post The real significance of September 17 & the continuing struggle for Telangana’s Legacy appeared first on SabrangIndia.

While his title implies authority, his reign was one of love and compassion rather than dominance. He is remembered for his profound impact on non-violent resistance and his relentless pursuit of justice and peace. Born among the Pathans and Pakhtoons near the border of Pakistan and Afghanistan, Badshah Khan dedicated himself to uplift these communities, often labeled as violent and revengeful.

Through tireless efforts, he advocated love and peace, cultivating a cadre of peaceful resisters who bravely opposed British colonial rule without resorting to violence. Their moral fortitude was so formidable that soldiers often hesitated to fire upon these unarmed freedom fighters.

Mahatma Gandhi, deeply moved by this aspect of the freedom struggle, regarded visiting Badshah Khan’s followers as a spiritual journey. Though Badshah Khan looked up to Gandhi as a mentor, Gandhi also found inspiration in his dedication to peace.

The legacy of the Indian freedom movement transcends national borders, carrying significant implications for all of South Asia. Among its many triumphs was the consensus reached by powerful leaders, representing diverse faiths, on the essential nature of inter-faith harmony. Figures such as Gandhi, Badshah Khan, Jawaharlal Nehru, and Maulana Azad were instrumental in promoting this vital cause, creating a much-needed foundation for stability and prosperity in the region.

While some leaders maintained a secular position and distanced themselves from religion, Gandhi recognized the importance of spirituality in fostering social objectives. He emphasized Hindu-Muslim unity as crucial for national progress, with Badshah Khan standing as a key ally in this endeavor. Together, they established the Congress party as an inclusive political entity, fortifying connections between religious communities.

Badshah Khan, known as the Frontier Gandhi, led the Khudai Khidmatgars (Servants of God), composed predominantly of Pashtuns. Despite societal perceptions of violence, these volunteers epitomized the essence of non-violent resistance, illustrating extraordinary courage in their fight against colonial injustices. Their commitment to safeguard minorities, such as Hindus and Sikhs, was emblematic of their harmonious principles.

Throughout the freedom struggle, instances of inter-faith cooperation flourished, with leaders like Maulana Azad articulating Islamic interpretations that echoed the values of peace and unity.

However, colonial powers perceived this solidarity as a threat and sought to promote sectarian leaders, exacerbating religious divisions that ultimately led to the tragic partition of India.

Despite his heartbreak over the ensuing violence, Gandhi relentlessly pursued peace, navigating conflict zones and advocating for harmony until his assassination in 1948. His commitment to inter-faith understanding, cultivated through dialogues on spirituality and mutual respect, remained influential. Although Gandhi’s vision suffered disruption due to external forces, it did not diminish the impact of his lifelong dedication to promoting peace. He urged individuals to view religion as a path to understanding rather than a source of division.

Badshah Khan embodied Gandhi’s teachings long after the Mahatma’s death, continuing to inspire millions with his messages of peace and social justice, even under challenging conditions in Pakistan. The invitation from Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi to address Parliament in his later years reflected the nation’s enduring appreciation for his contributions. His speeches upheld the principles of inter-faith harmony alongside social justice, prioritizing kindness over bitterness, even after years of imprisonment.

The legacy of such visionary leaders calls upon the current generation to diligently work toward a South Asia founded on the ideals of inter-faith harmony and socio-economic justice.

*Honorary convener of the Campaign to Save Earth Now. Books: ‘Planet in Peril’, ‘Protecting Earth for Children’, and ‘When the Two Streams Met’ which discusses the freedom movement

Courtesy: CounterView

The post Remembering a legacy of peace: The enduring influence of Badshah Khan appeared first on SabrangIndia.

When the Constituent Assembly discussed Article 289 of the draft Constitution (corresponding Article 324 of the Constitution) dealing with the setting up of the Election Commission of India on June 15 and 16, 1949, such a proposal never came up.

Therefore, the said recommendation of the Kovind Commission and the in-principle acceptance of it by the Union cabinet headed by Prime Minister Narendra Modi is a clear violation of the legislative intent of the Constituent Assembly.

Ambedkar never envisaged ‘One Nation, One Election’ idea

It is worthwhile to go through the discussions that took place in the Constituent Assembly on June 15, 1949 after Dr B.R. Ambedkar moved Article 289 which, among others, provided that the superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of the electoral rolls for, and the conduct of all elections to the Parliament and to the legislature of every state would be vested in a body outside the Executive to be called the Election Commission.

Dr B.R. Ambedkar was deeply mindful of the situation when a bye-election might take place at any time.

He then stated that the Election Commission would be a permanent body with one man called the Chief Election Commissioner with a skeleton machinery at his disposal to conduct elections which he said “will generally take place at the end of five years”.

But he was deeply mindful of the situation when a bye-election might take place at any time, therefore he proceeded to add, “The assembly may be dissolved before its period of five years has expired. Consequently, the electoral rolls will have to be kept up to date all the time so that the new election may take place without any difficulty.

“It was, therefore, felt that having regard to these exigencies, it would be sufficient if there was permanently in session one officer to be called the Chief Election Commissioner, while when the elections are coming up, the President may further add to the machinery by appointing other members to the Election Commission.”

Quite clearly, Dr Ambedkar’s utterances in the Constituent Assembly that elections would generally take place at the end of five years and there would be the necessity of conducting another election within the five-year time frame in case an assembly got dissolved underlined his intent that in India simultaneous elections to assemblies could not be prescribed by the Constitution.

Shibbon Lala Saxena’s stand in the Constituent Assembly

Another distinguished member of the Constituent Assembly Shibbon Lal Saxena, while participating in the discussion on Article 289, referred to the point made by Dr Ambedkar that the Election Commission might not have adequate work after the conduct of elections and so it should have only Chief Election Commissioner and other commissioners would be appointed, if required, prior to the announcement of election schedules.

Saxena went on to say, “In our Constitution, all the elections will not synchronise but they will be at varying times in accordance with the vote of no-confidence passed in various legislatures and the consequent dissolution of the legislatures.”

Even before he articulated those thoughts he stated, “Our Constitution does not provide for a fixed four-year cycle like the one in the United States of America. The elections will probably be almost always going on in some province or the other.”

While noting that India would have about thirty provinces after the integration of states into the Indian Union he made it very clear that “our Constitution provides for the dissolution of the legislature when a non-confidence is passed” and presciently remarked, “So it is quite possible that the elections to the various legislatures in the province and the Centre will not be all concurrent.”

He forcefully observed, “Every time some election or other will be taking place somewhere.” Then he very prophetically said, “It may not be so in the very beginning or in the very first five or ten years. But after ten or twelve years, at every moment some elections in some province will be going on.”

“Therefore,” he said, “it will be far more economical and useful if a permanent Election Commission is appointed— not only the Chief Election Commissioner but three or five members of the commission who should be permanent and who should conduct the elections.”

He dispelled the notion that the Election Commission would be deficient in terms of work because, according to him, frequent elections would be conducted taking into account the exigencies of the situation that would arise following the premature dissolution of legislatures after the fall of the governments, among others, on the basis of passage of no-confidence motions against them.

