In a passionate defense of Urdu’s rich heritage and its rightful place as a language of India’s heart, in an article shared on his Facebook wall, former Supreme Court Justice Markandey Katju delves into its origins, evolution, and cultural significance, describing it as a uniquely Indian language with a dual character—both aristocratic and rooted in the common man’s experience. Titled “What is Urdu,” the piece challenges the notion that Urdu is a foreign language, asserting its indigenous roots and its deep connection to the Indian populace.

Urging its revival and recognition as a unifying cultural force, Justice Katju explains that Urdu emerged from the superimposition of Persian vocabulary and features onto a Hindustani (Khariboli) foundation, making it a hybrid language, once called Rekhta. “Urdu is a language created by the combination of two languages, Persian and Hindustani,” he writes, emphasizing that its verbs, derived from Hindustani, classify it as a special kind of Hindustani rather than Persian. “The fact that it is a special kind of Hindustani shows that it is a desi or indigenous language,” Katju asserts, countering claims that Urdu is foreign.

Tracing the historical context, Katju notes that Hindustani, the foundation of Urdu, developed as the common language of urban markets in North India, facilitating trade across diverse regions. “A trader traveling from Bihar or Madhya Pradesh could easily sell his goods in a city in Uttar Pradesh or Rajasthan or Punjab because there was a common language, Hindustani,” he explains. Urdu, built on this base, incorporated Persian sophistication due to the latter’s status as the court language during the Mughal era, particularly from Emperor Akbar’s time.

Katju highlights the transformation during the decline of the Mughal Empire after 1707, when the later Mughals, reduced to nominal rulers, adopted Urdu as the court language. “Urdu is thus the language of aristocrats who had become pauperized, but who retained their dignity, pride and respect,” he writes, citing the example of poet Ghalib, who, despite financial struggles, maintained his aristocratic pride. Katju quotes Urdu poet Josh to encapsulate this dignity: “Hashr mein bhi khusrawana shaan se jaayenge hum / Aur agar purshish na hogi, to palat aayenge hum” (Even on judgment day I will go in style / And if not given respect, will turn back).

The article underscores Urdu’s dual nature: “It is both an aristocratic language as well as the commoner’s language.” While its content reflects the struggles and aspirations of the common man, its polished, sophisticated style draws from Persian influences, making it a powerful medium for expressing human emotions. Katju praises Urdu poetry’s elegance, stating, “In no language does the voice of the human heart emerge with such power and elegance (andaz-e-bayan) as it does in Urdu.”

However, Katju laments the damage inflicted on Urdu post-1947 Partition, when it was branded as a “foreign” or “Muslim” language in India. He criticizes the systematic replacement of commonly used Persian words with obscure Sanskrit ones, such as replacing zila (district) with janapad. “This policy of hatefully removing Persian words… resulted in almost genocide for Urdu in India,” he writes. Despite this, he remains optimistic, pointing to the enduring popularity of Urdu in mushairas, Hindi film songs, and the sale of Urdu poetry books at railway bookstalls as evidence of its vitality.

To revive Urdu, Katju suggests making it compulsory in schools for five years, alongside Sanskrit, to connect it to livelihoods and ensure its cultural preservation. He also advocates for publishing Urdu works in both Persian and Devanagari scripts to make them accessible to a wider audience. Quoting Urdu critic Shamshur Rahmaan Farooqui, who called Urdu a “dead and buried” language, Katju disagrees, asserting, “The language which speaks the voice of the heart can never be stamped out as long as people have hearts.”

Katju concludes by urging Urdu and Hindi writers to use simpler language to address contemporary issues like poverty and unemployment, making literature a tool for the masses. He celebrates Urdu poetry’s ability to capture historical transitions, citing Firaq’s couplet: “Har zarre par ek kaifiyat-e-neemshabi hai / Ai saaqi-e-dauran yeh gunahon ki ghadi hai,” which he interprets as a profound depiction of India’s ongoing transition from feudalism to modernity, marked by societal upheaval and clashing values.

The post ‘Heartbeat of India’s soul’: Urdu is an indigenous language with a dual nature, insists Markandey Katju appeared first on SabrangIndia.

I write this to you with a heavy heart: shocked and saddened; upset and angry. This letter to you, is perhaps to ease the angst in me; I really don’t know what to say and how to say it! But I am sure that what I write, is also the sentiments, the emotions of many, from all over: Jesuit companions, colleagues, collaborators, alumni well-wishers and friends who knew you so well and particularly, the Adivasis and other sub-alterns,whom you loved so much and gave your life for. This letter comes from the bottom of my heart (and our hearts) to say “Sorry, Stan!”

On August 9, St Xavier’s College(SXC) Mumbai, (through their Department of Inter-Religious Studies) was scheduled to hold ‘The Annual Stan Swamy Memorial Lecture’. The topic was ‘Migration for Livelihood: Hope Amidst Untold Miseries’.It was to be delivered virtually by Jesuit Fr. Prem Xalxo, currently Associate Professor of Moral Theology at the Gregorian University, Rome. The speaker was a renowned personality and the topic timely and relevant. On August 4, representatives of the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad(ABVP) met the SXC authorities, and in a written letter ‘strongly condemned’ the organising of the lecture and demanded its cancellation. Very sadly, the Jesuit management and other officials caved in to this pressure and cancelled the lecture. For this, “Sorry, Stan!”

In their letter ( which they have put on their facebook page)the ABVP said “organising a lecture in memory of a person who was a key accused in serious crimes, like UAPA, including contact with the banned CPI (Maoist), financing and recruiting armed Naxalite groups, and seizure of documents containing a conspiracy to overthrow the constitutional government through armed uprising, is glorifying the Naxalites…“it is extremely sad that prestigious colleges like St. Xavier’s are trying to encourage Naxalist ideas by glorifying a person accused of committing anti-national conspiracies. We demand that the principal cancel this lecture immediately.” All this is patently false and it has been proved that even the so-called ‘incriminating documents’ were planted in your computer. Besides for an ‘alleged’ crime, the law stipulates that one is innocent, till proved guilty. That you are innocent is without doubt.  Judge after judge have rescuedthemselves from your case, for the simple reason, is that theywill have to declare you innocent! For the falsehood and slander you are still subject to, “Sorry, Stan!”

Stan, you are aware that SXC is my Alma Mater. I spent cherished years as a Xavierite from 1968 – 1972 (1969 was our Centenary year). At that time, we had Jesuits who were stalwarts, Staff who were excellent and a great student body! It was a joy to be a Xavierite. It was at that time I first met youin a Social Analysis Programme – and ever since, you have been to me a hero, mentor and guide. In 1974, (and later), after entering the Society, together with my companions, wereadily accepted the faith – justice mandate under the leadership of Fr Pedro Arrupe. Over the years, I learnt that you heroes were Dom Helder Camara, Paolo Friere, Ivan Illich and Arrupe. Your knowledge on their writings and works, rubbed off on many. As a good friend of yours, as an SXC alumnus and as Jesuit, feel duty bound to say, “Sorry, Stan!”

Ever since the news broke out of the cancellation of the Memorial lecture, I have been literally besieged with calls and comments; in the many groups, I belong to, on social media, there are innumerable comments against the Jesuits, and particularly against SXC (some of the comments are even offensive) From across the board, people (including several alumni and Jesuits) are feeling angry and let down. They say that SXC has failed to see the big picture: cancelling the lecture means giving in to the anti-national and anti-Constitutional fascist forces.; acquiescing with these forces means that they are emboldened and will continue to call the shots.

 It means negating the academic freedom which is the essence of every institution of higher learning; it means that the Constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech and expression is not important. In the past, when there were such threats, we are aware that, SXC called in the police and continued with their programme.

Today’s (10 August) Mid-day reports, “We are surprised that the college has shown cowardice and yielded to pressure tactics. We teach our students about the values of justice, democracy, and peace, but when it comes to taking a stand, we bow down to the pressure, even when Stan has not been proven guilty. This has been the general pulse of the St Xavier’s alumni and the community,” said a source from the St Xavier’s College Society. “Sorry, Stan!”

On July 1, our Superior General Fr Arturo Sosa, delivered a path-breaking inaugural address to the Assembly of International Association of Jesuit Universities (IAJU) gathered in Colombia. Among the many other things, he said, “At the 2018 IAJU Assembly in Bilbao, I also recalled how Ignacio Ellacuría, S.J., one of the martyrs of the UCA-El Salvador, strongly insisted on understanding the university as a project of social transformation. Trying to explain the meaning of those words, I said: “It is a university that moves toward the margins of human history where it encounters those who are discarded by the dominant structures and powers. It is a university that opens its doors and windows to the margins of society. With them comes a new breath of life that makes efforts for social transformation a source of life and fulfilment.””. That the Jesuits of SXC have not understood this fundamental of Jesuit education, we say “Sorry, Stan!”

