All references to Delhi Sultanate and Mughal rulers have been deleted from the S^tandard VII text book. In addition, in all other text books –wherever there are references to Muslim rule—has been deleted. What also stands deleted is the reference to Post-Mumbai (92-93 violence), post-Gujarat violence (2002), the references to Nathuram Godse being a trained pracharak of RSS, the ban on RSS in the aftermath of Gandhi murder (January 30, 1948),  among others. While the Kumbh Mela finds a place, deaths by stampede and other related tragedies like the Delhi station stampede have no place.

All this began during the Covid period when the pretext offered was reducing the burden on the students and followed by ‘rationalization’ which meant deletion of these portions which caused discomfort to the Hindu Nationalist ideology.

For the political purpose of demonisation of Muslims and spreading hate against them, Mughals have been presented as the  major villains in our history. Some earlier kings like Allauddin Khilji have also been on the hammer for the Hindutva narrative. Until now, the demonisation of Muslims was structured around the selective narrative of ‘temple destruction by Muslim kings’, propaganda which has been contested by rational historians. The spread of Islam by Muslims Kings using the sword was another part of this. This version is totally off the mark as conversions to Islam took place a century earlier, due to social interactions with Muslim Arab traders to begin with. In later years, many from the depressed castes embraced Islam to escape the tyranny of the caste system.

The ideology of Hindutva has gone to the extent of presenting this period as a dark period when a ‘Holocaust against Hindus’ took place. No doubt the era of Kingdoms is full of war for political reasons. Kings always wanted to expand their regime and in the process many people were killed. To call it holocaust is totally off the mark. Their (Hindutva) narrative actually takes off from the Communal Historiography introduced by the British to pursue the policy of ‘divide and rule’. In this; all the motives of Kings are related to religion and kings are presented as the symbol of the entire religious community.

Hindu communal historiography has taken this several steps further, by claiming that Muslims and Christians were ‘foreigners’ who have tormented Hindus. Muslim communal historiography presented the other side of the coin where Muslims are portrayed as perpetual rulers and Hindus as subjugated subjects. This presents Muslims as the logical rulers of this land.

The later trajectory of this logic did assist the British to divide our composite land into India and Pakistan. Savarkar articulated that there are two nations in this country, and Jinnah went on to demand a separate country for Muslims, Pakistan. Pakistan fell into the trap of Muslim communalism right from the word go and as far its textbooks are concerned they presented the beginning of Pakistan with Mohammad bin Kasim, only in the eighth century. Today their history books have totally deleted any reference to Hindu rulers. The hate which the Muslim communalism spread against the Hindus peaked with their school texts removing all the references to Hindu Kings and culture.

In a way India; during the last three decades has been walking on the footprints of Pakistan. The mirror image of Pakistan’s trajectory is being copied, down to the last comma. This point was highlighted by Pakistan’s poet Fahmida Riyaz. In the aftermath of Babri demolition she wrote “Arre Tum bhi Ham Jaise Nikale, Ab Tak Kahan Chhupe the bhai’ (Ohh! you have also turned out like us, where were you hiding so far).

Prior to Hindutva ideology coming to total control of Indian education, the RSS shakhas were spreading the communal version of society through multiple mechanisms like its Shakha bauddhis, Ekal Vidyalays, Shishu Mandirs. In due course mainstream media and social media also came to its service.

As such culture is a continuously evolving process. During the period of History under the hammer of Hindutva, serious social changes took place. Apart from the architecture, the food habits, dress and literature, the synthesis in the field of religion, the noble traditions of Bhakti and Sufi tradition developed. It was during this period that Sikhism came and flourished.

Now this political ideology may have to change the track. With Muslim rulers out of the way how will they demonise the Muslims now? Newer techniques may be on the way to substitute Aurangzeb or Babar; as now they will be defunct!

History is very central to the concept of Nationalism. Erich Fromm points out that ‘History is to Nationalism what poppy is to the opium addict’. Since BJP came to power as NDA in 1998, the major thing they did was what is called “saffronization of education”. Here history has been presented the narrative of glorious and brave Hindu Kings versus evil and aggressive Muslim kings. The charge has been that so far History has been written by Left Historians, who focused on Delhi rulers and who were pro Muslim. The point is that text books did present the details of particular dynasties depending on the historical length of their rule.

The history books in the decades of 1980s had a good deal of presentation of Hindu as well as Muslim kings. The narration was not revolving just around religion but the holistic view of communities was presented: trade, culture, literature among others.

Still it is true that ruler, ‘King centric history’ is not what we need to build our future. We need to focus on diverse sections of society, Dalits, women, adivasis and artisans who do not find much place in such narratives.

Related:

2025 NCERT Textbooks: Mughals, Delhi Sultanate out; ‘sacred geography’, Maha Kumbh in

Mughals Won’t Disappear From History Just Because Sangh Wishes so: Irfan Habib

The post Mughals deleted from curriculum: history as political tool appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On the Buddha Purnima Day, May 12, 2025, Bihar governor, Arif Mohammad Khan visited the holy shrine, waxed eloquent about the greatness of Buddha but remained silent on the issue of the MahaBodhi Vihar being handed over to a Buddhist only management. Buddhist activists have also accused the governor of offering archana to Lord Shiva too, ignoring the sentiments of the Buddhists. Shockingly, while speaking “highly” of Buddha at an event, the governor did not even acknowledge that Buddhists have been protesting through a sit-in –for over two months —asking for a change in the BodhGaya Temple Management Committee.