Shibban Lal Saxena’s assertion in 1949 that “in our Constitution, all the elections will not synchronise” clearly reflected the legislative intent of the Constituent Assembly for not conducting elections simultaneously.

Shibban Lal Saxena’s assertion in 1949 that “in our Constitution all the elections will not synchronise” clearly reflected the legislative intent of the Constituent Assembly for not conducting elections, as accepted by Modi regime, simultaneously for the Lok Sabha and state assemblies.

It corresponded to the aforementioned statement of Dr Ambedkar who while stating that elections “will generally take place at the end of five years” was deeply conscious of the fact that a legislature might get dissolved before its mandated period of five years and it would necessitate an election.

R.K. Sidhwa’s stand

Another prominent member, R.K. Sidhwa, while speaking on the discussion on the Election Commission in the Constituent Assembly said, “We shall have now about 4,000 members in all the provinces and there will be bye-elections. Surely, every month there will be two or three elections— some will die, some will be promoted to high offices— some will go here and there.”

“In this Constituent Assembly,” he said, “during the short period we have had a number of bye-elections although we had nothing to do with them, but in the places from which they have come there have been a number of elections.”

He, therefore, stated that apart from necessity and fairness, the Election Commission should function to prepare a just electoral roll which often gets vitiated by those who put names in it in connivance with the Executive.

Describing the electoral roll as the principal thing in an election he appealed for establishing an impartial and independent Election Commission to deal with the situation necessitating the organisation of multiple elections.

The Election Commission should function to prepare a just electoral roll which often gets vitiated by those who put names in it in connivance with the Executive.

He did not pay heed to those who flagged that more expenses would be incurred for that purpose and pleaded for an Election Commission empowered to conduct elections with impartiality, fairness and integrity.

Culture of accountability getting eroded

Therefore, the Modi-led cabinet’s decision to accept in principle the recommendation of the Kovind Commission centered around the ‘One Nation, One Election’ scheme negates the legislative intent of the Constituent Assembly and the vision of Dr B.R. Ambedkar.

Such a recommendation is contrary to the ethos of parliamentary democracy defined in terms of the accountability of the government to the legislature. The sooner that recommendation is abandoned, the better it would be for the cause of upholding the ideal of accountability which has been severely eroded during the last ten years.

The author was Press Secretary to President of India late KR Narayanan.

Courtesy: Newsclick

The post Constituent Assembly Did Not Envision ‘One Nation, One Election’ appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Universities, ‘transmit, interpret and develop the cultural tradition of the society’. They can either ‘continuously reproduce’ these traditions or ‘critically transform’ them, said Habermas. What did the two centrally funded ‘Muslim’ universities in India, viz., the Aligarh Muslim University and its “rebel sister”, the Delhi’s Jamia Millia Islamia, really do?

The Cambridge trained French scholar, Laurence Gautier, has made an immensely successful attempt at working out the abovementioned question by bringing in wide range of empirical details, embarking on a very deep analysis of a wide range of evidence and putting these in larger perspective. She has proceeded to examine as to how did these two denominational universities, and the Muslims associated with these universities, negotiate their place in India, their individual rights as citizens, and their group rights as a religious minority, and/or as descendants of ex-ruling class, one must say. (The work also explores Muslim-ness of Indians and Indian-ness of its Muslim communities).

The Role of AMU & JMI in shaping Muslim identity politics

Whether such negotiations were confined more to the domain of political articulations or whether they produced researches too? Such articulations remain and remained largely tilted towards a particular class within the community of particular region(s). This Urdu speaking Ashraaf elite was called “Kutcherry Milieu” by the best biographer of the MAO College (which became AMU in 1920), David Lelyveld (1978). This is a particularly more relevant question to be raised for the AMU, because, in the colonial period, the All India Mohammedan Educational Conference (AIMEC, founded in 1886) soon became the political organ of the Muslim League rather than keeping the promise of opening up a chain of residential schools/colleges across the subcontinent. Given this legacy,  worldview and outlook, did AMU, post-partition (for pre-partition days, introduction of the book does deal with these questions), ever raise self-introspective question against itself? Did the institution bother to question –in the republican-democratic era –why its enrolments, recruitments and governance-personnel suffer from an elite syndrome: the predominance of a select Club of a particular region-class of the Qaum?

The AMU, in the late 1940s had become epicentre of the Muslim League with the separatists enjoying a stronger presence on the campus. Various circles (not confined to the Hindu Right alone) memorialise AMU as a villain of Partition. The Pakistani intelligentsia also reinforces this idea. On the other hand, Muslims of various persuasions, look upon AMU not only as a platform aimed at their educational uplift but also as a fort safeguarding their identity. In fact, the latter aspect is arguably stronger than the former. This is perhaps congenitally associated with MAO/AMU. Look at Peter Hardy (1972: 103-104)’s assertion, “It is, however, important to recognise the limitations of Aligarh as an educational foundation. At no time did it educate a majority of the Muslim graduates even of the North-Western Provinces [UP]… Success in examinations and individual achievement were at a discount”.

Did the two universities question and address, even in their academic outputs, caste-based hierarchies and exploitation or did they deny or downplay these? Did they, through their research as well as through their political interventions and mobilizations, challenge regressive patriarchy, or, rather did they align with, or capitulate before the orthodoxy? Did they contribute towards secularisation-pluralisation of the state and society in general and the community (Qaum) in particular? Did they democratise the institutions and resources monopolised by the “Kutcherry Milieu”? Or, did they treat Indian Secularism more as a favour to Muslim conservatism and communalism and regressive patriarchy, thereby stoking and bolstering majoritarianism?

A large number of Urdu memoirs of the Aligarh community (faculty, alumni) mostly indulge in self-praise, rather than being critical and self-introspective. [Of significant note in exception are critical essays of Kunwar M Ashraf (1903-1962), in the Aligarh Magazine (Urdu), “Aligarh Ki Siyasi Zindagi” (1953-1955) and “Aligarh aur Siyasiyat-e-Hind” (1960)]. Most of these  reproduce,  disseminate and celebrate a class culture (not the mass culture), often misrepresented as the “Ganga Jamuni Tehzeeb”, discounting core academic production for an ameliorative and empowering politics of pluralization and thereby strengthening of Indian democracy. Of course, the two English language memoirs brought out by the AMU-VCs (both were not AMU alumni), viz., Badruddin Tyabji (1907-1995 ) and Nasim Faruqi (d. 12012) in the 1960s and 1990s respectively, have certainly given us critical accounts of some of these aspects.

The two Universities produced two “intertwined yet distinctive political trajectories” (p. 11). By the early 1990s, as the Chapter Six in the book, “Bastions of Islam”, demonstrates, the two campuses were no longer distinctive of each other in terms of shaping and articulating Muslim identity politics. Both campuses had become strong centres of retrogressive forces of north Indian Muslims. According to the author, the JMI became so, more pronouncedly, in the 1990s. This is indeed the boldest and bravest chapter of the book.