Today on Facebook I came across a powerful picture and quote posted by ‘Earth. We Are One’.( ewao.com) we are one. The picture shows birds in a cage criticising the bird who dares fly. The quote said, “The image of caged birds criticising a rebel who has chosen to fly free is a powerful metaphor for the way society often views those who dare to challenge the status quo. The caged birds represent the fear and conformity of those who prefer to remain inside their safe boundaries, while the free bird embodies the courage to break away from societal norms. What is it that makes us fear the rebel—the one who chooses to question the rules? Perhaps it’s because they see a different path, one that holds the potential for growth and freedom. This cartoon asks us: Is it better to stay in the cage, or should we follow our own path toward true liberation?”  That reminded me of you Stan, someone who had the courage to fly and even when you were caged in prison, you dared to tell us that even caged birds sing. Of course you meant the song of truth and justice. For not having the courage to fly and even to sing whilst being caged, we say with humility “Sorry, Stan!”

I can see you Stan, smiling at us here below, telling us in your own inimitable and no-nonsense way of how we have lost the plot! You tell us that instead of accompanying the Adivasis and the Dalits, the excluded and exploited, the minorities and marginalised, the poor and vulnerable, we focus on constructing buildings and on institutionalisation. You question us about ‘forming men and women for others’ when some of those who take away the jal-jungle-jameen other natural resources, identity and dignity fromthe Adivasis, are those ‘educated’ by us. You remind us of the film ‘Mission’ and of the Jesuit Martyrs of El Salvador; you challenge us to live our faith-justice mandate and to realise the Universal Apostolic Preferences (UAPs) in all our initiatives. Above all, you tell us that mere ‘tokenism’ and ‘cosmetic activities’ will in no way help us truly walk the talk! Yes, Stan, we have betrayed you, your vision and mission. Perhaps, this act by SXC, may evenhopefully help us all to ‘examen’ ourselves much more and honestly! Till then “Sorry, Stan!”

Forgive us, dear Stan, and intercede for us from your eternal abode,

Your brother,

Cedric

The author is a human rights, reconciliation & peace activist /writer

Related:

Fr. Stan Swamy SJ: Person, Pilgrim, Prophet

Fr. Stan Swamy’s legacy lives forever!

Jailed Father Stan Swamy dies ahead of his bail hearing

Fr Stan Swamy’s institutional murder

The post Sorry, Stan! appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The notification issued by the Union Territory’s Home Department on August 5, 2025 was unprecedented and sweeping in more ways than one. It included scholarly and rigorously  researched books by a range of academics and writers from across the globe, including the noted  constitutional scholar, the late A G Noorani, the writer Arundhati Roy, academics Sumantra Bose, Christopher Snedden and Victoria Schofield and journalist and editor Anuradha Bhasin. Books edited by researchers, activists and intellectuals of calibre such as Essar Batool, Tariq Ali, Sugata Bose, Ayesha Jalal,  Angana Chatterjee, etc, have also been prohibited.

The books have been in circulation for several years. For instance, “Kashmir Politics and Plebiscite” by Dr Abdul Jabbar Gockhami was published in 2011, “The Kashmir Dispute 1947-2012” by A G Noorani in 2014, while “A Dismantled State: The Untold Story of Kashmir After Article 370” by Anuradha Bhasin was published in 2022 and “Colonizing Kashmir: State-building under Indian Occupation” by Hafza Kanjwal was published in 2023.

The religious-political text ‘Al Jihad Fil Islam’, by the Islamic scholar and founder of the Jamaat-e-Islami, Maulana Maududi, on the concept of jihad in Islam was published in 1927, while “Mujahid Ki Azan”, another Urdu book by Hasan Al Banna Shaheed, was published in 2006 and is out of stock.

But whether or not the books are out of stock is immaterial, as mere possession is outlawed. A day after the notification,  the Anantnag police scoured stationery shops for the books but there is no information as to whether any of the offending publications were located and seized. In February 2025, six years after the ban on the Jamaat-e-Islami Jammu and Kashmir, police had raided bookstores and seized around 600 books, mostly Islamic literature, though there was no official notification on their forfeiture.

The recent notification, issued  under Section 98 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, grants powers to the State Government to declare certain publications forfeited and to issue search-warrants for them, if they violate Section 152 (acts endangering the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India), Section 196 (promoting enmity between different groups), Section 197 (imputations and   assertions prejudicial to national integration and harming national unity), Section 294 and Section 295 (obscenity), Section 299 (acts outraging religious feelings) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

The notification itself provides little evidence of the precise violations of Section 98 of the BNSS or of the multiple sections of the BNS by which books can be banned or forfeited. Instead, the notification is replete with terms that find no place in actual law. For instances, the notification says the banned literature propagates false narratives, giving no instances or examples of these narratives and why they are considered false.

The letter and spirit of the law (however flawed its application) is practically drowned in a discourse of the most fantastical language of condemnation, the more wild, unreasonable and irrational, the better.

By what stretch of imagination are books by such scholars like Noorani or Anuradha Bhasin or Arundhati Roy or Essar Batool or any others named in the notification even remotely obscene? How are these books, primarily words that convey ideas, historical facts and analysis “acts” that endanger the sovereignty and unity of India? How do they promote enmity between communities or endanger national harmony? There are no clues in the notification.

For the authors or the publishers of the books, the only recourse would be under Section 99 of the BNSS, which gives them two months to apply to the High Court to set aside the declaration of forfeiture. A special three-judge bench of the High Court will be convened to consider the applications.  Till then, the sale and possession of the books will be considered a crime.

Misplaced “concern” for youth

Betraying a staunchly paternalistic tone towards youth of the former state, the notification goes on to say that a significant driver behind youth participation in violence and terrorism is “the systematic dissemination of false narratives and secessionist literature by its persistent internal circulation disguised as historical and political commentary”. Why is it internal, when most of the more popular books are freely available, online and offline and what is disguised about the commentary – the notification doesn’t bother to say.

Reiterating the state government’s “concern” for the youth of Kashmir, the notification further says that  the books are responsible for “misguiding youth, glorifying terrorism and inciting violence against the Indian State”. The last is a serious charge but, again, there is scant detail on any of these 25 books.

Notwithstanding its avowed concern for youth, the notification also slams them, stating that these 25 books promote a “culture of grievance, victimhood and terrorist heroism.”

Ironically, it is also perhaps the first official acknowledgment of the “alienation” of the youth of Jammu and Kashmir, who are today bearing the brunt of decades of conflict and a history passed down, not only through books, but by shared accounts of  successive generations of more than 75 years of living in an area of militarized strife.

Far from book bans, what really ought to concern the government of Jammu and Kashmir is unemployment, poor healthcare (including for mental health) and education. In all these spheres, the undisputed data itself starkly tells the true story of the youth in Kashmir.

Official data on Kashmiri youth pegs unemployment at 17.4 per cent, far above the national average of 10.2%. According to the Baseline Survey Report 2024-25 under Mission YUVA (Yuva Udyami Vikas Abhiyan), which cited the Periodic Labour Force Survey (PLFS) 2023-24, the overall unemployment rate in J & K is 6.7%, nearly double the national average of 3.5%. According to the report, released by Chief Minister Omar Abdullah in June this year, women face even steeper barriers, with urban female unemployment recorded at 28.6%.

Studies on the condition of mental health in the population, given the prolonged conflict, are also cause for alarm. An epidemiological study, conducted in 2024, of psychiatric disorders in Kashmir, observed that 11.3% of the adult population suffered from mental illness in the valley. As compared to males (8.4%), there was a higher prevalence among females(12.9%). Depressive disorders (8.4%) were the most common psychiatric disorders, followed by anxiety disorders (5.1%).

What would be the effect of such arbitrary and repressive acts on an already beleaguered population?

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by FreeSpeechCollective (@freespeechcollectiveindia)

Erasure of history and the fear of recollection

 The ban on books comes a day after the 6th anniversary of the abrogation of Article 370 of the Indian Constitution in August  2019. Scrapping the special status of Jammu and Kashmir, the Union Government has aggressively pushed for its “naya Kashmir “project and multiple erasures of lived histories and experiences have marked the last six years.

While newspapers mirrored the government-led normalcy, a deafening silence has prevailed, first due to the unprecedented communications blockade that lasted till 2021 and then due to the crackdown on journalists, lawyers, human rights activists, academics and political party members. There have been police summons and detentions, disembarking of journalists flying out of the country for legitimate professional work, suspension and withdrawal of passports and no-fly lists.