Prior to Buddha Purnima day, there was a continuous dharana at the site and Buddhists particularly from Maharashtra were thronging the site. Bahujan Vikas Aghadi leader Prakash Ambedkar too visited and expressed his strong solidarity with the movement. BSP leader Ms Mayawati too expressed her solidarity with the movement though she has not yet travelled to Bodh Gaya. Except for these two leaders, no other leader of any recognised party has spoken about it. RJD which is the main opposition party in Bihar has been conspicuously silent on the question. PDA leader Akhilesh Yadav and his party have not bothered to address Buddhist concerns. Rahul Gandhi, the eloquent Leader of the Opposition (LoP in the Lok Sabha) who has made several visits to Bihar and even raised the issue of Dalit opporession has not uttered a word about the Mahabodhi Temple issue. Incidentally, there were prompt greetings to one and all on social media on Buddha Purnima day, but around the MahaBodhi Vihar there has been only silence.

None of the legacy media, newspapers or electronic media –with the exception of some Youtubers and Ambedkarite portals —have interrogated the festering issue. Instead,  reports have come in only from activist cadres and some leaders from Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh. There is a clash of political ideologies here too and that is natural. For millions of Dalits in India, the road to Buddhism goes via Baba Saheb Ambedkar while for a number of Buddhists in the Himalayan regions like Ladakh, Darjeeling, Himachal or Uttar Pradesh, Buddhism may not have the same political connotation as for the Ambedkarites who look upon it like a liberation theology. That contradiction seems to be emerging here too. Unfortunately therefore a blame game too has begun.

Read: Why the Bodh Gaya temple must be handed over to Buddhists

There was a call for a large gathering at Gaya on Buddha Purnima Day. However, it seems, that except for some dedicated Buddhists from Maharashtra and many from Uttar Pradesh, there was not a significant gathering here. To date, one Akash Lama has been leading the ‘non-political movement’ but suddenly he announced the suspension of the Dharana on Buddha Purnima day resulting in public accusations of his conniving with RSS and the NDA government. It is at this point of time another mendicant, Bhante Vinaya Acharya who seems to have questioned this suspension of Dharna as well as the inactive movement and wanted to launch a bigger movement to liberate the holiest shrines of the Buddhists, has been missing suddenly from the night of May 12.  Unconfirmed reports suggest that he has been arrested by the police though there is no information about his whereabouts. It is also strange that Bhant’s arrest or disappearance has not found its way in the Bihar media. Not much is heard from the political class about him. So, nobody actually knows what is happening as there is not a single official line from among India’s Buddhists, either..

A video has gone viral in which a local vendor is heard responding with ‘Jai Shri Ram’ to calls of ‘Jai Bhim’. Thereafter an altercation follows over why a non-Buddhist or anti Buddhist person has been allowed to be in the location of MahaBodhi Vihar. The issue of Maha Bodhi Vihar has suffered from the absence of enough local Buddhists living in Bodh Gaya. Despite all the sloganeering by national and regional opposition parties –espousing the politics of Pichda Dalit Adivasi (PDA) or the Bahujans – a vast majority of the Bahujan masses actually suffer from their own caste hierarchies. The sole thing that  unites them is the discrimination unleashed by Brahmanical forces. However, they have been unsuccessful so far in launching a movement that could eliminate Brahmanism from among themselves. Many intellectuals claim that it is a conspiracy to speak on these internal contradictions. The irony is that while a majority of the people, communities and castes that live in and around the Mahabodhi Vihar belong to Dalit Bahujan communities, the issue of independent Buddhist management  has not yet galvanised enough local support in a manner that could politically threaten the state government.

Leaders like Chirag Paswan or Jeetan Ram Manjhi have remained absolutely silent on the question. It is clear that the issue has not yet captured the emotion and sentiments of the local Bahujan masses which itself is a failure of its reach. Bihar’s social justice politics actually revolves around a class of agrarian-involved OBCs who have not been delinked from Brahmanical traditions. The cultural affiliation of communities like Dusadh as well as Charmkars too is heavily turned towards the rituals and practices which are often linked to Brahmanism. Unlike the Mahars in Maharashtra and Jatavs and Chamars in Uttar Pradesh, Dalits as well as OBCs in Bihar are culturally inclined to Brahmanical practices and rituals.

Even at the start, the Mahabodhi Mahavihara issue was not one raised by locals. It was the Sri Lankan Bhikkhu Anagarika Dharmapala who internationalised it. The Buddhist movement in India spread afresh among the masses only after Babasaheb Ambedkar revived this with his mass conversion, however, unfortunateky after his ‘Mahaparinirvana’, the movement remained confined to Maharashtra alone and thereafter spread only partly to Western Uttar Pradesh. The movement got revitalised after the ascendancy of BSP in power in the state when Ms Mayawati became chief minister of the state. She promoted Buddhism, created separate districts like Kushinagar, Mahamayanagar and  Panchsheel Nagar etc apart implementing some key policy measures.

However, the issue of Mahabodhi Mahavihara has always haunted the Buddhist community world over — why has their holiest shrine not been handed over to them for independent management. There is no dispute over the authenticity and historicity of the Mahabodhi Mahavihara but it is disturbing to see the deafening silence of all the major political players. Prime Minister Narendra Modi on his foreign tours, speaks about Buddha and Buddhism as India’s cultural heritage but so far he has remained mute on the issue. Bihar government too has not spoken anything of it. The Ambedkarites are also pinning their hopes on the Chief Justice of India Justice B R Gavai but the fact is that the most important influencer in this regard can only be Prime Minister Narendra Modi apart from other Hindu organisations who should peacefully resolve this issue by handing over the Management of the BodhGaya Temple Management Committee to the Buddhists. While Hindu organisations have been seeking a positive response from Muslims in relation to all the religious places that they feel were originally ‘Hindu’ but were ‘demolished’ or appropriated as Mosques. The argument for Ayodhya Ram Temple movement was the same that Muslims should respect the sentiments of Hindus and hand over the temple to Hindus. The Supreme Court order in this regard was more to ‘honour’ the sentiments of Hindus rather than a judgement based on facts and constitutionality. The court used its own power in the good faith so that a political issue which should have been resolved long back, is now settled amicably. It is surprising why the same court cannot ask Hindus to respect the sentiments of Buddhists and ask the government to make due changes in the BodhGaya Temple Management Committee and hand it over to Buddhists. There is no dispute on its historicity and Buddhist background yet neither the court nor the political leaders have spoken about it.