Competitive religious radicalism since the 1970s

The AMU was never weak in terms of its right wing Muslim presence and influence, though in the 1970s and 1980s it became even more pronounced along those lines. Both Universities were now becoming even stronger bastions of Islamism and retrogression rather than enhancing the qualitative and quantitative output in terms of academic research and or prioritizing the educational uplift of the Qaum. They were rather more engaged in emotive, identitarian issues. Chapter Six, towards its concluding notes, brilliantly underlines the fact that the more the Qaum turned towards emotive symbolism and identitarianism, the more they (un)wittingly pushed down the agendas of educational and political empowerment of the Muslim communities within. Worse still, the more they stoked majoritarian forces through their own retrogression, the more they made themselves all the more vulnerable, as this partly contributed to pushing India towards Hindu supremacism. Laurence Gautier, in this significant chapter takes into account the sub-continental as well as global phenomenon of the rise of competitive religious radicalism. She has brilliantly benefitted from the essays of Anuj Nadaur (2006), Simon Wolfgang Fuchs (2022), Yoginder Sikand (2003), etc.

Chapter Six of the book under review is a greater eye-opener, particularly for those who are steeped into and subscribe to the victimhood narratives of the Muslim elite and also the Islamic Right Wing. This wonderful chapter also exposes as to how do the hasty, ambitious Muslims bolster their political career through advocating, championing and perpetuating conservatism within the Qaum and pushing them rightward? Very skillfully, they keep the commoners of the Qaum blinded by the fact that such approaches strengthen Hindu majoritarian forces and inflict ever greater vulnerability upon the Qaum. The more both campuses (AMU and JMI) pushed the Qaum towards “Islamisation of Knowledge (IoK) and society” (funded by some of the Islamic countries from the 1970s) the more they ignored the under-representation of India’s Muslims in education, in public employment and in other such sectors such as media and judiciary. The chapter underlines this Rightward shift of the educated segments of the Qaum that was prompted/inspired by and/or coincided with the Maududi’s worldview, the Iranian Revolution (1979), Afghan Jihad, Radicalization of Pakistan under Ziaul Haq, etc.. This is what makes the chapter even more insightful.

Interestingly, during the late 1980s and early 1990s [when the localised dispute of Ayodhya was nationalised through competitive communalism and around the time of the Hindu reaction against the legislative undoing (1986) of the Supreme Court verdict (1985) on Shah Bano and the Ayodhya campaign of the Hindu radicals], the cataloguing of the Muslim underrepresentation was articulated either through the pamphlets of the three major Communist parties, viz., CPI, CPI-M, CPI-ML Liberation, and in certain liberal media outlets such as the Illustrated Weekly of India. Besides, the cataloguing of Muslim under-representation in the Gopal Singh Report (1983). These core issues were being raised to some extent by the state appointed VCs and other functionaries of the two universities but, significantly, not, in any significant measure, by the Islamists on the two campuses. Gautier writes (p. 286), “in the 1980s, university authorities increasingly invoked the need to uplift backward Muslims to frame their actions in a consensual framework.” Though, Gautier has expressed ignorance of benefitting from such pamphlets.

The growing Islamic fundamentalism combined with the boom in Gulf economies added to the anxieties of the sections of Hindu population which feared that the oil money may fund mass conversions to Islam and ‘give to Islamism in India a new glow of self confidence in one sudden sweep’ (pp. 284-285). [A similar apprehension was raised by Lala Lajpat Rai (1865-1928) in the 1920s, after the Pan Islamist Khilafat Movement, best articulated by Intezar Husain, in his Urdu biography (1999), Ajmal-e-Azam]. This is a significant point which needs to be probed further by collecting some data from the ground. As of now, there are very limited explorations about the socio-economic status of the Muslim communities of different regions and sub-regions. Most of the better known University academics, working around such themes of India’s Muslim communities, shy away from collecting such data from the field. Another aspect, missing in this chapter, is to probe this question:  how, while Islamists were active on both campuses, engaged in and “advocating the purifying of Islam, promoting Islamic values and prioritizing the language of religion over the language of minority rights or social welfare”, their own children were –at the same time –pursuing all kinds of empowering education in professional courses as well as in the humanities. Also, how this project of Islamisation was, in itself, shaking overall secularisation and provoking a Hindu majoritarian reaction and thereby aggravating the vulnerability of the Qaum.

Another significant insight coming out of this volume is in the Chapter Four, “Resisting Minority Politics, Holding on to Composite Nationalism: Jamia Millia Islamia (JMI) in the post-Nehruvian period”. The author underlines that “JMI’s atmosphere became more orthodox in the 1980s when the ‘influx’ of teachers from AMU increased significantly”, particularly in the Engineering department, and “‘the liberal [ethos of JMI] was slowly isolated’”; and that, “arrival of teachers trained at AMU led to the rise of ‘class consciousness’ on the campus, thereby jeopardising JMI’s vision of a ‘classless society’” (pp. 192-193). The JMI’s Department of Education excelled for as long as the AMU alumni weren’t recruited as JMI’s faculty. This is demonstrated here by the author’s well-tabulated data.

Laurence Gautier, while expounding on the student politics of AMU during 1965-1981, looks upon the minoritarian assertion as politics of pluralising the Indian democracy and that it was also the case with non-Muslim Indians, the Hindu OBCs, who were asserting their rights to a share in the structures and processes of power and were articulating their grievances against “Nehruvian Consensus”. To contain such assertions, Emergency was imposed, after which the Hindu Right gained legitimacy as well as registered rise and expansion, also funded by the Hindu diaspora.

Cunning craft of the Qaum’s elites: nationalizing local issues for self-perpetuation

This raises a question as to why and how the local AMU issue of reservation for “internal” students in AMU enrolments, a discrimination in favour of the privileged, was cunningly made into a larger  problem the Muslim communities across India, in 1965? This cunning craft of the descendants of the “Kutcherry Milieu” needs to be decoded minutely. This particular clique of the Qaum had kind of forced Sir Syed to shun progressive religious reformism as much as also to withdraw the welfaristic (charitable) Waqf Bill (1879). Yet, all such forces succeeded in taking over his College almost completely, soon after his death in 1898. Some of them, without subscribing to his modernist reformism, had opportunistically and tactically aligned with Sir Syed because he had access to the high echelons of the colonial administration up to the Viceroy and his legislative council.

Chapter Two is particularly more nuanced because it makes a very fine distinction between the visions of Nehru (the Prime Minister), Maulana Azad (the Education Minister) and Zakir (the Vice Chancellor) around the question of what kind of role should and would AMU play in the post-Partition period. In a polite and skillfully understated manner (English is anyway said to be a language of the under-statement), Gautier has articulated the tension between the liberal state, Muslim state actors (often derided as the Sarkari Musalman) and the Muslim Right Wing on and off the campus.