While the invisibilising of everyday accounts has become the norm, the digital erasure of archives of published accounts of multiple journalists has been a chilling feature of the toolkit for the new Kashmir. Heavily dependent on government advertising, the media in Kashmir put up little resistance to the mass deletion of their own archives. Independent journalists found that their social media accounts were also vulnerable, as content was taken down and accounts were blocked with impunity.

The censoring of universities and academic spaces is, of course, an all-India project. Conferences, talks, discussions and even film screenings on sensitive issues need prior permission, chapters in text books have been changed, historical accounts are dropped from the curriculum and teachers are under watch both in the classroom and for posts on their private social media accounts, as the experience of Prof. Tejaswini Desai of the Kolhapur Institute of Technology’s College of Engineering or of Prof.  Ali Khan Mahmudabad of Ashoka University reveal.

But the ‘K’ word occupies a special place as the recent development over the revised syllabus for MA in Political Science reveals. According to this report in Maktoob Media, the paper “DSE 17: Politics and Ethnic Conflicts in J&K,” including debates on state autonomy, self-determination, secessionist politics and factors of terrorism, was flagged by the Standing Committee (of the University) for its discourse on the Indian national identity, Hindu nationalism and Politics of anxiety. It had earlier been approved by the Academic Council and the Executive Council of the University.

In the face of all these official attempts to wipe our plural viewpoints, however reasoned and well-researched, the J & K government’s book ban is the most objectionable effort. The ban seeks to arbitrarily criminalise 25 books, casting them as the prime accused and convicting them before a fair trial. Though words have a way of escaping the bars of forfeiture and prohibition, unlike the prolonged jailing of academics, human rights activists, journalists, lawyers and students, the notification must go.

First Published on freespeechcollective.in

The post J & K Govt. Book Ban: What do the Thought Police Fear? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On July 28, 2025, Kavin Selva Ganesh, a 27-year-old Dalit software engineer from Arumugamangalam near Eral in Thoothukudi district, was hacked to death in broad daylight in KTC Nagar, Tirunelveli. The accused, S. Surjith (21), allegedly attacked Kavin with a sickle over his relationship with Surjith’s sister, Subashini, a Siddha practitioner. Kavin and Subashini had been in a long-term inter-caste relationship, which Surjith and his family, belonging to the dominant Maravar community (MBC), vehemently opposed.

Surjith is not just an ordinary civilian — he is the son of two serving Sub-Inspectors in the Tamil Nadu Armed Police, Saravanan and Krishnakumari, both of whom were also named as co-accused in the FIR. Despite this, the couple was only suspended and has not been arrested, triggering public outrage. The FIR has been filed under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015, and relevant sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

According to Kavin’s mother, S. Tamizhselvi, who filed the police complaint, her son had received repeated threats from the accused’s family. On the day of the incident, Surjith reportedly lured Kavin under the pretext of their parents wanting to meet him and then brutally attacked him with a sickle, chasing him down and killing him less than 200 metres from the hospital where Subashini worked. Eyewitnesses, CCTV footage, and multiple media reports corroborate these details.

Petition filed with the National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC)

On July 30, 2025, a citizen petition was submitted at the National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC) headquarters in New Delhi by Shailendar Karthikeyan, law student seeking urgent intervention in the caste-based killing of Kavin Selva Ganesh. He met the Personal Secretary to the Chairperson and submitted detailed documentation, including press clippings. During the interaction, the petitioner was informed that the Commission had already taken suo moto cognizance of the case.

While a formal number was not assigned to the newly submitted petition, the representation was accepted and acknowledged by the Commission. The petitioner urged the Commission to treat the matter with utmost urgency and to include the following demands in its proceedings:

1. Immediate arrest of the accused’s parents — Sub-Inspectors Saravanan and Krishnakumari — who are named in the FIR.
2. Constitution of a fact-finding committee to investigate the role of caste bias and police complicity.
3. NCSC’s ongoing monitoring of investigation and prosecution, including regular status reports from the State Government.
4. Provision of witness protection to the victim’s family, who continue to fear retaliation.

The petition can be accessed here 

Arrest, CB-CID transfer, and body acceptance

In a significant turn of events, Saravanan, a serving Sub-Inspector and father of the main accused Surjith, was arrested by Tamil Nadu police in connection with the caste-based killing of Kavin Selva Ganesh. The arrest came soon after a petition was filed with the National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC), though it is unclear if the two are directly connected. The case has since been transferred to the CB-CID, reflecting its seriousness and the growing demand for an impartial investigation. Following Saravanan’s arrest, Kavin’s family ended their five-day protest and accepted his body from the Tirunelveli Government Medical College Hospital, where Minister K.N. Nehru and Collector R. Sukumar paid their respects. Notably, the family had earlier rejected the state’s ₹6 lakh compensation, insisting that they sought justice and not money by demanding the immediate arrest of both police officers named in the FIR.

Deafening Silence from Political Leaders

The response from Tamil Nadu’s mainstream political parties has been largely muted, drawing criticism from activists. Only leaders of VCK (Thol Thirumavalavan), NTK (Seeman), and Puthiya Tamilagam (K. Krishnasamy) have issued strong public statements demanding separate legislation to curb honour killings. The silence of ruling and opposition parties has left Dalit voices further isolated.

A Broader Pattern

This is not an isolated incident. Tamil Nadu has seen a disturbing pattern of caste-based honour killings from the 2016 murder of Sankar in Udumalpet to the more recent cases in Cuddalore and Krishnagiri. In most cases, justice has been delayed, and police bias is often evident.

The murder of Kavin Selva Ganesh is a stark reminder that caste continues to determine who gets to love, who gets to live, and who gets away with murder in this country.

Related

Kausalya’s Courageous Fight for JusticeWoman takes own family to court for Dalit husband’s murder

CJP files complaint with NCSC, 11 anti-Dalit incidents highlighted since July 2023

The post Petition filed with NCSC seeks justice in Tirunelveli honour killing of Dalit techie appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The entire text of the letter may be read here:

To

Shri Gyanesh Kumar

Chief Election Commissioner

Dr Sukhbir Singh Sandhu

Election Commissioner

Dr Vivek Joshi

Election Commissioner

Dear S/Shri Gyanesh Kumar, Sandhu and Joshi,

Many TV channels have just now aired a press conference held by the leader of a national political party today (https://youtu.be/fi9Y0yWsPkg), in which he alleged irregularities in the preparation of electoral rolls in Karnataka and a few other States. His allegations revolving around factual information, seemed to be based on an audit of hard copies of electoral rolls available in the public domain. 

If I were to be in your place in the Election Commission, I would have ordered a thorough verification of the factual information released in the press conference to satisfy myself of the veracity of the basis for the allegations, as those allegations, if they were to be factually correct, would have serious implications for the integrity of electoral rolls in general. 

In my view, each one of you, responsible under Article 324 of the Constitution to enhance the overall credibility of the electoral process, should readily take cognizance of each and every complaint of that kind and suo moto get such a complaint verified, as feedback of that kind would help the Commission to identify the shortcomings in every segment of the electoral process and take corrective measures.  

What surprised me was that the Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) of Karnataka lost no time in issuing a notice to the concerned political leader calling upon him to “substantiate his claims of electoral fraud with a signed declaration under oath, as per Rule 20(3)(b) of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960”.

I am sure that the CEO would not have responded so promptly without keeping the Commission informed. The impression I get from this that the Commission and its officers treat every complainant as an adversary and, instead of taking advantage of the contents of the complaint as a means to scrutinise the integrity of preparation of electoral rolls at the ground level, call upon the complainant to swear that the complaint is based on facts, whereas all those facts could be readily cross-verified with the help of the enormous resources they have at their command. It appears to me that the Commission and its machinery are more anxious to prove that the complainant is wrong than welcoming such a complaint as a part of a readily available feedback system that helps the Commission in constantly improving its internal procedures and practices. The effectiveness of the Commission  depends crucially on its ability to respond to public complaints in a meaningful manner and its ability to elicit public trust. If it closes its doors to public complaints and complaints from political parties, it loses the advantage of using such complaints as a means to correct its own internal procedures in a transparent manner. I am afraid that the Commission, in recent times, let go of such excellent opportunities, as it has resorted to treating complainants as adversaries.

In this connection, I refer to a letter I addressed you some time ago in which I had expressed my concerns about several issues that remained unaddressed, that would erode the credibility of the electoral process. While the Commission may not care to respond to a letter from a senior citizen like me, the least that the Commission could have done was to ponder over the concerns expressed by me and take appropriate corrective measures. To the best of my understanding, the Commission has chosen to ignore those concerns, perhaps adopting its usual stance of treating all such complaints as irritants.

Once again, let me caution you that the Commission’s effectiveness as an apolitical Constitutional authority would critically depend on its ability to respond to public complaints in a constructive manner, rather than treating them as vexatious.