For all political parties, any issue relates to the wider support and the linked political profit or loss in raising it. This is the only reason (motive) for a party with not much stake in Bihar –like the Vanchit Bahujan Aghadi –is vocal while those in Bihar are silent only because of the absence of a popular local movement in its supports. Neither Lalu Yadav nor Chirag Paswan have spoken . Rahul Gandhi who has been vocal on the issues of Dalits as well as EBCs, has remained mute. He recently travelled to Darbhanga, addressed the SC students at the Ambedkar Hostel and later saw the film Phule with various activists, academics, students and politicians at a mall in Patna but did not utter a single word about the Buddhists demanding justice at Bodh Gaya.

This clearly indicates that for the political class, an issue only becomes important when it has the mass support. It seems locally there is no support for the movement in and around Bodh Gaya and a majority of the support that the issue has galvanised, is from outside. The Buddhist movement initiated by Baba Saheb Ambedkar has not reached diverse Dalit communities in India. Politically, all Bahujan parties do pay tribute to Lord Buddha and speak about Buddhism’s importance, but on the ground, their politics does not reflect the same commitment. Thirdly, even among the Dalits, it is mostly the Mahars and Jatavs who have embraced Buddhism and rest of the communities and leaders have not shown much inclination to it. For the OBCs, it does not concern much at the moment though exceptions are there but they are too small to impact the majority. Finally, there are also the cultural differences between the Buddhists from other regions and the Ambedkarite approach to it who have been aggressively speaking against the ‘Brahmanical’ onslaught on it. The non Ambedkarite Buddhists approach is through matured political dialogue with the government as it does not necessarily consider Hindus as adversary but for Ambedkarites Buddhists, aggressive critique of Brahmanism is the main theme of Buddhism. There are other issues of leadership of the movement too. People are missing Bhadant Nagarjun Surai Sasai who had once, , decades ago. Today, age has limited his political activism though he remains active in Maharashtra.

Two approaches can resolve the issue. One is if the Supreme Court takes note of it and gives direction to the Bihar government. Second, by Narendra Modi himself, who has been persistently using Buddhism as a symbol of India’s soft power, the world over. He participates in most Buddhist festivals and speaks greatly about Buddhism globally whenever he meets world leaders. Buddha is India’s biggest global influencer and one is sure that the government understands it. The government can call an all-party meeting and resolve the issue. This is not an issue which cannot  be resolved. Unlike Ayodhya, the issue is not really that of the origin and historicity of the temple but about its management which rightfully belongs to Buddhists.

Whether there are political movements or not, the government of India must take notice of this issue and provide a helping hand to the Bihar government, towards a resolution.

Buddha and Buddhism are India’s most powerful symbols of soft power. If the government has positive intent, it can resolve this issue peacefully and democratically. Will this, however, actually happen?

Related:

Bodh Gaya: Why the Mahabodhi Temple must be handed over to Buddhists

Religious Desecration: Who’s responsible for destruction of early Indian, Buddhist places of learning in Odisha?

The post Mahabodhi Vihar, Gaya: a conspiracy of silence across the political spectrum appeared first on SabrangIndia.

       “We have maintained our power in India by playing off one part against the other and we must continue to do so. Do all we can, therefore, to prevent all having a common feeling.”

In order to put this strategy in operation, White rulers in league with their Indian stooges floated the two-nation theory implying that Hindus and Muslims belonged to ‘two separate nations’. The birth of the two-nation theory was no accident, in fact, it was specifically created to help the British in creating a communal divide and fragmentize the Indian society on the basis of religions. This was because any lasting unity of Hindus and Muslims could prove to be the death knell of their rule.

One truth, never to be missed, about this Struggle is that it was jointly led by leaders like Nana Sahib, Bahadur Shah Zafar, Maulvi Ahmed Shah, Tantya Tope, Khan Bahadur Khan, Rani Laxmibai, Hazrat Mahal, Azimullah Khan and Ferozshah, a galaxy of revolutionaries who belonged to different faiths. It was a liberation struggle in which Maulvis, Pandits, granthis, zamindars, peasants, traders, lawyers, servants, women, students and people from different castes, creeds and regions rose in revolt against the dehumanised rule of the East India Company and even laid down their lives.

On the eve of 163rd anniversary of War of Independence we need to tell the present flag bearers of both Hindu-Muslim brand of communal politics that the revolutionary army which declared the Mughal King Bahadur Shah Zafar, a Muslim, India’s Independent ruler on May 11, 1857 comprised of more than seventy percent Hindu soldiers, all armed. These were Nana Sahib, Tantya Tope and Laxmibai, all Hindus, played vital role in making Zafar, Badshah; the King once again.

The contemporary documents of the period which are available even today are replete with instances, not confined to one particular area, in which Hindus and Muslims could be seen making supreme sacrifices unitedly. The War of Independence categorically presented one fundamental truth that Hindu-Muslim separatism or hatred between these two communities was not at all an issue.

Ayodhya

After independence Ayodhya emerged as a place which has caused deep schisms between sections of Hindus and Muslims. The Babri Masjid-Ram Janmbhoomi dispute has played significant role in creating an environment of violence and mistrust between the two largest religious communities of India. But in 1857, it was the same Ayodhya where Maulvis and Mahants and common Hindu-Muslims stood united against the British rule and kissed the hangman’s noose together. Maulana Ameer Ali was a famous Maulvi of Ayodhya and when Ayodhya’s well-known Hanuman Garhi’s (Hanuman Temple) priest Baba Ramcharan Das took the lead in organising the armed resistance to the British rule, Maulana also joined the revolutionary army. In one battle with the British and their stooges, both of them were captured and hanged together on a tamarind tree at the Kuber Teela (now in Faizabad Jail) in Ayodhya.