Interestingly, while the sarkar (state) and the Sarkari Musalmans attempted at combining the goals of educational uplift of the Muslims as well as helping Muslims acquire liberal-pluralist outlook, the Muslim Right Wing was geared towards preserving and promoting regressivism and emotive priorities than on any educational uplift. That minority regressivism remained a contributory factor towards strengthening Hindu majoritarianism, is still a less addressed aspect in academia and in the popular domain. Not without substance, the Liberal- Left academic and political forces are often charged of going silent or soft on Muslim regressivness.

Socio-political movements and silence on the campus on caste among Muslims

While discussing social justice movements and backward caste assertions, the relevant chapter of this book does not, it appears, adequately engage with the layered dynamics of the JP Movement and Anti-Emergency resistance. As to how much or less AMU and JMI identified with or stayed away from those movements? The student activists turned mainstream politicians of the era have been interviewed by the author. While bringing out polyphonic voices on these campuses on the question of caste, the dominant narratives on the campuses have almost denied existence of such a discriminatory practice. The AMU and JMI were almost equally aloof in 1990 when there were direct clashes across the country among the students on the implementation of the Mandal Commission Recommendations, despite the fact that as many as 82 communities of Muslims were to benefit from the implementation of the Mandal Report, in 1990.

The narratives within Muslim politics generated out of and sustained within AMU, needs further probing. It needs no particular mention that many Muslim leaders emerged on mainstream Indian electoral politics out of these agitations on AMU issues in the 1960s and 1970s. Some of the names are: Arif M Khan, Azam Khan, Javed Habib (d. 2012), and of course leaders such as Abdul Jalil Faridi (1913-1974), Ilyas Azmi (1934-2023), and scores of Muslim leaders (including the theologians) across the country. Remember the lines of Lelyveld & Minault (1974) that the AMU was a “profoundly political enterprise”.

Laurence Gautier clearly demonstrates that before the Emergency (i.e., during 1972-1974) and after it (1977-1981), Muslims, around the AMU campus and related issues, emerged as the interlocutor between the Qaum and the Indian State. Soon after that, the Muslim bodies or pressure groups such as the AIMPLB (founded in April 1973), and BMAC/BMCC emerged on the scene. I repeat, the Muslim politics of nationalising the local issues, and secondly, the formation of pressure groups least for educational uplift and empowerment and more for emotive cultural politics, speak tellingly of the priorities of Muslim politics, among north Indian Muslim elites. This also reminds me of an assertion of Theodre P Wright Jr about the Muslim politics in India, raising the question of whether the Muslim minorities can actualise more of their goals through pressure groups rather than through electoral party politics. Paul Brass and Harry Blair, endorsing Wright, are inclined to suggest that the pressure groups yield better results.

Gender Issues: dominance of regressive patriarchy and retrogression

Chapter seven (on gender) is forthright in stating that “In the 1970s, Islamist groups gained increasing influence on campus as they sought to promote adherence to ‘Íslamic values’, including with regard to men-women relations’’ (p. 375) and “At JMI, the SIMI gained popularity among a part of the student body thanks to their firm stance against the state’s interference in Muslim Personal Law” (p. 379). A fairly distinct reactionary patriarchy prevailed on the campus, in which the Islamists having been dominant and hegemonic forces on the both campuses, neither pushed for reforms from within nor did they allow the state to intervene in favour of gender justice. Women, including the various shades of feminists (except among a miniscule sections of the Left) remained ‘guardians of tradition’ rather than ‘actors of change’.

The author candidly states that “The Shah Bano controversy had a deeply divisive impact both at JMI and at AMU” (p. 378). The author however avoids saying that the divisive impact was not confined within the two ‘Muslim’ campuses. Rather the stubbornness of the Muslim conservatives and reactionaries was going to change the whole grammar, syntax and vocabulary of politics across the country in the days to come. This eventually came to be confessed even by Ali Miyan Nadvi (1914-1999), one of the prominent villains of the Shah Bano dispute. The narratives of the vulnerability of the Muslims were falsified by their power to arm-twist the regime to legislate against the Supreme Court verdict of April 1985. The two campuses, in effect, stood by or capitulated before such reactionary forces, subsequently contributed, in whatever degree, by pushing India towards the grip of majoritarianism. The narrative-making elite (Kutcherry Milieu) of India’s Muslims is yet to persuade the Qaum to bring in reforms from within or let the state do the needful. Needless to add, many such reforms have already been carried out in most of Islamic countries. Yet, the reactions of the dominant Muslim elite to date, are as outrageous as were in the 1970s and 1980s. Most recently, one could see this in the S[h]ayera Bano Case (2017) as much as in the latest Supreme Court verdict of July 10, 2024. In this specific regard, it is difficult to share the optimism that the author has sanguinely articulated in the last two pages (pp. 388-389) of the chapter of the book.

Chapter seven appears to be implicitly rather kinder to Muslim conservatives in a very limited sense. The author seems to suggest (p. 380) that “the growing militancy of the Hindu right” and the BJP support to UCC, kind of forced some Muslim progressives to promote reform from within. To some extent, fair enough. However, please pay attention to these words of Saumya Saxena (2018, p. 424): “the first battle of Muslim personal law was fought in the 1970s rather than the 1980s”. The AIMPLB came into existence in April 1973. It was outcome of a series of Muslim protests in late 1972 against state interference in reforming the laws regarding adoption of child and maintenance to divorced women. The Muslim Right Wing was in the forefront of such protests and in formation of the AIMPLB. The academics of the Islamic Studies, Theology, Law, Gender Studies, of the two universities haven’t yet explained to the Qaum that Instant Triple Talaq (divorce; ITT) is Un-Quranic, that maintenance is not Un-Islamic, that adoption per se isn’t prohibited in Quran, it only prohibits concealing the biological paternity of the child adopted, that it won’t be anti-Islamic to give equal share to the daughters in inheriting parental assets. These highly paid academics benefitting from funds of the secular state haven’t come out in open against the reactionary theologians exposing them about their stances on these abovementioned issues. Thus, their silence or silent support to the reactionary theologians is undermining the secularization processes, which eventually provides fodder to majoritarianism.

On certain aspects, this book has preferred to spare the two denominational universities, in exposing their flip sides, such as their deficit (self-chosen?) in academic output on the most immediate concerns regarding caste, gender, Minority conservatism, communalism and isolationism-exceptionalism). Do they really deserve this much of empathy?

Muslims in their political articulation talk of their victimisation, and discrimination but in terms of academic output of the AMU, we have rightly been accused by Omar Khalidi that there is “absence of interest in Indian Muslim issues at the three departments”, viz., Economics, Sociology and Political Science.

Political priorities of the AMU-JMI elites have been to generate agitations more intensely about emotive and identitarian issues. Their narrative-making politics has prioritised emotive issues and of lack of criminal justice system in the anti-Muslim communal pogroms, besides underrepresentation in education, public employment, legislative and other institutions. But they have chosen largely not to conduct researches on such issues, in order to make stronger advocacy, as indicted by Omar Khalidi (2010), in his academic audit of the research production of AMU.