All the best,

Yours sincerely,

E A S Sarma

Former Secretary to the Government of India

Visakhapatnam 

Related:

Rahul Gandhi alleges ‘Vote Chori’ in 2024 polls, accuses BJP-ECI nexus of systematic electoral fraud

SC to ECI: Explain alleged irregularities in deletion of 65 lakh voters from Bihar’s draft electoral rolls

Bihar’s SIR process reveals an exercise of illegitimate powers, ECI forcing district machinery to resort to unethical practices: CCG’s Open Letter

Non-Electors Within Electors: ECI reports over 61 lakh potential exclusions

Principles of secret ballot, free will compromised, electronic surveillance a possibility with Voting APP introduced by the ECI: Expert

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

The post Election Commission must take the Indian people into confidence, correct its procedures & practices appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Bernard Lewis, the influential British-American historian and Middle East scholar, played a pivotal role in shaping Western imperial attitudes toward Islam. His influence stretched far beyond academia, into the very heart of U.S. foreign policy. His counsel underpinned the American strategy of weaponising radicalised Islam for geopolitical ends, beginning with the Afghan-Soviet war.

Under this policy, the U.S. directly funded extremist literature and helped establish madrassas across Pakistan and Afghanistan to indoctrinate young Muslim men—drawn from over 35 countries—with a weaponised theology. Once trained, these fighters joined the CIA-backed jihad against the Soviets. When the war ended, they returned home, not to peace, but to disseminate their radicalised ideology further afield.

Yet even as Lewis helped construct the “radical Muslim” archetype, he also shaped its foil: the “good Muslim.” This ideal Muslim, according to Lewis, is a pacifist, apolitical, and docile figure—more cultural than religious, more mystical than legalistic. In this dual construction, Muslims were split into two essentialised camps: one to fight imperial battles, the other to legitimise imperial presence.

The Conference That Said It All

In a 2003 conference hosted by the Nixon Centre titled “Understanding Sufism and Its Potential Role in U.S. Policy,” Lewis openly championed Sufism—not for its theology or ethics, but because, in his words, it “reflects something more than tolerance” and holds that “all religions are basically the same.” In other words, it can be co-opted.

Sufi scholar Hesham Kabbani joined Lewis at the event, enthusiastically presenting Sufism as a depoliticised, non-threatening “social force.” He assured the audience—made up of Homeland Security officials and neoconservative hawks—that Sufis “never seek leadership” but serve as “social workers.” It was a performance for the empire, tailored to reassure Washington that there exists an Islam that does not resist.

But this was a gross erasure. Figures like Salahuddin Ayyubi, Umar Futi Tal, Abdul Qādir al-Jaza’iri, and Idris as-Senussi were Sufis—and they led political revolts, commanded armies, ruled states. Even within Kabbani’s own Naqshbandi lineage, the Jaysh Rijāl al-Ṭarīqa al-Naqshbandiyya was formed in Baghdad to fight the American invasion of Iraq. To erase these legacies is to rewrite history at the feet of power.

The Liberal-Orientalist Love Affair with Sufism

The romanticisation of Sufism by Western scholars is not innocent. Nineteenth and twentieth-century Orientalists and Islamicists—such as Wilfred Cantwell Smith, Fazlur Rahman, Seyyed Hossein Nasr, H.A.R. Gibb, and Annemarie Schimmel—created a scholarly framework that equated mysticism with moderation.

Schimmel herself admitted the absurdity of this selective love. “A good Sufi,” she once remarked, “should follow the shariah and all that it entails.” But the Western fascination with Rumi, Ibn Arabi, and the “whirling dervishes” consistently detaches their mysticism from their Islamic orthodoxy. This detachment implies that Sufism flourished in spite of Islam’s rigidity, rather than as an organic expression of it.

Tomoko Masuzawa warns that this portrayal is racialised: Islam becomes Arab, rigid, Semitic; Sufism becomes Aryan, gentle, European. Otto Pfleiderer, a German Orientalist, typified this racial dichotomy by treating Islam as tribal and inferior while elevating Sufism as universal and transcendent. This project—consciously or not—fed into a sanitised, de-Islamised, “Islam Lite” acceptable to the empire.

Manufacturing Consent for Genocide

In Good Muslim, Bad Muslim, Mahmood Mamdani critiques this binary construction. “Good Muslims” are cast as secular, apolitical, spiritual-but-not-religious liberals. They advocate gender equality, nonviolence, and Western-style democracy. They vote Democrat. “Bad Muslims” are political, militant, and resistant to imperialism.

This binary fuels military invasions, drone strikes, black sites, surveillance states, and genocides. It is not a cultural misunderstanding—it is a colonial strategy.

The primary architect of the “Islamic terrorism” narrative is none other than Benjamin Netanyahu, who has long sought to manufacture global consent for the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Lebanon, and Palestine bear the bloody consequences of this myth.

In this context, the imperial co-optation of Sufism is not about spirituality. It is about subjugation. It is the creation of a religious subclass willing to bless bombs and normalisation deals in exchange for visas, conferences, funding, and think-tank prestige. Today’s polished collaborators—Abdullah Bin Bayyah, Hamza Yusuf, and others backed by the UAE or U.S. State Department—have become handpicked enablers of a compliant Islam, weaponised against its more resistant, justice-oriented forms.

The Two-Faced Strategy: Wahhabis and Sufis

The imperial project thrives on contradiction. It is no surprise that both “Sufi Islam” and “Wahhabi Islam” are weaponised in tandem. These two projected as opposite poles—spiritual and severe—are manipulated to serve the same master. One is used to fight wars; the other to suppress dissent.

A legion of intellectually colonised Muslims makes this task easier by parroting imperial talking points in the name of peace, tradition, or “saving Islam.” They forget that it was the U.S., in alliance with Saudi Arabia, that funded Wahhabi madrasas to radicalise Muslim youth for its Cold War proxy battles. And yet, in the same breath, the U.S. hails Saudi Arabia—a hub of Wahhabism—as a key ally, while demonising Iran, a country with deep Sufi intellectual traditions.

Iran = evil. Saudi = friend. The absurdity is the point.

This is not a war of ideologies. It is a war of obedience. It’s not theology that divides “good” from “bad” Muslims—it’s loyalty.

Collaboration is Not Neutral

The “good Muslim” trope does not merely flatter collaborators—it provides ideological cover for genocide. Whether the branding is “Sufi Islam,” “plain vanilla Islam,” or “civilised Islam,” the core objective is control. The desire to pacify Islam, to regulate it, to make it safe for the empire, is what drives the violence, not Islam itself.

The Abraham Accords, CVE programs, Patriot Act, and Muslim Ban—across Republican and Democrat administrations—prove one thing: both sides weaponise “good Islam” to suppress resistance. Under Trump’s renewed presidency, expect more glossy initiatives promoting “peaceful Islam,” “Sufi moderation,” and “Muslim societies for progress.” These are not spiritual efforts. They are tools of colonial management.

Even the most well-meaning Sufi today must ask: have we been used? Has our spiritual tradition become a fig leaf for empire? Does our silence—or selective condemnation—manufacture consent for war?

Conclusion: The Real Struggle

Whether post-9/11 or post-October 7th, the game remains the same: pit Muslims against one another. Regulate the religion. Exalt one version. Exterminate the other.

But the consequences are not theoretical. In Gaza today, the “bad Muslims” being exterminated include poets, doctors, mothers, fathers, and children.

The tragedy is not just in bombs or policies. It is in the Muslim collaborators who, eager for Western approval, have chosen seats at imperial tables over solidarity with the oppressed. This is not just moral failure—it is complicity in genocide.

It is time to repent. To cease performing “good Islam” for the empire. To reclaim Islam—not as a set of talking points for think tanks—but as a living tradition of justice, resistance, and truth.

