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.

First Published on: 11 Apr 2016

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

Jyotiba Phule was born on April 11, 1827

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This year, on March 20, 2025, 98 years after, a unique act of solidarity took place, second year running, organised by the Indigenous Muslim Forum Organization of Pune along with the Muslim community brothers of Mahad: a Roja Iftar Party in honour of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar at the site!

While guiding this Roja Iftar program, during the month of Ramzan, the president of the native Muslim Forum Anjum Inamdar said that it is very important to engage the ideology of Prophet Muhammad, Sufi saints along with the great revolutionaries of society. Maharashtra, the land of Sahu-Phule-Ambedkar is today witnessing gross instances of discrimination causing schisms and even violence in society. With manipulated history as the tool, young persons are being misled through motivated cinema. The police and administration is complicit and inactive when hate speeches that provoke are being made by the powerful.

“Leaders” today are at work to cause divisions instead of unity. There is a need to connect with each other need to understand the true history of this holy land and Maharashtra. Inamdar challenged all members of his community and others to come together and establish equality, brotherhood to take the country and society forward.

Maulana Hasrat Mohani and Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar performed Roja Iftar together in Delhi on October 13, 1949 to remember the moment and remind the community of that Roja Iftar party was organised for the second consecutive year at Chavdar Tale at Mahad at Chavdar Tale (lake).

On this occasion, at Mahad, the manager of the Babasaheb Ambedkar National Monument, Prakash Jamdade, literateur, Kalim Azim, President of Jamatul Muslimin Mohalla Charitable Trust Mohammad Ali Chiplunkar and member of the Revolution Bhoomi Social Organization Anant Kamble, along with senior social activist Mushtaq Qazi, Sadiq Sheikh, Mahad’s Jamate Islami Hind Officer Fasiuddin Falahi, Maqsood Sheikh Sir, Pune Municipal Corporation, former corporator Himali Navnath Kamble and Popat Kadam all participated. Dignitaries like Arbaz Khan, Fayyaz Rajnag, Syamud Khan, among others were also present.

Many women, mothers and sisters from many districts from Maharashtra participated in the Roja Iftar Party program. Senior women activist of a Buddha Vihar Mandal from Nagpur gave blessings to all the activists who were part of the Roja Iftar party. Dr. Many historical works of Muslim brothers along with Babasaheb Ambedkar were shared during the programme.

(The author of this post on Meta (Facebook) is President Indigenous Muslim Forum;
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1BVC2ZoV5A/?mibextid=wwXIfr)

Related:

Chennai: A temple that feeds the faithful during Ramzan

Sikhs, Muslims of Prayagraj welcome Kumbh pilgrims with shelter, food, and warmth

The post Unique 98th Anniversary Mahad Satyagraha Observances: Samata Din with a Roja Iftar Party appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Prashant Koratkar and Rahul Solapurkar have insulted Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj terribly. The incompetence of the government and their utter negligence are being hidden behind the tomb of Aurangzeb. In reality, the government itself seems to be inciting riots. The ruling party is intentionally planning riots and arson in the state. When we see how Minister Rane speaks, we can’t help but wonder what’s going on in the minds of those in power. No one here respects Aurangzeb, and no one supports him. Muslims in this state, even during Shivaji Maharaj’s time, stayed loyal to the Chhatrapati, and today they still have faith in this land. Their loyalty has never been for sale. If it were, Muslims would never have been part of Shivaji Maharaj’s army. The Muslims here were loyal to the Chhatrapati then, and they are still loyal today. It was Anaji Pant and his descendants who betrayed Shivaji Maharaj and Swarajya. Not a single person in this state will support Aurangzeb. No one has recently constructed Aurangzeb’s tomb. So, why is the issue of his tomb being raised to disturb the atmosphere of the state? What is the real conspiracy behind this?

The Bahujan community needs to seriously consider this. We need to investigate whether the ruling party is more disturbed by Aurangzeb’s tomb or by the unparalleled valour of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj. Those with a Peshwa mindset have never accepted Shivaji Maharaj’s greatness. They have always denied his greatness. Either they have tried to attribute his achievements to a divine source, or they have tried to link his greatness to a guru he never had. They have constantly tried to push the narrative that Shivaji Maharaj was great only because of people from their caste, like Dadoji Konddev and Ramdas, or because their intelligent and capable people supported him. Purandare has written some horrific things while elevating Baji Prabhu Deshpande. They fabricated stories that Shivaji Maharaj received his sword from Goddess Bhavani to systematically deny the strength of his own arm. Later, they tried to portray Shivaji Maharaj as an incarnation and denied his towering human personality. To do this, they devised temples and hymns. They have tried to systematically deny his greatness or present it as something that happened due to someone else. These manipulative tactics have been going on for years. During Shivaji Maharaj’s lifetime, they tried to poison him. Later, they spread the historical lie that he died due to a knee disease. No one in history has ever died from a disease called “knee disease.” This disease didn’t exist before or after Shivaji Maharaj. Just like before and after Sant Tukaram, no one was taken to Vaikuntha by a plane. Similarly, no one except Shivaji Maharaj died of this “knee disease.” Yet, these vile liars inserted this fabricated lie into history and convinced the people of it. After Shivaji Maharaj’s death, they even made multiple attempts to assassinate Chhatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj. Eventually, they succeeded. Using Aurangzeb as a tool, these conspirators orchestrated the murder of Sambhaji Maharaj and later shifted the blame onto his own relatives. These crooks had the power of the pen and used it to deceive history. With their poisonous writings, they destroyed generations of the Bahujan community.