How do we explain this (mis)prioritization? Can we not see certain kind of politics played out by the elites of Muslims against its own wider community? This deficit among AMU-JMI elites (the narrative-makers) on those counts is contributing to the skewing of political priorities, fuelling of prejudices, fears and apprehensions. Arguably, our own forthright incompetence and mediocrity, that has harboured a less competitive, more cocooned spaces, in terms of enrolments, recruitments, promotions, etc., within these “Muslim” campuses is a cause?

Anti-democratic governance structure of AMU: An incestuous club

The governance structure within AMU is such that it has been helping it, through dangerous and malicious inbreeding, inside the Executive Council (has got almost 80% of its members from among its own faculty), up to the level of empanelling its VCs (without inviting application from outside through an advertisement), to protect, promote and perpetuate the interests of a small club of Muslim elites (Kutcherry Milieu). The narrative-generating elites of both universities as well as of the theological seminaries of these regions, increasingly confined mostly to western UP and Bhojpuri speaking districts of UP (such as Azamgarh), are also home to some of the noted Islamic seminaries. In contrast, the BHU has got all its EC members nominated by the Union government since the 1950s. AMU is the only University where certain teachers continue in certain administrative offices for far too long — even over a decade –with preposterously poor academic credentials. Successive internal VCs perpetuate and strengthen these cliques and clouts rather than launching a crackdown against these debilitative lobbies.

Record preservation in AMU leaves much to be desired. Had it been preserving the day-to-day resolutions and transactions of the AMU Students’ Union and of the AMU Teachers’ Associations and other such formal and informal pressure groups, lobbies and clouts (including the sub-regional ones) within AMU, the practice would have helped for academic researchers to bring out the layered details of the political-ideological character and Qaum’s misplaced priorities and the huge disjunction of aspirations between the elites and the people of the Qaum.

Taking forward from the insights provided by Laurence Gautier, a sequel volume along these lines on the two campuses, or even taking into account more of the “Muslim” campuses can well be a research project worth taking up. A hint (p. 236, Table 5.1) at tardy, slow, lackadaisical and reluctant efforts of the Muslim elites of western UP in establishing Muslim minority educational campuses and educational trusts, compared to the laudable efforts of their counterparts in southern and western India, is a question of deeper concern that requires consideration.

Sadly, Uttar Pradesh’s Muslim elites compare very unfavourably even with the Bihar Muslim elite which is otherwise identified as poorer and backward. In this specific table of educational initiatives of Muslims, post-partition, Kerala tops it all in terms of establishing total number of Muslim colleges until the early 1980s. Tamil Nadu is far ahead despite having the least percentage of Muslim population. They created quality Muslim educational institutions out of the secular laws of Trusts rather than the self-perpetuating “scam” called Waqf-e-Aulad. Thus, the already short share of the south Indian enrolments in AMU kept falling further.

With such tabulated data of the book under discussion, I propose before the academics, researchers and commentators that a precise gaze on, and scrutiny of, the roles of the Muslim elites of UP, and their dominance/hegemony in the narrative-making power/entitlements of Muslim politics is awaited.

Another significant question to be raised here is: why the newly independent liberal state of India was more favourably inclined towards the ex-Leaguers than towards the consistent Congressite Muslims? Were they greater vote-catchers for the ruling Congress than the consistent Congressites? If so, then what does it tell us about the Muslim politics and its elites? Such a proposition is prima facie provocative but the differential treatments in terms of supplying state fund to the JMI and AMU does testify this proposition. There are many more of such evidence in terms of scores of the overnight turncoats among the UP Muslim leaders, such as Begum Qudsia Aizaz Rasul (1908-2001), not to say of similar testimony in the Urdu novels of Abdus Samad, Do Gaz Zamin and Khwabon Ka Sawera.

In summing up, this wonderfully well-researched book offers profound and nuanced exploration of the socio-political dynamics of AMU and JMI (north Indian Muslim middle classes and elites) since 1947. It provides valuable insights into the evolving landscapes of the politics of Muslim communities in India. This is indeed an important resource for scholars to elaborate upon many aspects outlined in this book pertaining to the polyphonic voices on almost every important issue which the Muslim communities are grappling with. Thus, this engrossing read offers many promises to open up several unchartered layers of the politics of India’s Muslim communities, waiting to be opened up, with even more courage. The post-independence incarnates of the “Kutcherry Milieu” are waiting to be dissected, x-rayed and held accountable in order to make a new move in a menacingly majoritarian rightward shift of India. The increasingly atrophying Liberal-Left too needs to rethink their hitherto flawed treatment of Muslim regressivism. It is already too late.

[Note: This is an abridged version of the draft presented as a panel discussion on the book, in the India International Centre (IIC), New Delhi, on 28 August 2024].

(The author is a Professor of History, Aligarh Muslim University)

Related:

The Waqf Bill 2024: An Open Letter to the Joint Committee of Parliament, the Opposition, and India’s Muslim Communities

Three Banes of India’s Muslims: Victimhood Syndrome, Power Theology, Obsession with Identity Politics

No Central Funds, Aligarh Muslim University’s Second Campus in West Bengal Faces Uncertain Future

The post Political History of India’s Two Muslim Universities since 1947 appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Since then August 9 is celebrated as August Kranti Divas.

The British swiftly responded with mass detentions on August 8 itself. Contemporary official documents confirm that over 100,000 arrests were made which included the total top leadership of Congress including Gandhi, mass fines were levied and demonstrators were subjected to public flogging. Hundreds of civilians were also killed by the police and the British army assisted by their henchmen; native rulers. Many national leaders went underground and continued their struggle by broadcasting messages over clandestine radio stations, distributing pamphlets and establishing parallel governments. Innumerable patriotic Indians were shot dead for the ‘crime’ of unfurling and holding the Indian Tricolour, publically. Even before that a terrible massacre had taken place in Mysore where the armed forces of the Mysore Raja who was very close to both the Hindu Mahasabha (HMS) and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) shot dead 22 Congress activists for saluting the Tricolour!

Significantly, after declaring Congress both an ‘anti-national and unlawful organisation’, the British masters allowed only Hindu Mahasabha and the Muslim League to function!

Most of us also know that the then Communist Party of India (CPI) opposed the QIM thus betraying a great phase of mass uprising in the history of the freedom struggle. But it is equally well documented that despite CPI’s call for keeping aloof from QIM a large number of Communist activists participated in it. However, the dubious role of the then Hindutva camp—consisting of the Hindu Mahasabha [HM] and Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh [RSS] – in the QIM is under wraps for reasons unknown. The Hindutva camp not only opposed QIM but also provided multi-faceted and multi-dimensional support to the British rulers in suppressing this historic mass upsurge.