—–

مسلمانوں کو مسخر کرنے کے لیے تصوف اور وہابیت کو ہتھیار بنانا

مصنف: نصیر احمد

(مندرجہذیلتحریر،فرحالشریفکےمضمون: “اسلاملائٹکیتیاری: صوفیازمبطور ‘اچھااسلام’: ‘اچھےمسلمان’ بمقابلہ ‘برےمسلمان’ کیسیاستکسطرحنسلکشیکےلیےرضامندیپیداکرتیہے” کاخلاصہاورترمیمشدہورژنہے۔اصلمضمونیہاںپڑھاجاسکتاہے۔)

“اچھےاسلام” کیپیدائش

برنارڈلیوس،برطانوی-امریکیمؤرخاورمشرقوسطیٰکےاسکالر،نےمغربیسامراجیسوچمیںاسلامکےبارےمیںگہرااثرڈالا۔انکیآراءصرفعلمیمیدانتکمحدودنہرہیں،بلکہامریکیخارجہپالیسیپربھیاثراندازہوئیں۔انکیرہنمائیمیںامریکہنے “ریڈیکلاسلام” کوجیوپولیٹیکلمقاصدکےلیےایکہتھیاربنایا،جسکیشروعاتافغان-سوویتجنگسےہوئی۔

اسپالیسیکےتحتامریکہنےشدتپسنداسلامیلٹریچرکیمالیمعاونتکیاورپاکستانوافغانستانمیںمدارسقائمکیےجہاں 35 سےزائدممالکسےآئےنوجوانوںکوعسکرینظریاتسکھائےگئے۔تربیتکےبعد،یہمجاہدین CIA کےزیراثرسوویتوںکےخلافجہادمیںشاملہوگئے۔جنگختمہونےکےبعد،یہلوگامنکےساتھواپسنہیںلوٹےبلکہشدتپسندنظریاتکومزیدپھیلایا۔

برنارڈلیوسنےجہاں “شدتپسندمسلمان” کاخاکہبنایا،وہیں “اچھےمسلمان” کاتصوربھیانہینےپیشکیا۔انکےمطابق،مثالیمسلمانایکپرامن،غیرسیاسی،اورمطیعشخصیتہے—جسکیشناختمذہبسےزیادہثقافت،اورقانونسےزیادہروحانیتپرمبنیہے۔اسطرحمسلمانوںکودوخانوںمیںبانٹدیاگیا: ایکوہجوسامراجیجنگیںلڑے،دوسراوہجوسامراجیتسلطکوجائزقراردے۔

وہکانفرنسجسنےسبکچھواضحکردیا

2003 میںنِکسنسینٹرمیںمنعقدہ “صوفیازماورامریکیپالیسیمیںاسکاممکنہکردار” کےعنوانسےایککانفرنسمیں،لیوسنےصوفیازمکیحمایتکی—نہکہاسکیروحانیتیااخلاقیاتکیوجہسے،بلکہاسلیےکہاسمیں “برداشتسےزیادہ” کیعکاسیہےاوریہکہ “تماممذاہببنیادیطورپرایکجیسےہیں۔” یعنیاسےسامراجیمقاصدکےلیےاستعمالکیاجاسکتاہے۔

اسموقعپرصوفیاسکالر،شیخہشامقبانینےبھیصوفیازمکوغیرسیاسی،بےضرر “سوشلفورس” کےطورپرپیشکیا۔انہوںنےحاضرین—جنمیںہوملینڈسیکیورٹیکےاہلکاراورنیو-کنزرویٹونظریہدانشاملتھے—کویقیندلایاکہصوفی “کبھیقیادتکےطلبگارنہیںہوتے” بلکہ “سوشلورکرز” کاکرداراداکرتےہیں۔یہسامراجکےلیےایکپرفارمنستھی—ایکایسااسلامپیشکرناجومزاحمتنہکرے۔

لیکنیہتاریخکومسخکرناہے۔صلاحالدینایوبی،عمرفوتیتال،عبدالقادرالجزائری،ادریسالسنوسی—all صوفیتھے—اوروہسیاسیرہنما،سپہسالار،اورحکمرانبھیتھے۔یہاںتککہقبانیکےاپنےنقشبندیسلسلےمیںبھی،بغدادمیں “جیشرجالالطریقةالنقشبندیہ” کاقیامامریکیحملےکےخلافہواتھا۔انتاریخیحقائقکومٹاناطاقتکےسامنےجھکنےکےمترادفہے۔

لبرل-مستشرقینکاصوفیازمسےرومانیتعلق

صوفیازمکومغربیاسکالرزکیجانبسےرومانویتکالبادہپہنانامحضاتفاقنہیں۔انیسویںاوربیسویںصدیکےمستشرقیناوراسلامیاسکالرز—جیسےولفرڈکینٹویلاسمتھ،فضلالرحمٰن،سیدحسیننصر،گیب،اورانیمیریشمل—نےایکایساعلمیڈھانچہقائمکیاجسمیںتصوفکواعتدالپسندیسےجوڑاگیا۔

شملنےخوداستضادکوتسلیمکیا: “ایکاچھاصوفیوہہوتاہےجوشریعتکیمکملپیرویکرتاہے۔” لیکنمغربمیںرومی،ابنعربی،اوردرویشوںکیچکرداررقصکوانکیاسلامیسختیسےالگکرکےپیشکیاجاتاہے۔جیسےیہصوفیازماسلامکیسختیکےباوجودپنپا،حالانکہیہاسلامکےاندرہیایکروحانیاظہارہے۔

ٹوموکوماسوزاواخبردارکرتیہیںکہیہپیشکشنسلپرستانہہے: اسلامکوعربی،سخت،سامیقراردیاجاتاہے؛جبکہصوفیازمکوآریائی،نرم،یورپیسمجھاجاتاہے۔جرمنمستشرقاوٹوفلیڈررنےاسلامکوقبائلیاورکمتر،اورصوفیازمکوآفاقیواعلیٰبناکرپیشکیا۔یہمنصوبہ،شعورییاغیرشعوریطورپر،ایکایسا “اسلاملائٹ” تیارکرتاہےجوسامراجکوقابلقبولہو۔

نسلکشیکےلیےرضامندیکیتیاری

“گڈمسلم،بیڈمسلم” میںمحمودمامدانیاستقسیمپرتنقیدکرتےہیں۔ “اچھےمسلمان” کوسیکولر،غیرسیاسی،روحانیمگرغیرمذہبی،اورلبرلدکھایاجاتاہے—جوصنفیمساوات،عدمتشدد،اورمغربیجمہوریتکیحمایتکرتاہے۔ “برےمسلمان” سیاسی،مزاحمتیاورعسکریہوتےہیں۔

یہتصورہیفوجیجارحیت،ڈرونحملوں،بلیکسائٹس،نگرانی،اورنسلکشیکوجوازفراہمکرتاہے۔یہثقافتیغلطفہمینہیں—بلکہایکسامراجیحکمتعملیہے۔

“اسلامیدہشتگردی” کابیانیہبنانےوالےبڑےمعمار،بنیامیننیتنیاہوہیں،جنہوںنےفلسطینیوںکینسلیصفائیکےلیےعالمیحمایتحاصلکرنےکیکوششکی۔عراق،افغانستان،شام،یمن،سوڈان،لبنان،اورفلسطین—سباسجھوٹکیقیمتاداکررہےہیں۔

ایسےمیںصوفیازمکواپناناروحانیتنہیں،غلامیہے—ایکایساطبقہپیداکرناجوبموںاورنارملائزیشنڈیلزپربرکتدے،بدلےمیںویزے،فنڈنگ،اوراسٹیٹڈپارٹمنٹکیتعریفحاصلکرے۔آجکے “پالششدہ” معاونین—عبداللہبنبیہ،حمزہیوسفاوردیگر—سامراجکےلیےمنتخبکردہاسلامکےپرچارکبنچکےہیں،جومزاحمتیاسلامکودبانےکاذریعہہیں۔

دوہراہتھیار: وہابیاورصوفیاسلام

سامراجیمنصوبہتضاداتپرپلتاہے۔اسیلیےایکہیوقتمیں “صوفیاسلام” اور “وہابیاسلام” کوہتھیاربنایاجاتاہے۔ایکروحانی،دوسراسختگیر—لیکندونوںسامراجکیخدمتمیںہیں۔ایکجنگیںلڑتاہے،دوسرامزاحمتکودباتاہے۔

ایکپورینسل،جوذہنیطورپرغلامبنچکیہے،سامراجیبیانیےکو “امن”، “روایت” یا “اسلامکوبچانے” کےنامپردہراتیہے۔وہبھولجاتےہیںکہوہابیمدارسکوسبسےپہلےامریکہاورسعودیعربنےملکرفنڈکیاتھاتاکہسردجنگکیپراکسیجنگوںکےلیےنوجوانوںکوانتہاپسندبنایاجاسکے۔

اورپھروہیامریکہسعودیعربکودوست،اورایران—جسکاصوفیروایتمیںگہرامقامہے—کودشمنقراردیتاہے۔

ایران = بُرا۔سعودی = اچھا۔
یہتضادہیاصلکھیلہے۔

یہنظریاتکیجنگنہیں،فرمانبرداریکیجنگہے۔ “اچھے” اور “برے” مسلمانوںکیتقسیمکادارومدارعقیدےپرنہیں،وفاداریپرہے۔

“تعاون” غیرجانبدارنہیں

“اچھےمسلمان” کابیانیہصرفخوشامدنہیں،بلکہنسلکشیکونظریاتیکورمہیاکرتاہے۔چاہےنامہو “صوفیاسلام”، “سادہاسلام” یا “مہذباسلام”—اصلمقصدکنٹرولہے۔اسلامکوتابع،قابلِانتظام،اورسامراجکےلیےمحفوظبناناہیاصلہدفہے۔