This region also produced two more great friends, belonging to different religions who made life hell for the British sponsored armies. Achchan Khan and Shambhu Prasad Shukla, who jointly led the army of Raja Devibaksh Singh in the district of Faizabad. Both of them were able to defeat the Firangee army in many battles. It was due to the treachery again that they were captured. In order to desist anyone from such companionships between Hindus and Muslims both these friends were publicly inflicted prolonged torture and their heads were cruelly filed off.

It is not difficult to understand that why the same Ayodhya where blood of both Hindus and Muslims flowed for liberating the motherland in 1857 later became a permanent source of friction between the two communities. The joint heritage of Ayodhya needed to be erased if British rule was to survive. This was meticulously contrived by the British rulers and their henchmen turning the heritage of communal unity at Ayodhya upside down. Not surprisingly, the RSS-BJP rulers are replicating the same now.

Rajasthan

Kota state (now in Rajasthan) was ruled by a Maharao subservient to the British. The leading courtier, Lala Jaidayal Bhatnagar, a great literary figure, when he found that Maharao was collaborating with the British, he joined hands with the army chief, Mehrab Khan and established a rebel government in the state. When Kota was captured by the British forces with the help of stooge neighbouring princes, they together continued fighting in the region till 1859. Betrayed by an informer both were hanged at Kota on September 17, 1860.

Haryana

Hansi town (now in Haryana) presents another heart-warming example of how Muslims and Jains fearlessly challenged the foreign rule and did not hesitate in sacrificing their lives together. In this town lived two close friends, Hukumchand Jain and Muneer Beg. They were known as literary giants with a love for mathematics. The revolutionary government of Bahadurshah Zafar chose them as advisors and appointed them as commanders in the region of west of Delhi. They led many successful military campaigns in the area but due to the treachery of the native rulers of Patiala, Nabha, Kapurthala, Kashmir and Pataudi were defeated in a crucial battle and captured. The British highly perturbed by this kind of unity decided to kill them in a most brutal manner. After hanging them on the same tree in Hansi on January 19, 1858, Hukumchand Jain was buried and Muneer Beg was cremated against the custom of their respective religions. The obvious purpose was to make fun of the unity of these two revolutionaries belonging to two different religions and display a hatred towards their comradeship. Another unspeakable crime committed by the British was that when Faqir Chand, 13 year old nephew of Hukamchand Jain protested to this treatment he too was hanged, although there was no sentence passed against him.

Central India

Jhansi: We all are familiar with Rani Laxmi Bai’s heroic resistance to the British rule and her death fighting the British forces at Gwalior. She was able to put up such a great resistance with the able aid of her Muslim commanders; Ghulam Ghouse Khan (chief of artillery), Khuda Bakhsh (chief of infantry) both of whom were martyred defending Jhansi fort on June 4, 1858. Even her personal bodyguard was a young Muslim lady, Munzar who laid down her life with Rani on June 18, 1858 at Kotah-ki-Sarai battle in Gwalior.

Malwa: Malwa region in the then Central Province (now Madhya Pradesh) was another war theatre where big and crucial battles were fought against the British. The joint command of Tatia Tope, Rao Saheb (Pandurang Sadashiv), Laxmi Bai, Ferozshah and Moulvi Fazal-ul- Haq, was able to mobilise a huge rebel army of 70-80 thousand fighters. This army won innumerable battles against the British. However, in the crucial battle at Ranod –when due to the treachery of stooge princes the revolutionary army led by Tatia Tope, Ferozeshah and Moulvi were encircled– Moulvi Fazal-ul- Haq stood as a rock in the way of advancing British troops. He with his 480 brave companions laid down their lives on December 17, 1858, but were able to save the main force which included Tatia Tope, Rao Saheb and Ferozshah. Saved thus by the supreme sacrifice by Moulvi Fazl Haq and his comrades, Tatia Tope continued to wage war against the British until the beginning of 1859.

Rohilkhand

Present day Bareilly, Shahjahanpur, Badaun and Bijnor was the area which was a strong hold of revolutionaries from the start. Immediately after the announcement of an independent Indian government at Delhi on May 11, 1857, Khan Bahadur Khanwas appointed as the viceroy of Mughal emperor there. Khan soon after assuming charge appointed a committee of eight members consisting both Hindus and Muslims to conduct the affairs of the state, his deputy being Khushi Ram. This government forbade cow-slaughter in deference to the sentiments of local Hindus. Khan and Khushi Ram led troops defeated the British and their stooges in many battles but were defeated in a crucial battle at Bareilly. Both of them were hanged with hundreds of their followers outside old Kotwali on March 20, 1860.

Delhi

The revolutionary army was led by a joint command consisting of Mohammed Bakht Khan, Azimullah Khan, Sham Singh Dooga, Sirdhara Singh, Ghouse Mohammad, Hira Singh and a ‘Doabi Brahmin’. Contemporary British documents show that despite all their attempts to create communal divide in the ranks of revolutionary army and residents of Delhi, Indians stood as one. In order not to let the British spies succeed in creating communal conflict amongst Delhites, General Bakht Khan, C-in-C of the revolutionary army prohibited cow slaughter. What kind of communal amity existed in Delhi under siege can be further known by the fact that when a huge canon of Shahjahan’s times which was lying unused was taken out, repaired and made useable, before firing the first canon, in the presence of Bahadur Shah Zafar and other army officials, Hindu priests performed the Aarti, garlanded it and blessed it with Vedic hymns.

Hindu-Muslim unity during the First Indian War of Independence was not confined to one area or one section of the population. This unity pervaded the whole country at all stratum. It was a ground reality and a fact of life with which, but naturally, women too, did not remain untouched. In a small town, Thana Bhawan, situated in Muzaffarnagar district (now in western Uttar Pradesh) 11 brave women belonging to different religions and castes were hanged together or burnt alive for taking up arms against repressive British rule.