After the fall of the Shivshahi, Shivaji Maharaj’s samadhi was neglected. It was Mahatma Phule who found and cleaned it. After finding Shivaji Maharaj’s samadhi, Mahatma Phule was severely criticised by casteist Brahmins in Pune. They insulted him by calling him “the king of the Kunbant” (a derogatory term).

Later, when there was an effort to build a statue of Shivaji Maharaj in Pune, casteist elements in Pune’s Sadashiv Peth raised a major protest. They tried to stop the statue from being built. The Peshwa mindset’s hatred of Shivaji Maharaj is well-known. It is not something new. This hatred has been growing in their minds for the past 400 years. This hatred is still being propagated by the likes of Koratkar.

During Shivaji Maharaj’s lifetime, they denied his greatness. They even rejected his coronation, mocking him by saying, “Who is the king? How are you our king? You are just a Shudra!” Since then, they have consistently tried to diminish Shivaji Maharaj’s greatness by attributing it to other things or persons, using various falsehoods and miracles.

In the past 400 years, these conspirators have not succeeded. The kings have triumphed over them. Now, the cunning ravens are pretending to embrace Shivaji Maharaj’s legacy and are conspiring to destroy it. They are trying to create riots in his name and use them to gain political power. They are trying to brand Muslim hatred to further their narrow goals. They have ignored his remarkable achievements and historical policies for the people, and instead, they focus only on trivialities, trying to minimize his greatness. They have put in more effort to destroy Shivaji Maharaj than Aurangzeb ever did.

After Shivaji Maharaj’s death, Aurangzeb prayed for him in the court, but these Peshwa scoundrels have never abandoned their malicious plans. This brahmical mindset and their allies, have consistently belittled Shivaji Maharaj. Madhavrao Golwalkar’s remarks and what Savarkar spoke about, both expose the hate-filled minds of these people. From Golwalkar, Savarkar, James Lane, Sripad Chindam, the traitor who built a statue with a wound on its forehead, to Rahul Solapurkar and Koratkar – this long list of traitors has one common goal: to destroy Shivaji Maharaj’s legacy.

These casteist Peshwa traitors still haven’t given up their goal. Now, they want to remove Aurangzeb’s tomb, but their real plan is to erase the legacy of Shivaji Maharaj, his immense achievements, and his valour. The tomb of Aurangzeb and the grave of Afzal Khan are reminders of Shivaji Maharaj’s greatness. They are symbols of his bravery. If it were not for these, Shivaji Maharaj would never have built Afzal Khan’s tomb. Jijabai must have told Shivaji Maharaj to do so. This is something even the casteist Brahmins should consider. Who was their father? What did he do? What did his words and actions tell us? These are the questions the people must ask themselves. If they remove Aurangzeb’s tomb or Afzal Khan’s grave, what will they present as evidence of Shivaji Maharaj’s valour?

Those who claim to be descendants of Shivaji Maharaj have become so intoxicated with power that they’ve lost all sense of reason. The Bahujan community has become enslaved by these Peshwa traitors. Even if these traitors put excrement in their hands, they still take it as a gift. What has happened to their intelligence? It’s as if their sense of reasoning is either paralyzed or completely gone. How long will they keep accepting this deceitful nonsense?

Until recently, Nitesh Rane was criticizing the Sangh and Fadnavis, and now he’s the one teaching us about Shivaji Maharaj’s history and Hindutva? This is a puzzling question: What has the Bahujan community learned from Shivaji Maharaj’s history under the influence of such traitors? This remains an unsolved mystery.

(The author, based in Sangli, has written the original in Marathi: he is editor of Vajradhari, a YouTube Channel)

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

Related:

How communal unrest was stoked, misinformation & rumours ignited unrest in Nagpur

‘Aurangzeb ki auladen ‘, a term for Indian Muslims or high caste Hindus?