ابراہیمیمعاہدے، CVE پروگرامز،پیٹریاٹایکٹ،اورمسلمبین—ریپبلکنیاڈیموکریٹ،دونوں “اچھےاسلام” کومزاحمتکچلنےکےلیےاستعمالکرتےہیں۔ٹرمپکیواپسیکےساتھ، “پرامناسلام” یا “صوفیاعتدال” جیسےمنصوبےدوبارہسامنےآئیںگے—یہروحانینہیں،نوآبادیاتیاوزارہیں۔

آجکاہرسچاصوفیخودسےپوچھے:
کیاہمیںاستعمالکیاجارہاہے؟
کیاہماریروحانیروایتسامراجکےلیےپردہبنچکیہے؟
کیاہماریخاموشی—یاچُنکرکیگئیمذمت—جنگوںکےلیےرضامندیپیداکررہیہے؟

نتیجہ: اصلجدوجہد

چاہے 9/11 کےبعدہویا 7 اکتوبرکےبعد،کھیلوہیہے: مسلمانوںکوآپسمیںلڑاؤ،مذہبکوکنٹرولکرو،ایکشکلکوعظیمبناؤ،دوسریکومٹادو۔

مگرنتائجصرفنظریاتینہیں—آجغزہمیںجو “برےمسلمان” مارےجارہےہیں،وہشاعر،ڈاکٹر،مائیں،باپ،اوربچےہیں۔

سانحہصرفبموںیاپالیسیوںمیںنہیں—بلکہانمسلمانوںمیںہےجومغربیخوشنودیکےلیےسامراجیمیزوںپربیٹھنےکوترجیحدیتےہیں۔یہصرفاخلاقیناکامینہیں—بلکہنسلکشیمیںشراکتداریہے۔

ابوقتہےتوبہکا۔
ابوقتہے “اچھااسلام” پیشکرنےکیاداکاریبندکرنےکا۔
اسلامکودوبارہاپنالو—بطورایکزندہروایت،جوعدل،مزاحمت،اورسچائیکاعلمبردارہو۔

—–

A frequent contributor to NewAgeIslam.com, Naseer Ahmed is an independent researcher and Quran-centric thinker whose work bridges faith, reason, and contemporary knowledge systems. Through a method rooted in intra-Quranic analysis and scientific coherence, the author has offered ground-breaking interpretations that challenge traditional dogma while staying firmly within the Quran’s framework.

His work represents a bold, reasoned, and deeply reverent attempt to revive the Quran’s message in a language the modern world can test and trust.

The following is a summarised and edited version of: “Manufacturing ‘Islam Lite’: Sufism as ‘Good Islam’: How the politics of ‘Good Muslim’ vs. ‘Bad Muslim’ manufactures consent for genocide” by Farah El-Sharif. Read the original here.

First Published on newageislam.com

The post Weaponising Sufism and Wahhabism to Subjugate Muslims appeared first on SabrangIndia.

I am nervous in speaking before this panel of knowledge elites who are far ahead of me in mediatized performance. In fact, I was hardly needed within this panel, given there is a galaxy of experts present.

These days, communicating within (and among) the like-minded audience is hardly a challenge and it doesn’t serve the desired purpose as much as it should.  The panellists have already spoken a lot on the theme of the symposium. At stake are the words, “evidence”, “proof”, “facts” (subut, sakshya, pramaan). The incumbent regime is doing everything in its power to create a common sense against “evidence” (rationality). Not just in the discipline of history but in every sphere of our daily lives. Not just in India; elsewhere too. Non-state actors, with the backing of state power and wilfully failed criminal-justice system, are deciding what we eat, what not to and what kind of edibles can be stored in our kitchens and refrigerators. These factors impinge on whether we can live or can be killed with impunity.

We are here to reflect upon the National Education Policy 2020. Its basis, as admitted by the Indian government is National Curriculum Framework for School Education 2023. The three year of school education during the Grades 6 to 8, according to them are very critical. They do admit that content and pedagogy both are crucial. I looked into the textbooks meant for Grade 6 and for Grade 7. The title is Exploring Society, India and Beyond. The regime claims that these textbooks have an emphasis: minimizing the text by focusing on core concepts. “Focusing on big ideas”, is their emphasis in the “Letter to the Student”, appended at the beginning of the books; and multi-disciplinary approach is an important stated concern. Fundamental Rights and Duties are excerpted from the Constitution, and printed with embellishment. All these are high sounding claims, apparently. But not so, as we get into the details by proceeding further into the book.

A few years ago, we also had “Learning Outcomes based Curriculum Framework (LOCF): BA History Undergraduate Programme, 2021”. In an essay in the journal, Social Scientist, Irfan Habib has written extensively. The prose is endearingly satirical, a trait which the eminent historian employs in his public speaking and less in writing and within the classroom. I would strongly recommend that all of you read the essay. Such a Framework from the regime envisages political encroachment upon the curricula-framing and through this the shrinking autonomy of the universities.

Maulana Azad’s role as education minister (1946-58), along with Nehru and Radhakrishnan, in the autonomy of the UGC was foundational (1953-56). He championed the creation of an independent statutory body to manage and fund higher education, a move that was essential for the institutional autonomy of universities and for the development of a standardized and high-quality higher education system in India. Not only this, Maulana Azad served as the Chairman of the Central Advisory Board of Education (CABE), a vital body for advising the central and state governments on educational matters and in framing school curricula. He presided over multiple meetings of the board, including those held in 1948, 1949, and 1950. This position gave him a direct platform to shape and influence educational reforms and policies at a national level.

Maulana Azad was quite conscious of the fact that the Medieval historical past (Muslim rulers) will be weaponized in certain ways by both, Hindu and Muslim communal forces. He therefore instructed (1949) ‘the historians of AMU to conduct research on that period by accessing original sources in Oriental languages.’ While resisting colonialism, his own perception of the Mughal past was distinctive. For instance, he looked upon Shaikh Ahmad Sirhindi’s resistance (otherwise quite a conservative figure) against Akbar as an instance of why Muslim subjects too rise in resistance against the British colonial state (See Muzaffar Alam, “Maulana Azad and his memory of the Islamic past: a study of his early writings”, JRAS, Cambridge. 33, 4, 2023, pp 901-916)

For the diminishing autonomy of the universities in recent decades, politics is responsible as also the misuse and abuse of autonomy by the universities and the academia themselves, over a period of time. Recently, the Vice Chancellor (VC) of a prestigious university recently got a show cause notice on the flimsiest of grounds and the notice was not issued by the Visitor. More on that on another occasion!

The specific theme around which we have gathered here is something we are agitated about given that the incumbent regime is selective about facts, besides distorting the facts of history and more than that, which is, not less important, manipulating historical facts in most insidious ways. Manufacturing falsehood, parading these as history, and thereby poisoning the minds of children, of ordinary people in general. That is our concern here. There is a systematic attack on reason. People should not have minds, apply them, should not have or develop any critical faculty. They should not be thinking like citizens with powers of critical thinking, rather, they should function as mere subjects, praja, reáaya, before rulers. This appears to be the dominant political wisdom today.

We also need to keep in mind the fact that the NCERT textbooks are written more for the purpose of teaching material to the teachers. This is the purpose forgotten a long while ago.

Just four days ago, my teacher, Prof Farhat Hasan, along with Prof. Neeladri Bhattacharya, in their interview with Vrinda Gopinath (The Wire.In, July 31, 2025), have articulated all the important concerns pertaining to the issue. Ruchika has been doing it consistently in so many ways with effective communication. I hardly need to repeat these here. I would therefore seek your permission to raise some other issues which may not be getting adequate attention in terms of diagnosing the trouble. Just for the sake of informing the less informed, non-specialist audience here, allow me to do a quick recap, before embarking on the issues I wish to raise here:

In the latest version of NCERT textbooks, we have:

• Demonisation of Mughal rulers including Akbar (a feat achieved by Muslim reactionaries too); and the controversy around Aurangzeb-Shivaji. Through both of these, we can clearly identify the ways in which Hindu and Muslim Right Wing treat history.
• Discussing historical periods and rulers within the binaries of ‘Glorious’ and ‘Dark’ periods and rulers defined as ‘Heroes’ and ‘Villains’, in terms of their personal faith. This irrational method overlooks overall state policies and political contexts and values of the era, and thereby creates an atmosphere through which co-religionists of these past rulers are made answerable for certain deeds. Taken to extremes, this can mean ‘punishing them for the previous wrongdoers.’
• The authors/editors of the NCERT textbooks of the 1970s and then again in 2005-06 had reputed professional academic historians this is not the case anymore;
• Earlier, each chronological period had judiciously distributed adequate space, across the evolving grades from VI to XII;
• All regions had spaces in terms of history-making, in the earlier textbooks, yet there were allegations of selective emphasis;
• Gender, Caste, Environment, Technology and Socio-economic changes, Growth of Science in history, sports, literature, sartorial culture, etc., were the issues which remained less addressed; with the evolution of a historical understanding, these issues were attempted in the NCET textbooks of 2005-06. Yet, right wing allegations persisted.
• Allegations of the Right wing were and are (about earlier books), temple ‘destructions’ during the time when Muslim rulers ruled were not emphasized in these texts. Making this argument they pushed for deletion of similar acts by Hindu rulers. Narratives built to create a communally divisive atmosphere. As if today’s ordinary Muslims are answerable for the past conduct of Muslim rulers, and today’s Hindus aren’t answerable for the similar acts of the Hindu rulers in the past.
• Anglo-Maratha Wars are okay to be taught, the Anglo-Mysore wars must to be omitted
• Ironically, while right wing forces might apparently talk of nativism laced with the rhetoric of being anti-West, at the same time their historical narratives derive much from the colonially divisive projects of historical representation;   Dr Ruchika Sharma is doing a lot to speak and write on these.