The names and heroic deeds of some of them are unrivalled. Asghari Begum, 45 years old, belonged to a well-to-do family and was burnt alive for organising rebellion in the area. Another revolutionary woman, 28-year old, Asha Devi, who belonged to a Hindu Gujar family was also hanged. Another martyred woman was young Bhagwati Devi, born into a Tyagi family of farmers who fought in many battles against Firangee rule. 24 year old, Habeeba, belonging to a Muslim Gujar family, fearlessly fought in many battles to liberate neighbouring areas from British tyranny. She was captured while resisting a British attack and was executed on the gallows in 1857. Another brave woman from this area was named Mam Kaur who belonged to a family of shepherdess and was hanged at the young age of 25 years. Bhaktawari another brave woman from the region too laid down her life fighting the British rulers.  Twenty-six year old, Umda was another gallant woman from this area, born into a Jat Muslim family who sacrificed her life resisting the British invasion. Raj Kaur born in 1833, hailed from a Sikh family and made the supreme sacrifice of fighting against the British in the Thana Bhawan area.

The degree of communal unity among the rebels can further be known by going through the Rebel Anthem of 1857, penned by Azimullah Khan. It was in Urdu and reads:

Hum haeniss ke malik, Hindoostan hamaaraa/Paak watan hae qaum kaa Jannat se bhee piyaaraa.

[We are its owners, it belongs to us. It is our holy land, lovelier than paradise.]

Yeh hamaari milkiat Hindoostan hamaaraa/iss kee roohaniyat se Roshan hae jug saaraa.

[It is our Hindustan, our owned. The whole world sparkles with its spiritualism.]

Kitnaa qadeem kitnaa naeem, sab duniyaa se niyaraa/kartee hae zarkhez jisse Gang-o-Juman kee dhaaraa.

[It is old as well as new, it is pleasant in the world. Ganga and Jamuna irrigates its lands.]

Oope rbarfeela parvat pehre-daar hamaaraa/Neeche sahil per bajta sagar kaa naqqaaraa.

[On top snow clad mountain guards us. On the lower end you can hear roaring of sea.]

Iss kee khanen ugal raheensona, heera, paaraa/iss kee shaan shaukat kaa duniyaa maen jaikaaraa.

[Its mines produce gold, diamond and lead. Its greatness is renowned throughout the world.]

Aayaa Firangee door se, essaa mantar maaraa/loota donon hathoon se piyaaraa watan hamaaraa.

[The British came from far away, played trick. Our dear land was looted with both hands.]

Aaj shahidon ne tumko, ahl-e-watan lal-kaaraa/Todo ghulamee kee zanjeeren barsao angaaraa.

[Martyrs are calling you, countrymen. Break shackles of slavery, spit fire.]

Hindoo-Mussalmaan-Sikh hamaaraa bhai piyaaraa-piyaaraa/yeh hae azaadi kaa jhanda isse salaam hamaaraa.

[Hindu-Muslim-Sikh are our dear brothers. This is the flag of independence, salute to it.]

Contemporary British narratives

William Russell, was sent by The Times, London as a war correspondent to cover the ‘Mutiny.’ In one of his reports dated, March 2, 1858, while underlining the unity among the ranks of rebel army he wrote:

“All the great chiefs of Oudh, Mussalman and Hindu, are there, and have sworn to fight for their young king, Birjeis Kuddr [sic], to the last. Their cavalry is numerous, the city is filled with people, the works are continually strengthened. All Oudh is in the hands of the enemy, and we only hold the ground we cover with our bayonets.”

Another senior British officer, Thomas Lowe who led British attacks on Jhansi, Kalpi and Kanpur admitted that,

“the infanticide Rajput, the bigoted Brahmin, the fanatic Mussalman, and the luxury loving, fat-paunched ambitious Maharattah [sic], they all joined together in the cause; the cow-killer and the cow-worshipper, the pig-hater and the pig-eater, the crier of Allah is God and Mohommed [sic] his prophet and the mumbler of the mysteries of Brahma.”

Fred Roberts (became the Commander- in-Chief of the British armed forces in India later) was one of the leading British military commanders who led the British army to recapture Lucknow. In one of his letters, from the Lucknow front dated Nov 25, 1857, while rejoicing victory on that day at Sikander Bagh, Lucknow could not miss out the fact that even in the face of death the rebel army consisting of both Hindus and Muslims did not lose heart and stayed glued to each other. When Fred entered the Sikander Bagh he found nearly 2000 rebels on the ground dead or dying.

“I never saw such a sight. They were literally in heaps, and when I went in were a heaving mass, some dead, but most wounded and unable to get up from the crush. How so many got crowded together I can’t understand. You had to walk over them to cross the court. They showed their hatred even while dying, cursed us and said: ‘if we could only stand, we would kill you.’”

Throughout the War of Independence every nook and corner of the country was replete with such instances of fearless fighters, supreme sacrifices and strong bond of unity amongst people belonging to different religions. Such glorious instances of unbreakable Hindu-Muslim unity did really happen 168 years back. This can be verified even today by a simple perusal of contemporary British archives, personal collections, diaries and narrations.

Given these realities of history, it is not difficult to understand why a divide between Hindus and Muslims was necessitated, who were instrumental in accomplishing it and who benefited out of this divide. The survival of the British Empire in India depended on the successful execution of this strategy of divide and rule.

The flag-bearers of the politics of two-nations in the past and communal politics today are the ones who helped the British to execute this evil design. We must not ignore the fact that communalism was a ploy of the British who feared the end of their Empire in India –if Hindus and Muslims continually stood united. On the eve of 168th anniversary of the great rebellion, we must rise to take pledge of never betraying the shared heritage and shared martyrdoms of the First Indian War of Independence and not let the RSS-BJP rulers of India undo it.