Documents, shocking for many a young reader are available to substantiate this:

‘Veer’ Savarkar-led Hindu Mahasabha joined hands with British rulers to suppress the Quit India Movement (QIM)

While addressing the 24th session of the Hindu Mahasabha at Cawnpore (now Kanpur) in 1942, Savarkar outlined the strategy of the Hindu Mahasabha of co-operating with the British rulers in the following words:

“The Hindu Mahasabha holds that the leading principle of all practical politics is the policy of Responsive Co-operation. And in virtue of it, it believes that all those Hindu Sangathanists [members of HM] who are working as councillors, ministers, legislators and conducting any municipal or any public bodies with a view to utilize those centres of government power to safeguard and even promote the legitimate interests of the Hindus without, of course, encroaching on the legitimate interests of others are rendering a highly patriotic service to our nation. Knowing the limitations under which they work, the Mahasabha only expects them to do whatever good they can under the circumstances and if they do not fail to do that much it would thank them for having acquitted themselves well. The limitations are bound to get themselves limited step by step till they get altogether eliminated. The policy of responsive co-operation which covers the whole gamut of patriotic activities from unconditional co-operation right up to active and even armed resistance, will also keep adapting itself to the exigencies of the time, resources at our disposal and dictates of our national interest.” [Italics as in the original][i]

[Cited in V.D. Savarkar, Samagra Savarkar Wangmaya: Hindu Rashtra Darshan, vol. 6, Maharashtra Prantik Hindu Sabha, Poona, 1963, p. 474.]

This ‘Responsive Cooperation’ with the British masters was not only a theoretical commitment. It soon got concretised in the ganging up of Hindu Mahasabha with the Muslim League. The Hindu Mahasabha led by ‘Veer’ Savarkar ran coalition governments with Muslim League in 1942. Savarkar defended this nexus in his presidential speech in the same session of Hindu Mahasabha at Kanpur, in the following words:

“In practical politics also the Mahasabha knows that we must advance through reasonable compromises. Witness the fact that only recently in Sind, the Sind-Hindu-Sabha on invitation had taken the responsibility of joining hands with the League itself in running coalition Government. The case of Bengal is well known. Wild Leaguers whom even the Congress with all its submissive-ness could not placate grew quite reasonably compromising and socialable as soon as they came in contact with the HM and the Coalition Government, under the premiership of Mr. Fazlul Huq and the able lead of our esteemed Mahasabha leader Dr. Syama Prasad Mookerji, functioned successfully for a year or so to the benefit of both the communities.”[ii] [Samagra Savarkar Wangmaya, vol. 6, 479-480.]

The Hindu Mahasabha and Muslim League, together, besides Bengal and Sind, also ran coalition government in NWFP also during this period.

Hindutva icon Dr Shyama Prasad Mookerjee was deputy CM in the Bengal Muslim League ministry was responsible for crushing the QIM in Bengal

Following the Hindu Mahasabha directive to co-operate with the British, the present Hindutva icon, Dr. Mookerjee assured his British masters through a letter dated July 26, 1942. Shockingly, it read:

“Let me now refer to the situation that may be created in the province as a result of any widespread movement launched by the Congress. Anybody, who during the war, plans to stir up mass feeling, resulting internal disturbances or insecurity, must be resisted by any Government that may function for the time being”[iii]

[Mookherjee, Shyama Prasad, Leaves from a Dairy, Oxford University Press. p. 179.]

The second-in-command of the Hindu Mahasabha, Dr. Syama Prasad Mookerjee, also the deputy chief minister in Bengal Muslim league ministry in a letter to Bengal governor on behalf of Hindu Mahasabha and Muslim League made it clear that both these parties looked at the British rulers as saviours of Bengal against Quit India Movement launched by Congress. In this letter, he mentioned item wise the steps to be taken for dealing with the situation. It read:

“The question is how to combat this movement (Quit India) in Bengal? The administration of the province should be carried on in such a manner that despite the best efforts of the Congress, this movement will fail to take root in the province. It should be possible for us, especially responsible Ministers, to be able to tell the public that the freedom for which the Congress has started the movement, already belongs to the representatives of the people. In some spheres it might be limited during the emergency. Indians have to trust the British, not for the sake for Britain, not for any advantage that the British might gain, but for the maintenance of the defence and freedom of the province itself.”[iv]

[Cited in A G. Noorani, The RSS and the BJP: A Division of Labour. LeftWord Books, p. 56–57.]

RSS followed Savarkar in opposing the QIM

THE other flag-bearer of Hindutva, the RSS, was not different in its attitude towards the QIM. It openly sided with its mentor ‘Veer’ Savarkar against this great revolt. The RSS’ attitude towards the QIM becomes clear from the following utterances of its second chief and most prominent ideologue till date, M.S. Golwalkar. While talking about the outcome of the Non-Cooperation Movement and QIM he said:

“Definitely there are bound to be bad results of struggle. The boys became unruly after the 1920-21 movement. It is not an attempt to throw mud at the leaders. But these are inevitable products after the struggle. The matter is that we could not properly control these results. After 1942, people often started thinking that there was no need to think of the law. This movement, specially, spread widely in Bihar. We witness today that trains are stopped, chains are pulled and travel without tickets is very commonly practised there…All this disorder and bizarre situation are the creation of this struggle.”[v]

[Golwalkar, M.S., Shri Guruji Samagra Darshan (Collected Works of Golwalkar in Hindi), vol. iv, Bhartiya Vichar Sadhna, Nagpur, nd, p. 41.]

Thus, the prophet of Hindutva, Golwalkar, wanted the Indians to respect the draconian and repressive laws of the inhuman British rulers! He admitted that this kind of negative attitude towards the QIM did not go well even with the RSS cadres:

“In 1942 also there was a strong sentiment in the hearts of many. At that time, too the routine work of Sangh continued. Sangh vowed not to do anything directly. However, upheaval (uthal-puthal) in the minds of Sangh volunteers continued. Sangh is an organisation of inactive persons, their talks are useless, not only outsiders but also many of our volunteers did talk like this. They were greatly disgusted too.”[vi]

[Golwalkar, M.S., Shri Guruji Samagra Darshan (Collected Works of Golwalkar in Hindi), vol. iv, Bhartiya Vichar Sadhna, Nagpur, nd, p. 40.]

It would be interesting to note what Golwalkar meant by ‘routine work of Sangh’. It surely meant working overtime to widen the divide between Hindus and Muslims thus serving the strategic goal of the British rulers and Muslim League. In fact, the contemporary reports of the British intelligence agencies on the QIM were straightforward in describing the fact that RSS kept aloof from the QIM. According to one such report, “the Sangh has scrupulously kept itself within the law, and in particular, has refrained from taking part in the disturbances that broke out in August 1942”.[vii]

[Cited in Andersen, Walter K. & Damle, Shridhar D. The Brotherhood in Saffron: the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and Hindu Revivalism, Westview Press, 1987, 44.]

These historical and well-documented facts make it clear that Hindutva gang led by the RSS not only betrayed QIM but also rendered great service to their British masters by aligning with the Muslim League at a time when the foreign rulers were faced with a nation-wide popular revolt incolving large sections of Indians. In collusion, the HMS/RSS (also with the ML) mounted one of the fiercest repressions of the freedom fighters. Shockingly, this gang is ruling India today describing itself as a symbol of Indian nationalism. We need to convey these facts to the Indians so that these traitors are exposed and charged for crimes committed against Indian people.