History has a political goal, has been a tool of ruling class, across the globe. It was so, always. This reminds me of Paul Freire’s 1968 book, Pedagogy of the Oppressed. He identifies two objectives of pedagogy: a tool for domination, and a tool for liberation. Here there are two models viz., “Banking Model”, in which the students are treated as passive recipients who in turn become unthinking, “submissively obedient” and status-quoist.[1] This de-humanises both the teachers and the students. In this, the oppressed turn into a new batch oppressors. Another model of pedagogy, Friere says, is: “Problem-Posing Model” wherein the teachers and students are co-educators to each other, it is dialogic and interactive.

In this context, one is also reminded of a recent book, Hilary Falb Kalisman, Teachers as State-builders[2]. This book talks of teaching which turns students into a force of resistance, state-subverters, disruptors, challengers to the status quo, and thereby creating thinking citizens who will build stronger society and state, rather than collaborators of the regime.  That is how, Kalisman says, colonial societies emerged to resist the state and attain freedom.

School textbooks are often used to both craft what the nation is or must be and to “teach” future citizens how they are now bound to and by a common historical narrative. Therefore, it is not surprising that India and Pakistan (and later Bangladesh) have put concerted efforts into crafting propaganda-like historical narrations about what their nations stood for.

Such historical narrations ‘droned on, ponderously, sonorously, and repetitively’ in citizenship projects about how the nation came to be formed and what the nation-state did for people’s benefit. Joya Chatterji (in her Shadows at Noon, p. 145) writes: ‘It was not so much that this publicity was executed with brilliance. It was not. It was merely the case that it was repeated ad nauseam, and that everydayness made the message natural’.

Not that history has not been used as a tool in earlier times! But then it was, as it should be, used as a tool of emancipation. Emancipation of the colonised, enslaved people. To inject self-confidence among the rising nation, the nation in making. By the word, nation, I mean people, not merely territory.  Jawaharlal Nehru’s Discovery and Glimpses were written for those noble purposes. Tara Chand’s books, the books written on the history of 1857 in 1907-09, in 1957, in 2007, etc., by the scholar-activist nationalists were pursuits in those directions. The NCERT textbooks, the books written for popular readings and published by the NBT were all exercises in those noble desirable purposes and directions.

Modern rational, secular democracies need such pursuits immeasurably. Praja ko Nagrik mein badalna hai, that is our biggest challenge today. It is a battle between “communalisation” and “secularization”. Please do note the difference. I am not using the words, “communalism” and “secularism”. I am using its variants, the process, not the mere nouns.

Once we read, Yasmin Khan’s 2011 essay (Modern Asian Studies), “Performing Peace: Gandhi’s Assassination as a Critical Moment in the Consolidation of the Nehruvian State”, we get to know, beyond the stated motive of the author, that the Nehru-led state was making efforts which were, in turn, using it in a certain way; the way for the marginalizing the forces who liquidated Gandhi’s body and life, if not his mind and ideas and ideology and praxis and methodologies.  Nehru strategically managed the public mourning, funeral, and distribution of Gandhi’s ashes to assert state power and legitimise Congress leadership during the turbulent post-Partition period (1947–1950). The state-organised funeral in Delhi, contrasted with widespread, vernacular mourning rituals across India, bridged the gap between the state and the people, reinforcing Nehruvian secularism. Public grief, amplified by events like the Ardh Kumbh Mela, transformed Gandhi into a saintly figure, fostering communal harmony and countering Hindu nationalist sentiments. Yasmin Khan emphasizes that these rituals were not merely ceremonial but politically transformative, solidifying the Congress Party’s role in shaping a unified, secular Indian state.

Nehru was very clear about the problem of communalism. He knew it more clearly than anybody else that in colonial era Muslim communal separatism was stronger because of the colonial state; during 1938-47, competitive communalisms of the two largest religious communities became greater menace because of the colonial state. After 1947, more particularly, after January 30, 1948, Hindu communalism was greater threat. Patel realised it only after January 30, though he didn’t survive for long after that to help Nehru in a larger way. He died in December 1950; not in 1960 (our Home Minister, Mr Shah should allow me to correct him)!

I was referring to the processes of communalisation. These forces remained there, not exactly subterranean, in the early years of independence. The majoritarian forces were apparently and arguably not in a hurry to be state-centric. They were working more on cultural fronts, and in the spheres of education, with the “Catch-them-Young” approach. This focus was there among both Hindu and Muslim communal forces. Both, were waiting for the right moment to capture state power for a full scale implementation of their communalisation programmes. In Pakistan, this project was hardly ever in resistance, as the very basis of the creation of Pakistan was communal. Krishna Kumar and at least in a column, Arvind N Das had written extensively on this. Persons, some previously with the prestigious, St Stephen’s, [I H Qureshi (1903-1981) and also the Gen Zia’s regime] did much to push Pakistan rightward. Ali Usman Qasmi’s (essay in Modern Asian Studies, 2018), “A Master Narrative for the History of Pakistan: Tracing the origins of an ideological agenda”, explains this phenomenon at length.

Gen Zia’s reign (1977-1988), more aptly depicted in Hanif’s novel, A Case of Exploding Mangoes[3], coincided with the Saudi-funded project of the Islamisation of Knowledge (IoK) scheme. A range of scholars in different parts of the world started promoting Islamisation of Knowledge (known as ‘IoK’) in the late 1970s. The first World Conference on Education in Makkah (1977) marked a decisive step in the formulation of this project on an international platform. [Among the best-known scholars advocating this notion were Palestinian–American scholar Ismail al-Faruqi and Malaysian philosopher Syed Naqib al-Attas. For radicalization under Gen Zia’s regime, see, Virinder and Waqas Bhatt’s ‘If I Speak, They Will Kill Me, to Remain Silent Is to Die’: Poetry of resistance in General Zia’s Pakistan (1977–88), Modern Asian Studies, 53, 4, 2019. Also see my blog, “Namo’s India a parody of Zia’s oppressive regime in Pakistan?”, SabrangIndia. In, February 17, 2020].

“Sub-continental Majoritarianisms”, to use Papiya Ghosh’s expression, and global politics of the Ummah created a fear among Hindus, especially after the Khilafat mobilisations during the national movement. After Partition too, Hindu Majoritarianism derived fodder from such political pursuits of the Ummah. (Sir Syed Ahmad Khan was against the pan-Islamic, extraterritorial, Ummah; he was for a Qaum confined within national boundary). This phenomenon (Muslim communalism) feeding majority communalism has been afoot since the 1970s and 1980s. This is not a marginal factor. One communalism feeds another, is what Nehru had said, and Bipan Chandra later elaborated upon it.

India and its own Muslim right wing organizations were not averse to or unconnected with the abovementioned schemes promoting the Muslim right wing. Please do have a look into Chapter 6 of Laurence Gautier’s latest book on post-1947 AMU and JMI, Between Nation and Community, Syed Anwar Ali, a Jamaat-e-Islami affiliated teacher in the AMU and his book, Hindustan Mein Islam, and I H Quraishi’s book, The Muslim Community of the Indo-Pakistan Subcontinent, 610-1947, which give us a clear idea of Muslim Right Wing in our sub-continent, pre and post-1947.

All right wing forces have globalised networks. Secular resistance too has to ensure globalised networks of solidarity. No study or commentary in isolation will really help us understand the communal forces. (Communalisation of the textbooks is just a part of that politics); and thus, a less informed understanding and flawed or partisan diagnosis will not help us create an effective solidarity. Going soft on the Muslim right wing and hard against the Hindu right wing has proved a counterproductive strategy all these years.