[All references and quotes presented in this article are based on contemporary documents.]

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

Related:

1857 Martyr’s Families Die in Penury, British Stooges Comandeer Power

Mangal Pandey Martyrd Today, 159 Years Ago: 1857

The post Unity not Hate: Commemorating the 168th anniversary of 1857 War of Independence appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A FIRST IN LIFE

For the first time in my life, I went and saw the Hindi film, Phule, made by Anant Mahadevan, in a modern mall theatre in Hyderabad, and that too along with 20 Phuleites — lawyers, doctors, including a Telugu film director. I do not normally see films unless they have historical relevance. I have seen major changemaker’s films, such as Amazing Grace, made on the life of William Wilberforce in England in 2006. It was directed by Michael Apted. I saw Richard Attenborough’s film, Gandhi. I also saw Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, directed by Jabbar Patel in 2000.

The movie, Phule, can be compared more with Amazing Grace than any other. Both of them are about the life and struggle of slave liberators.  

Amazing Grace is a biographical drama film about the abolitionist campaign against slave trade in the British Empire, led by William Wilberforce (1753-1833), who was responsible for steering an anti-slave trade legislation through British Parliament. He fought against slave traders and masters in the British Empire and forced British Parliament to make a law against slave trade.

That was the first ever law against slave trade in human history.  

A COUPLE’S FIGHT TO THE END

The Phules fought against the Shudra/Dalit slavery beginning in 1848. The film is a feast for thinkers, writers and activists, as it combines both fighting in a non-violent way and constructing a theory about how the Shudra farmers, untouchables and women get liberated through education, which was prohibited for them for millennia.

Though Mahatma Phule, even before his marriage, was a spirited boy, after his marriage with Savitribai Patel (after marriage Savitribai Phule) he became a revolutionary, with her readiness to learn and educate herself as a 9-year-old girl. She too was an uncommon girl since her childhood. Her desire to learn and go against her father’s spirit of casteism is well documented. Her spirit lit a real fire in Jyotiba to educate women in India, and she was willing to join the fight from the beginning.   

A SCENE THAT SPEAKS ABOUT A CRITICAL POINT

The film captures the collective consciousness of Phule’s school mate team along with Savitri and Fatima Sheikh and her brother Usman Sheikh, to take a massive step to liberate the entire Shudra/Dalit samaj from the superstitious grip of Brahmanism.

There is an amazing scene that invokes the most significant and game-changing thought process. After the 1957 war, the Poona Brahmins made a drum-beat announcement on the streets where the Shudras lived that to fight the British, they must join Vyayam Shalas (for physical training). That they must learn the methods of fighting and making their bodies fit, while seriously opposing access to education for them.

A Shudra pehelwan (wrestler) keeps training the youth in an open air vyayam shala, teaching them all kinds of exercises —weight-lifting, stick-rolling and fighting. Jyotirao goes there to talk to the master. He asks the master, “Why are you training the youth in this art?” The pehelwan replies that “if we make our youth learn these arts, they can fight the British.” Phule tells him, “Rather, we must teach them reading and writing to fight the British in a better way.” The pehelwan says, “No, it is a sin. We should not do that. If we learn reading and writing we will violate the Dharma”. Phule tells him that there is no such religious rule. The pehelwan throws him on the ground and puts his foot on him and asks him to “get lost”, since he was opposing Dharma.

Phule simply gets up and walks away.

PHULE’S SHUDRA NATIONALISM

The Shudras and Dalits were supposed to fight the British only physically, not intellectually. But the British rule was being sustained through their intellectual might more than military might. Jyotirao understood this. Unless the Shudra/Dalits and women of all castes—including Brahmins—are educated, the fight against the British will not succeed. That is what he tries to impress upon the pehelwan. In response, the latter uses his enslaved brain to physically beat Jyotiba down.

In another scene, a Brahmin team goes to their school and attacks them, beats up Phule and destroys the furniture. Savitri protects the traumatised girls by huddling them in a room. Afterward, she treats Phule’s wounds. Phule tells her that they must be prepared for not just yuddh (battle) but for a Maha Yuddh (mega battle). The Phules’ life was under threat all the time. Yet, they did not abandon the fight.

Two mercenaries were paid Rs 100 and sent by Brahmins to kill Phule. But he won over them. Phule says, “At least, they spent hundred rupees on me.”     

Phule’s philosophy was to educate farmers to produce more food. Educate Dalits to produce better technology of leather and better services by joining the whole society. Phule’s deeper reformist revolution was to prepare India to defeat the British once for all.

The Brahmin pundits, on the other hand, were thinking that they could come to power while keeping humans, production and distribution of goods and commodities backward even after the British left. Savitri tells the Pandits when she confronts them, “You want to rule us exactly like the British are doing”. The Brahmins of that time had a self-interest, not national interest. The Phules were envisioning a bigger national interest.      

After some time, the Phules opened a school for girls in an open field. But no parent was being allowed to send girls to school as an atmosphere of terror was created in entire Poona town.

Suddenly, we see the pehelwan walking with several girls to the school and admitting them. He later follows the Phules all through their struggle.   

The Phules started Shudra/Dalit and women’s education, a revolutionary process in an absolutely non-violent way. Throughout the film, when the Phules and their supporters face violence, they kept the movement completely non-violent. Except in one incident, when the Shudra workers themselves were opposing girls’ education and come to threaten Savitri and Fatima Sheikh, Savitri slaps one. Patralekha, who played Savitri’s role, has shown her talent as an actor.

The Shudra/Dalits were brainwashed for centuries, generation after generation, that education for Shudras is paap— a sin. It became a self-inflicting human torture. Whenever there were attempts to overcome the fear of ‘sin’ and punarjanma (rebirth) as pigs and dogs, a violent attack was launched from multiple corners. The life of the Phule couple is a standing example of that process of Indian history.