Kolhapur Maharashtra: Valorising Aurangzeb will now result in abuse & arrests

The post “It’s not Aurangzeb’s grave, but a plot to uproot Shivaji Maharaj’s valour!” appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Distinguished Chairperson of this august gathering and Secretary of the Marx Memorial Library (MML) Professor Mary Davis, Her Excellency the Ambassador of Cuba to the UK Ismara Vargas Walter, General Secretary of the Communist Party of Britain (CPB) Robert Griffiths, Chairperson of the MML Alex Gordon, Treasurer of the MML Harsev Bains, distinguished representatives from the Embassies of China, Vietnam, Laos, Venezuela, Sri Lanka, leaders of various fraternal Communist and Workers’ Parties, and my dear comrades and friends,

At the outset, I profusely thank the leadership of the CPB and the MML for giving me this great honour and privilege of delivering the 2025 Marx Oration to mark the death anniversary of the greatest revolutionary thinker who ever lived, Karl Marx. On behalf of the one million members of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), and the 15 million members of the All India Kisan Sabha, I convey my warmest revolutionary greetings to you all.

On March 17, 1883, 142 years ago, the great Frederick Engels was here, at this very spot, paying homage at the fresh grave of his closest comrade and friend. Engels said, “Marx was before all else a revolutionist…His name will endure through the ages, and so also will his work.”

Seminal contribution of Marx  

How prophetic Engels was! The name and work of Marx has not only endured, but has greatly enhanced, through the ages. Marx wrote in his youth, “The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point, however, is to change it.” His scientific, critical, and revolutionary method of the analysis of society has indeed changed the world, and there is no doubt that it will change it even more.

His discovery of the science of dialectical and historical materialism, the theory of surplus value which uncovers the reality of exploitation, and his stress on the necessity of a political class struggle to achieve revolution, liberation, and socialism, have been borne out by the actual experience of gigantic struggles. The historic saga of various socialist revolutions and their spectacular achievements, and of the iconic and victorious struggle of the former Soviet Union against world fascism, will always live on through the ages.

The state of the world today proves the relevance of Marx’ analysis. Let us take just three brief quotations from Marx and see how perfectly they apply today.

In ‘Capital’, Volume 1 (1867), Marx writes, “If money, according to Augier, ‘comes into the world with a congenital blood-stain on one cheek,’ capital comes dripping from head to foot, from every pore, with blood and dirt.” Here, Marx adds a footnote quoting T J Dunning, “With adequate profit, capital is very bold. A certain 10 per cent will ensure its employment anywhere; a certain 20 per cent will produce eagerness; 50 per cent, positive audacity; 100 per cent will make it ready to trample on all human laws; 300 per cent, and there is not a crime at which it will scruple, nor a risk that it will not run, even to the chance of its owner being hanged. If turbulence and strife will bring a profit, it will freely encourage both.”

In ‘Capital’, Volume 1, again, Marx writes, “Accumulation of wealth at one pole is, therefore, at the same time, accumulation of misery, agony of toil, slavery, ignorance, brutality, mental degradation at the opposite pole, i.e. on the side of the class that produces its own product in the form of capital.”

In the ‘Communist Manifesto’ (1848), Marx and Engels write, “The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the whole surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connections everywhere.” Marx and Engels in this prescient passage, hint at the globalization to come – a full 177 years ago!

With the development of capitalism, Lenin enriched this concept of Marx in his seminal work, ‘Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism’ (1917).

Relevance of today

What do we see in the world today, which underlines the relevance of Marx?

Gross and obscene inequalities abound, a direct result of economic exploitation and social oppression. The world’s richest 1 per cent own more wealth than the bottom 95 per cent of humanity. Since 2020, the richest 1 per cent have grabbed nearly 67 per cent of all new wealth – nearly twice as much as the bottom 99 per cent. Billionaire fortunes are rising by $2.7 billion a day, even as inflation outpaces the wages of 1.7 billion workers.

On the other hand, in 2023, 46 per cent of the world’s population, or over 3 billion people, are living under the global poverty line of $ 6.85 (2017 purchasing power parity) per day. Of these, 700 million people live in extreme poverty, surviving on less than $ 2.15 per day. 10.7 per cent of the world population (864.1 million) is affected by severe food insecurity, and of these 60 per cent who go hungry are women and girls.

The global unemployment rate today is 5 per cent, and the global youth unemployment rate is 13 per cent. Newer technologies and artificial intelligence are aggravating unemployment and exploitation, and leading to still greater super-profits for the large monopolies and corporate houses. Runaway inflation, and wages not keeping up with it, have led to a severe cost of living crisis in several countries, for both the working class and the middle class. In 2024, 54 countries were in a debt crisis, and net resource transfers from developing to developed countries have averaged $ 700 billion per year.