Today’s rulers wedded to the RSS and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) know that betrayal of the QIM by their Hindutva ancestors cannot be covered up. It is crystal clear that RSS including its top leaders like Golwalkar (head of the RSS), Deendayal Upadhyaya, Balraj Madhok, LK Advani and KR Malkani who were RSS whole timers during QIM did not participate in this Movement or any other struggle launched for the freedom of India. RSS-BJP rulers continue raking up communal polarizing issues so that betrayal of the QIM is covered up.

Link for some of S. Islam’s writings in English, Hindi, Urdu, Marathi, Malayalam, Kannada, Bengali, Punjabi, Gujarati and video interviews/debates:
http://du-in.academia.edu/ShamsulIslam

Link for procuring Shamsul Islam’s books in English, Hindi & Urdu:
https://tinyurl.com/shams-books

REFRENCES:

[i] Cited in V.D. Savarkar, Samagra Savarkar Wangmaya: Hindu Rashtra Darshan, vol. 6, Maharashtra Prantik Hindu Sabha, Poona, 1963, p. 474.

[ii] Samagra Savarkar Wangmaya, vol. 6, 479-480.

[iii] Mookherjee, Shyama Prasad, Leaves from a Dairy, Oxford University Press. p. 179.

[iv] Cited in A G. Noorani, The RSS and the BJP: A Division of Labour. LeftWord Books, p. 56–57.

[v] Golwalkar, M.S., Shri Guruji Samagra Darshan (Collected Works of Golwalkar in Hindi), vol. iv, Bhartiya Vichar Sadhna, Nagpur, nd, p. 41.

[vi] Golwalkar, M.S., Shri Guruji Samagra Darshan (Collected Works of Golwalkar in Hindi), vol. iv, Bhartiya Vichar Sadhna, Nagpur, nd, p. 40.

[vii] Cited in Andersen, Walter K.& Damle, Shridhar D. The Brotherhood in Saffron: the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and Hindu Revivalism, Westview Press, 1987, 44.

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

The post How Hindutva forces colluded with both the British & Jinnah against the historic ‘Quit India’ movement: Archives appeared first on SabrangIndia.

It is worth noting that over 200 million Muslims and Christians have resided in India for centuries. They share a common culture with Hindus, work in the fields, and celebrate their festivals together. While Hindus are the majority in India, the combined population of Muslims and Christians is approximately four times greater than that of the United Kingdom, which ruled over India for two centuries.

Historical records show that Christianity’s presence in India dates back over two thousand years, and Islam reached India’s coastal areas centuries before the arrival of Muhammad ibn al-Qasim in Sindh in the 8th century. Yet Hindu-Right forces led by the RSS and the BJP are not willing to accept Christianity and Islam as part of the so-called “Indic” religion. However, they often define “Indic” in terms of elite Brahmin culture and exclude the cultural practices of the majority of Hindus as “impure.”

Continuing the communal approach to history, Hindu-Right forces have been spreading false narratives among the people that the original inhabitants of this country are only Hindus, while Muslims and Christians are “invaders.” Even though Brahminical literature and intellectuals are intolerant of the egalitarian principles of Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism, they prefer not to outright reject them publicly for political reasons but to appropriate them slowly. The act of appropriation is not easy for them. The Hindu Right, in order to divert attention from the caste inequality within the Hindu fold, tries to demonize Islam and Christianity as “alien” to Indian tradition.

However, history is not with the RSS and the BJP. It tells us that two thousand years ago, the Christian society was established in India. Since ancient times, India’s relations with Arab, Jewish, and Roman traders have been strong. According to tradition, Saint Thomas, one of the 12 Apostles of Jesus, arrived in Kerala in the year 52 and founded Christianity. Two hundred years after this event, many Christians fled Syria and settled in India, later called Syrian Christians. It is a historical fact that Oriental and Syrian Christian communities have been living in India for thousands of years and have no connection with the imperialist countries of Europe. Their services are as much for the country as the majority, yet the RSS and the BJP continue to call these religions foreign.

Apart from Christians, the BJP and RSS have biases against Muslims. They are trying to erase Islamic culture from Indian history. The NCERT’s proposed seminar is part of the same ‘saffronisation’ project. This communal narrative demonizes the medieval period as a “dark” period for Hindus because Muslims became rulers. It is true that Muslim rulers exploited the working classes, both Hindus and Muslims, and lived on their taxes. Hindu rulers, too, were not lenient in their exploitation of Hindu and Muslim peasants and workers alike. However, during the medieval period, the process of intermingling various cultures intensified, and a refined form of composite culture emerged. Many popular Hindu texts were written in the medieval period, and many religious texts of Hindus were translated during the same period.

Credible historians do not agree with the narrative of the victimization of Hindus during the medieval period. For example, Prof. Romila Thapar has criticized the history-writing method of “RSS and Hindutva ideologues for whom the past has only to do with Hindu history of the early period and the victimization of Hindus under Muslim tyranny in the medieval period.” Prof. Thapar has shown the intellectual dishonesty of the Hindutva writers who are at the forefront of “speaking of Hindus being enslaved for a thousand years by Muslim rule” but are dead against any talk of how “caste Hindus” have “victimized the lower castes, Dalits, and Adivasis for two thousand or more years.” While Prof. Thapar rejects the communal narrative that Hindus were victimized by Muslim rulers, she has shown that the medieval period was a period of cultural intermingling when the Bhakti and Tantric traditions in India emerged in the north (On Nationalism, Aleph Book, New Delhi, 2016, pp. 11-16).

Moreover, the egalitarian ideas of Islam also confronted caste society and gave much relief to Dalits and lower castes. Historian Sulaiman Nadvi (1884–1953)—who was associated with the establishment of Jamia Millia Islamia—has shown that before the coming of Islam, education was denied to the lower castes, but things began to change under the egalitarian influence of Islam. Furthermore, the term “Hindu” has roots in Arabic and Persian, with hundreds of Persian and Arabic words integrated into everyday Indian language.

Even the claim of Hindus being the authentic people of India is historically untenable. Prof. Romila Thapar has shown that the process of unification and homogenization of the “Hindu” religious community took place in the modern period. As she put it, “There were in pre-modern times a conglomerate of communities, identified by language, caste and ritual, occasionally overlapping in one or the other of these features but rarely presenting a uniform, universalising form. What is often mistaken for uniformity, namely Brahminical culture, was only the culture of the elite” (The Politics of Religious Communities in Cultural Past: Essays in Early Indian History, Oxford University Press, 2000, New Delhi, p. 1097).

To associate India with any particular religion or culture is highly problematic. In everyday life, the influence of Christianity and Islam can be seen in various aspects of Indian life, including language, customs, rituals, food habits, education systems, agriculture, architecture, music, technology, and philosophy. Calling Hindus an “indigenous” community in opposition to Christians and Muslims is highly problematic. Yet, public institutions such as NCERT continue to propagate such a communal narrative.