The whole project of Phules’, graphically shown in the film in a manner that even a child can understand, was to violate the rules of Shudra/Dalit slavery. From Phule teaching his ‘child wife’, Savitri, opposing the controls of the Brahminic society and self-inflicted father and elder brother, stretching his reform movement farther and farther in the face of resistance, is a new mode of non-violent revolution. No couple in the world has ever played such a revolutionary role in changing their own uncivilised society.

William Wilberforce was fighting his educated and slave trading class with reasoning. It was to make a law to abolish slave trade in the early 19th century in England. But the Phules’ fight was much more difficult. The determined couple, by embracing a philosophy of mass liberation of all Indians, including Brahmins, who were steeped in deep superstition, paved a way for the future. They steered the struggle with grit. They were fighting to counter the practice and theory of embedded slavery and barbarism. No other couple in human history has shown such a spirit filled with revolutionary ambition for change. That too in a stagnant society like that of India.

While watching the film, I was either breaking into tears or trying to clap when they (the Phules) won in some fight.

No other film has made such a deep impact on my life and conscience as the film Phule has.

The writer is a political theorist, social activist and author. His latest book is the Shudra Rebellion. The views are personal.      

Courtesy: Newsclick                        

The post ‘Phule’: A Revolution on Screen appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The 2025, new textbooks released this week have, according to media reports, been designed in accordance with the National Education Policy (NEP) and the National Curriculum Framework for School Education (NCFSE) 2023, which emphasise the ‘integration of Indian traditions, philosophies, knowledge systems and local context into school education.’ Both the NEP, 2020 and the NCFSE 2023 have been widely critiqued on issues related to pedagogy, content and structure.

The newly published NCERT Social Science textbook ‘Exploring Society: India and Beyond’ reportedly has new chapters on ancient Indian dynasties like the Magadha, Mauryas, Shungas and Satavahanas with a focus on “Indian ethos”. With a government in power that is ideologically geared towards shaping (or manipulation of) of young minds with a particular, majoritarian and sectarian view of the past, the definition of “Indian ethos’ itself as defined by it has come into sharp question.

Such a cut and paste attitude of the present union government has been evident since its first term when inclusive and rational history found the current regime’s displeasure. This government went further in 2022 and removed all mention of religious or caste discrimination from social science NCERT texts.

Coming back to 2025, another new edition in the book (NCERT Social Science textbook ‘Exploring Society: India and Beyond’) is a chapter called “How the Land Becomes Sacred” that focuses on places considered sacred and pilgrimages across India and outside for religions like Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, Buddhism and Sikhism.

The book has no mention of the Mughals or the Delhi Sultanate.

NCERT officials said that this is only the first part of the book, with the second part expected in the coming months reported DH. However, they are tight-lipped on whether the removed portions would be included in the second part.

The book introduces the concept of “sacred geography”, detailing networks of revered sites such as the 12 Jyotirlingas, the Char Dham Yatra, and the Shakti Pithas. The chapter also explores sacred locations like river confluences, mountains and forests. The textbook claims that while the ‘varna-jati’ initially originally contributed to societal stability, it later became rigid, especially under British rule, resulting in inequalities. This attribution of caste inequity, humiliation and discrimination only to colonial rule while ignoring gross societal practices before (like for instance during Peshwa rule in Maharashtra) is an integral part of the majoritarian right wing narrative!

The Maha Kumbh Mela held in Prayagraj earlier this year is mentioned in the book, claiming that 660 million people participated in the event! The book also includes a chapter on the Constitution of India, noting that there was a time when people were not permitted to fly the national flag at their homes.

Litany of deletions post 2014

In 2022, as reported by Sabrangindia here, the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE), in 2022, as the school system recovered from the traumas of the online system during the Covid-19 pandemic, the CBSE dropped more topics including ‘democracy and diversity, Mughal courts,’ as well as poems of Faiz Ahmed Faiz from the syllabus. According to a report in India Today at the time, the dropped chapters taught the “Non-Alignment Movement, the Cold War era, the rise of Islamic empires in Afro-Asian territories, chronicles of Mughal courts, and the industrial revolution.” These were a part of the CBSE’s Class 11 and 12 political science syllabus.

Similarly, the group deleted a paragraph from the “Diversity and Discrimination” chapter in the same book that talked about how cleaners, washers, rag-pickers and barbers are considered dirty or “impure”. The paragraph was about how caste rules kept the discriminated castes from taking on work outside of their caste category.

For example, those assigned with picking up garbage or clearing carcasses as per caste rules were not allowed to enter houses of Brahmins or enter temples. The paragraph also talked about how people are kept from drawing water from common wells and how Dalit children are separated from other children even in schools.

Another casualty in the same book is the chapter “Key elements of a democratic government” that covered popular participation, conflict resolution, equality and justice.

In the Our Pasts-I book for Class 6, the chapter on Emperor Ashoka carried a box on Ashoka’ message, from which a reference to Nehru has been erased. The deleted line said, “Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of India, wrote: ‘His edicts (instructions) still speak to us in a language we can understand and we can still learn much from them’.”

Further, a few paragraphs on Prophet Mohammed were deleted from the New empire and kingdoms chapter in the same book. One of the deleted sentences read: “Like Christianity, Islam was a religion that laid stress on the equality and unity of all before Allah.”

Meanwhile, the Social and Political Life-II book for Class 7, lost characters such as domestic help Kanta, Dalit writer Omprakash Valmiki, and the Ansari family who experienced discrimination over poverty, caste and religion, respectively. Certain introductory content on the Mughal emperors Babur, Humayun, Akbar, Jahangir, Shah Jahan and Aurangzeb were also dropped from the Our Pasts-II book.