There is not a shadow of doubt that all the above stark facts are a direct result of the policies of neo-liberalism and imperialist globalization, which have intensified in the last four decades. These policies met with a rude shock in 2008 with the global financial crisis which began in the USA, spread to Europe and all over the world, and forced many capitalist world leaders to turn to none other than whom Engels described as the ‘best hated and most calumniated’ Marx to get a credible explanation for these events! What a poetic irony that was!

The rising social unrest as a result of these extreme global inequalities between the Global North and the Global South, economic and social inequalities within each nation, and the attacks of the ruling classes on the working people through ‘austerity measures’, is being broadly channelized in two directions, depending upon the concrete situation in each country.

One is the rightward shift in many countries, which sometimes takes the form of far-right and neo-fascist attacks on racial, religious, and other minorities, including immigrants. Ironically, this same policy of Hitler then is being faithfully copied by Netanyahu now, and also by some others. In many countries, the political-ideological bankruptcy of social democratic parties and their unprincipled compromises have helped the far-right to advance.

The opposite trend is the significant left victories in important countries like Venezuela, Bolivia, Brazil, Mexico, Colombia, Uruguay, and recently in Sri Lanka, where left forces could win over large sections of the people.

Donald Trump of the USA is the latest and classic example of the far-right, neo-fascist, authoritarian offensive. There is a method in his madness. It is a systematic last-ditch attempt to arrest the inexorable decline of the USA. This attempt is bound to fail. Under Trump, the likes of Elon Musk and other large corporate cronies are now directly calling the shots in the US government. This will make it even more plutocratic, neo-liberal, anti-people, and anti-democratic. Neo-liberalism thus creates the conditions for neo-fascism.

Trump’s ridiculous claims on Greenland, Canada, Panama Canal, and Gaza, and the tariff and trade wars that he has unleashed, are being strongly resisted all over the world. His decisions of the withdrawal of the US from the Paris Climate Accords, and also from the World Health Organisation of the United Nations, are also being opposed tooth and nail by many forces. His stand on the Ukraine war has now ranged the governments of Western Europe against him. But on the inhuman Imperialist-backed Zionist genocide by Israel against the courageous Palestinian people of Gaza, leading to the deaths of nearly 50,000 people, with 60 per cent of them being women and children, the entire imperialist camp is fully united behind Israel.

Rays of hope 

On this occasion, we salute the socialist countries like Cuba, China, Vietnam, Laos, DPRK, and the left-led countries of Latin America and Sri Lanka, who are working hard to ensure the rapid and just socio-economic progress of their people, and many are also boldly opposing Imperialism and Zionism. We give our special red salute to the people of Cuba led by their Communist Party, established by heroes like Fidel Castro, Che Guevara, and Raul Castro. The people are courageously fighting against the savage new attacks of the Trump administration.

In other countries too, struggles and resistance are increasing. In my country India, we saw in 2020-21 a truly iconic and united nationwide struggle by millions of farmers who blocked the national highways leading to the nation’s capital Delhi for a full one year and fifteen days. They were fighting against the three pro-corporate, anti-farmer Farm Laws imposed by the central government at the height of the Covid pandemic. Over 700 farmers were martyred. This struggle forced the government to repeal the three Farm Laws, leading to a historic victory.

Now the same central government in India is trying to implement the draconian four Labour Codes, which are equally pro-corporate and anti-worker. A massive united nationwide general strike by the working class, supported by a rural strike of the peasantry, in which several million workers and peasants will participate, is being planned for the month of May 2025 against this serious assault.

The World Social Forum (WSF) has an attractive slogan signifying hope: Another World is Possible! At the graveside of the towering revolutionary Karl Marx on his death anniversary, we need to modify it a bit to: A Socialist World is Possible! Socialism for the 21st Century is the only Alternative!

Marx and Engels concluded the Communist Manifesto with these resounding words, “The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.”

Comrades and friends: Let us all work unitedly to vindicate Marx yet again! Let us bend all our efforts to win over the minds and the hearts of our people! Let us fight with all our energy, strength, power, intelligence, and imagination, to win this world!

Thank you very much.

Down with Imperialism! Down with Neo-Fascism!

Down with Capitalism! Down with Feudalism!

Long Live Democracy! Long Live Socialism!

Long Live Revolution! Long Live Marxism!

Also Read:

M’tra: A blow to BJP-NDA, a shot in the arm for MVA-INDIA

To Ahilya Rangnekar, an intrepid revolutionary, April 19, on her death anniversary

SKM-CTU Call for a countrywide united worker-peasant struggle for both regime change and policy change

The post A socialist world is possible: 2025 Marx Oration appeared first on SabrangIndia.