Despite this deep influence, the sub-themes of the seminar overlooked the substantial impact of Christianity and Islam. It is concerning that a premier educational body like NCERT, responsible for textbooks from class one to twelve, continues to display such bias and myopia in its approach. This biased perspective is indicative of the influence of right-wing forces in our public institutions.

If one goes through the brochure of the NCERT, the tone and tenor are coloured by self-glorification and jingoism. “India’s talent is capable and sufficient for running the entire world.” It further says that the purpose of such a seminar is to instil a sense of pride in the youth and act accordingly so that India again becomes a “world leader” (Vishwa Guru). Our criticism of such an approach does not mean that we are not recognizing the positive contribution of Indians, but it does not serve any purpose if it is over-hyped. The democratic approach is to work in cooperation and with an egalitarian spirit, rather than leading others or being led by them. The concept of master (Guru) and disciple (Chela) is mediated through power. The history of any invention and tradition would reveal that it has been shaped by many forces. It carries the stamps of different traditions and regions. Nothing is born in isolation, nor does it grow in isolation. Yet, the RSS and the BJP are adamant about proving that the “pure” Indic tradition remains “untouched” by the “foreign” and “corrupt” influence of Christianity and Islam.

The NCERT brochure continues to make unsubstantiated claims. For example, it asks researchers to explore writing papers on how “India’s knowledge tradition and its implementation” have been successful during the COVID [pandemic]. The brochure claims that “India has come forward for the welfare of the entire world.” Let the people living in foreign countries testify how far the Indian government came to their help. We living in India can speak for ourselves. For example, I myself heard cases of people running for medicine and oxygen cylinders in the national capital New Delhi, not to talk of the remote areas where health facilities are worse.

During the coronavirus pandemic, the extent to which migrant laborers, mostly coming from Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Jharkhand, Orissa, Madhya Pradesh, and West Bengal, suffered cannot be expressed in words. In the absence of public transport, Adivasi workers left for their homes running along the railway tracks. However, some of them could not meet their family members and got crushed by the running trains. The plights of workers have not found a place in the themes of NCERT’s national seminar.

Worse still, during the coronavirus pandemic, minority Muslims were demonized for spreading coronavirus by the establishment-backed Hindu right forces. As a result, hundreds of Muslims, on charges of being members of Tablighi Jamaat, were arrested across the country. Are these not examples of mismanagement and the failure of the governments to stand with the people, who have elected them to power for their own welfare? According to a report by the World Health Organization (WHO), 4.7 million people died in India during the coronavirus pandemic, ten times more than the official data. Yet, the organizers of the seminar are inviting the participants to praise their political masters for “leading the welfare work” across the world. Can such a politically designed and communally oriented meeting contribute to knowledge formation? I leave this question to you.

While Islam was excluded from the themes of the seminar, the organizers were happy to quote a few lines from the famous Tarana-e-Hindi penned by the eminent Urdu poet and philosopher Allama Iqbal. In Tarana-e-Hindi, the nationalist poet-philosopher Iqbal defended and praised Indian civilization, which was demonized by the colonizers. But see the irony: while the Hindu Right is fond of quoting Iqbal when he showers praises on Indian Civilization and calls Lord Rama Imam-e-Hind (Leader of India), they have not spared the same Iqbal and removed a theme from the political science syllabus of Delhi University. Justifying the erasure of poet-philosopher Iqbal, they have called him a “fanatic” Muslim and “the Father of Pakistan.” Look at the narrow-mindedness of Hindu Right forces. While the RSS and the BJP want to become “Vishwa Guru” in knowledge, they are tearing off the chapter on Iqbal from the syllabus, about whom the whole world is curious to do further research.

Rejecting the Indian tradition in toto is as harmful as celebrating it uncritically. If one reads the brochure of the NCERT seminar, one is misled to believe that everything great and positive in the world that has happened has taken place in Indic tradition, particularly in the ancient period. The communal approach to history has divided Indian history into three parts and called the ancient period the Hindu period and the medieval period the Muslim period. Such a communal construction was done by colonial historians, including James Mill. The RSS and the BJP, which call themselves nationalist forces, have often been at the forefront of upholding and carrying forward the communal narrative. The RSS and the BJP are not comfortable talking about deep social inequality in the ancient period because it pricks their narrative of the glorious Hindu period. In the NCERT brochure, there was no reference to caste-based discrimination. Similarly, there was no talk of gender disparity. The division of Hindu society into varnas and castes and how the working-class Shudras were not only exploited but also demonized in subsequent literature are all missing in the brochure. The conflicts between Buddhism and Brahminism and Devas and Asuras have been erased too.

For quite some time, NCERT has been in the news for toeing the establishment line and making decisions under political pressure. Intellectuals have often alleged that it works under RSS and BJP pressure. Last year in June, Professor Suhas Palshikar and Professor Yogendra Yadav, the chief advisors of the political science book, sent a letter to the NCERT director calling the changes in the NCERT books “arbitrary” acts. They wrote a letter after NCERT deleted several progressive contents without consulting them. The list of deleted items from the NCERT textbooks is long, but here are some of them: a few lines from the political science book that discuss the 2002 Gujarat Violence have been deleted; similarly, the report by the Human Rights Commission on it and then Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s call to the Gujarat government to follow “raj dharma” without discriminating people based on caste and religion, have been removed; the reference to Gandhi being disliked by Hindu extremists and the identity of his assassin Nathuram Godse as a Brahmin have been erased as well. Even the references to ghettoization as a result of anti-Muslim Gujarat violence have been deleted from NCERT sociology books. The chapters on the Mughal Court, Central Islamic Lands, the Cold War, and the era of one-party dominance discussing the early phase of the Congress party have been torn off.

According to a recent report in The Indian Express (June 16, 2024), the Class 12 political science book of NCERT erased the references to the 16th-century old Babri Masjid, which was illegally demolished in broad daylight on December 6, 1992, by Hindu Right forces. The newly printed textbook calls Babri Masjid “the three-dome structure,” which was built “at the site of Shri Ram’s birthplace in 1528.” It was also written in the new chapter that the structure has “visible displays of Hindu symbols and relics in its interior as well as its exterior portions.” However, no historian with any credible record of research can uphold these communal fabrications, which are being injected into our children.

In light of these concerns, intellectuals should express dissent against the communal conceptualization of the NCERT seminar and call upon members of civil society to raise their voices in protest as a demonstration of our intellectual integrity. Please remember that the penetration of the communal forces is fast taking place at other institutes as well. Therefore, a collective fight needs to be waged to uphold India’s pluralism, secularism, and social justice. Upholding such values and rejecting sectarian approaches is not just essential but also our Constitutional duty. Such a communal approach to Indian tradition is not only an act of intellectual dishonesty but also a conspiracy to weaken people’s solidarity.

(Dr. Abhay Kumar earned a PhD in Modern History from Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. He is working on a book about Muslim Personal Law. Contact: debatingissues@gmail.com)

The post Redefining Indian Tradition Minus Christianity & Islam is Intellectual Dishonesty appeared first on SabrangIndia.