In the Social and Political Life-III book for Class 8, a box was removed from the “Confronting marginalisation” chapter that read, “The term Dalit which means ‘broken’ is used deliberately and actively by groups to highlight the centuries of discrimination they have experienced within the caste system.”

The chapter Weavers, iron smelters and factory owners, on crafts and industries under British rule, has been dropped from the book Our Pasts-III for Class VIII.

“Weavers often belonged to communities that specialised in weaving. Their skills were passed on from one generation to the next. The tanti weavers of Bengal, the julahas or momin weavers of north India, sale and kaikollar and devangs of South India are some of the communities famous for weaving,” a paragraph in the chapter reportedly said.

When these changes were introduced in 2022, academicians and experts such as NCERT’s Textbook Development Committee for Primary Education Chairperson Anita Rampal and National Confederation of Dalit and Adivasi Organisations Chairperson Ashok Bharti, had expressed the opinion that the deletions were made along ideological lines rather than for academic integrity. Speaking to the media, Rampal had even pointed out that the content was changed without consulting the original advisers and writers. On the other hand, Bharti accused the NCERT’s “expert committee” of trying to hide historical facts out of guilt. Both demanded that the group members reveal their identity.

The All India Peoples’ Science Network (AIPSN) too had, in 2022, in a press statement voiced concern about the various changes made “without any academic considerations or academic logic”. It argued, “No consultation with the SCERTs and the education departments of the state governments, school teachers, and the wider academic community, having been done before deletions and revisions in the content of social sciences textbooks used at the school level.”

The AIPSN argued that all changes were done in a hasty manner, shortly after academics, teachers and the Peoples’ Science Movements voiced concern about the National Education Policy (NEP), 2020.

In the same year, 2022, the CBSE, according to a report in India Today, dropped chapters taught the “Non-Alignment Movement, the Cold War era, the rise of Islamic empires in Afro-Asian territories, chronicles of Mughal courts, and the industrial revolution.” These were a part of the CBSE’s Class 11 and 12 political science syllabus.

Earlier in the year, the Financial Express also reported how the NCERT deleted chapters on climate change and monsoon to reduce the load on students. In fact, the Teachers Against the Climate Crisis (TACC) claimed that around 30 percent of the syllabus was reduced for this academic session.

An entire chapter on greenhouse effect for Class 11, a chapter on weather, climate, and water for Class 7 and information about the monsoon for Class 9 was removed. They argued that while the NCERT is reasonable in trying to reduce workload on children, it cannot remove fundamental issues such as climate change science. They demanded a reinstatement of all these chapters.

Expressing a different point of view at the time, former NCERT Director during the Atal Bihari Vajpayee government J.S. Rajput had then told The Telegraph that social science content in textbooks had for decades reflected ideological bias. He accused Left intellectuals of starting this trend with help from Congress-led governments. He criticised the previous history textbooks of dwelling on Mughals while containing little on the histories of north-eastern states or south India.

Even before, in 2020 the Board had ‘edited’ the Class 12 history syllabus. It had dropped the chapter ‘The Mughal Court: Reconstructing Histories through Chronicles’. The act was hotly debated. However, soon after that the Covid-19 pandemic devastation hit, and the controversy ebbed. Though even in the middle of the Covid-19 pandemic lockdown, the Union Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD) decided that high-school students no longer need to learn about “federalism, citizenship, nationalism, and secularism”. Those chapters were deleted from the political science curriculum of Class 11. Chapters on demonetization, were also removed from CBSE syllabus ostensibly ‘to reduce burden on students’. However, the ‘deleted’ topics were then restored in the 2021-22 academic session and still remained a part of the CBSE syllabus, reported the India Today.

Related:

Now NCERT removes passages about caste and religious discrimination from social science books

Are citizenship and secularism ‘disposable’ subjects for Indian students?

The post 2025 NCERT Textbooks: Mughals, Delhi Sultanate out; ‘sacred geography’, Maha Kumbh in appeared first on SabrangIndia.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also Read:

Standing Truth on its Head: Ambedkar and BJP agenda

Striving to Promote Democracy: Values of the Constitution

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

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

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

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

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

Barbarism of the British

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

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

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

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

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

Air bombardments

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

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

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

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

Tagore wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Resistance literature banned

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

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

Some of the representative lyrics read:

जुल्म डायर ने किया था रंग जमाने के लिए

हिंद वालों को मुसीबत में फंसाने के लिए।

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

खून से पंजाब के डायर की लिखी डायरी

रुबरु रख दी मेरी तबियत जलाने के लिए।

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

बाग़े जलियां में शहीदों की बने गर यादगार

जायेंगे अशिके-वतन आंसू बहाने के लिए।

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

हम उजड़ते हैं तो उजड़ें, वतन आबाद रहे,

मर मिटे हैं हम के अब वतन आजाद रहे।

वतन की खातिर जो अपनी जान दिया करते हैं,

मरते नहीं हैं वो हमेशा के लिए जिया करते हैं।

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Udham Singh continued,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jallianwala Bagh

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Hunter Committee

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

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

Example of the Cross Examination of General Dyer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The bullet marks are still visible

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Ambedkar supported the burning of Manusmriti

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

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

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

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

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

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

He was crystal clear in his view, that,

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

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

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

3. Ambedkar renounced Hinduism

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

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

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

4. Ambedkar fought for equal rights for women

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6. Ambedkar believed in Socialism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related:

Rediscovering Ambedkar to Fight Against Hindutva

Hindutva Forces Want to Appropriate Ambedkar but not Impart his Teachings

Babasaheb Ambedkar’s Scathing Attacks on Hindutva and Hindu Rashtra

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The distinction matters.

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

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

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

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

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

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

What of our complicity?

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

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

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

It didn’t.

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

That was a different India. One that still flinched.

Do we still flinch?

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

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

If Empuraan disturbed us, it should.

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

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

But to turn the mirror inward.

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

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

..is when it no longer flinches.

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

Courtesy: The Wire

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