Khoo gar-e- Hamd se thorha sa gila bhi sun le

Barring one or two lesser known pamphlets published by the Indian Left I have hardly come across any comprehensive criticism against the India’s Muslim right wing pursuits in these domains. We do understand that post-1947, the Muslim Right Wing couldn’t be as dangerous as the Hindu Right Wing. It was Nehru’s understanding of communalism and it was his desired magnanimity. That does not, however, really mean that such a lesser danger would not attract attention and will not be resisted. I am not compartmentalising the resistances we ought to offer.

Given the contemporary challenges, I strongly feel that Muslim intellectuals (if they really exist) of India need to speak out more on those aspects. India’s Liberals as also Leftists have reasons to agree with Nehru’s understanding on the colonial and post-Independence communalisms in India (Nehru understood that Muslim communal separatism was more dangerous only till 1947, under the colonial prodding; post-1947 India, Hindu communalism is more dangerous). To this, Late Prof Imtiaz Ahmad had an opinion: this differential understanding doesn’t really mean that while fighting the two communalisms you will discriminate between the two. They have reasons not to speak as much on Muslim right wing. But that cannot be a choice for the Muslim intellectuals. The more they avoid exposing India’s Muslim right wing, the more they provide weapons to the Hindu right and the more they weaken the moral authority of India’s Secularists.

I am only reminding this audience of the fact that minority rights discourses from Muslim leaders have remained weaker during our national movement (the Muslim League shifted this discourse to a direction in which Muslim minority was to be treated to be a nation of ex-rulers), and after Independence too, communal-identitarian concerns were given priority. Rather than strengthening the secularisation processes of India, Muslim intellectuals have remained more active in safeguarding regressive and patriarchal Personal Laws, and less at strengthening the secular forces of India. The religious and “secular” Muslim leadership has remained more identitarian, less secularistic. That has all along done a great disservice to the overall processes of secularisation, only to help majoritarian forces.

Fast forward to 1977 and after: Resurgence of competitive communalisms in the 1980s

Riding on alliance-politics, majoritarian forces in India eventually succeeded, more menacingly with the turn of this century/millennium. They had never really given up. Competitive majoritarianism remained a force to reckon with across the sub-continent. Whenever they formed governments in alliance/coalition in New Delhi, majoritarian parties preferred to the portfolios education, culture, information and broadcasting. Other non-Congress or anti-Congress regional forces hardly pitched for such portfolios.

Unlike majoritarian parties, secular forces, most of who have been state-centric; were dependent upon state resources, subsidy concessions and spaces to run their secularisation projects. Of course, the Left forces existed in industrial trade unions, on the university campuses, students and youth movements, and in the peasant movements, and through certain effected cultural organisations in both theatre, literature and art, too. A changing global economy and the disintegration of the USSR has weakened Left forces in recent decades.

One of the reasons why in recent years more and more Hindus have embraced Neo-Hindutva is the real question to be addressed, here. To my understanding, this question is fundamental because the attack on rationality and ever-increasing receptivity of the falsehood and of the distorted history is linked with this issue. This leads us to another question, how did we deal with the Muslim communalism, in the colonial era as well as in post-independence era?

What proportion of the Muslim literati looked at India’s ancient past with desirable and reasonable pride? Why did Shibli feel more agitated to write in defence of Aurangzeb? Why did he write biographies only of Muslims – non-Indian, Arab-Muslims at that? What proportion of Muslim elites are self-critical? To what extent do they look critically upon the ideas, institutions and history-making individuals of Muslims? What made a section of Muslim elites run a narrative of venerating Aurangzeb as Zinda Pir, and adding the suffix of rahmatullah alaih too?

An honest answer to those questions may help us find one of the missing answers for the first question I raised here as to why more and more Hindus have been embracing majoritarianism in recent decades.

The vilification and/or “villainisation” of Medieval Muslim rulers by Hindu majoritarian and reactionary forces, by stating half-truths, or putting out facts in a distorted manners, is just one problem! What is the obverse side of this problem? Why do a section of Muslims of today feel so very compelled to defend and justify and eulogize only a certain kind of Muslim rulers?  Omission of the story of valiant resistance and confrontation of British colonialism by Tipu Sultan is an obvious problem. The latest NCERT edition has omitted Tipu. A valid resistance to this politics does require that certain facts about Hyder-Tipu rule should not be ignored or omitted by secularists too. The Moplah-Nair “communal” conflict has an agrarian history of land ownership as to whose ownership preceded whose, before and after Hyder-Tipu rule? D N Dhanagre (Past and Present, OUP, vol. 74, 1977) has written about this. Quite a secular historian. Yet, that fact, uncomfortable for Muslims and Liberals and Left, has been obviously overlooked. Ignoring these aspects of history not just makes us intellectually dishonest, it also thereby weakens the legitimacy of our resistance. And that is how we self-restrict building a solidarity for our cause. We have to rethink and introspect.

I recall having read a long interview of Intezar Husain, with Umar Memon (July 1974), published in the early 1970s. (English rendering carried in the Journal of South Asian Literature, 1983). Intezar reminded us Muslims that, in comparison with the Hindus, our attitudes vary. This variation hasn’t been addressed as adequately as required. That has contributed to communalisation and pushing the country rightward.

Our discriminatory and dishonest treatment of both communalisms might be one of the factors why Hindutva has been gaining greater acceptance among growing number of Hindus?

I would therefore seek your permission to make you a bit uncomfortable at least in the last segment of this talk, if not intermittently throughout the talk.

Intezar argued that Shibli Nomani “continually romanticised our history, but there were some other aspects of our history which he didn’t describe at all”. Nirad Chaudhuri’s Continent of Circe, “dealt with the history of India and analysed the Hindu community in an uncompromising and even brutal manner”. “The Muslim community has taken great pride in the fact that the philosophy of history was born among Muslims. But the fact is that these Muslims do not face their history squarely, but merely picked out its good features and then celebrated these as the entire whole of our history. Nirad Chaudhuri’s approach is completely the opposite since he has no wish to “celebrate” the history of the nation of which he is one individual. We see him striving to reach its essence and to present that essence without regard to how his own people would react to it”, argued Intezar Husain.

Now, my question is this: why when such issues were raised in the 1970s, did they remain unaddressed (or inadequately) addressed as before? Addressing these questions may help us understand, at least partly, why more and more Hindus have begun to hate Muslims incrementally.

I have already referred to Syed Anwar Ali’s Urdu book Hindustan Mein Islam. This could be a case study to measure the Muslim right wing’s way of looking at post-Independent Indian History (and their political intent too) Anwar was a faculty at AMU.

As the Hindu right wing has engaged more in vilifying Muslim rulers in general, they appear to be less interested with the Muslim right wing’s knowledge production in India. The day they take this up, things would become even more difficult in terms of building solidarity and resistance against Neo-Hindutva.

Leaving this at that, let us come around the issue of Partition. The subject has been taught through the prism of causes, not on consequences. Why? Because, causation is motivated with the idea of blaming someone and absolving others. In this case, since the League asked for Pakistan and got it, it has to share greater blame. Nonetheless, in such a restricted or selective teaching of the causes behind Partition, Muslims and Muslim League are hardly distinguished from each other, even in among some of liberal circles.

Why is it that stories and narratives of Muslim resistance to Partition remain under-explored, under-prescribed and under-popularised? Why do a good number of educated Muslims of India still rejoice in a historical literature which absolves Jinnah and his League? I leave this question for certain sections of the Muslim educated elite of India: to undertake an honest self-introspection on this count too.

Following two works of Muslim writers are very significant in the genre of anti-League Partition literature.

Syed Tufail Ahmad Manglori’s 1946 book, Musalmanon Ka Raushan Mustaqbil, got translated into English in 1994 only. Similar literature, such as Hifzur Rahman Seohaarvi’s 1945 book, Tehreek-e-Pakistan Par Ek Nazar, remain least known. Does this mean that in academic circles as well as in the popular domain, anti-League Muslims remain lesser known? How many of the Muslim literati really talk about such figures and such writing? I have spent over three decades as student and as teacher in AMU. Few years back, when I was addressing an AMU gathering, on Tufail Manglori (Manglauri), the founder of the City School and shared that he was an ace wicket keeper of the MAO College Cricket team, the information was received by a large audience with surprise. Very few knew about this. A good number of Muslims do remember Seohaarvi as an ex-MP but his anti-League book, Tehreek-e-Pakistan is hardly known even among the literati or the chatterati.

Mushir-ul-Haq (1933-1990) has demonstrated it very well in his 1972 essay, “Secularism? No; Secular State? Well- Yes”. In this essay Haq highlighted a contradiction in the approach of some Muslim leaders. He observed that while they might publicly criticise “secularism” as a concept, they would simultaneously defend the “secular state” and the constitutional protections it afforded them, such as minority rights and the freedom to manage their own religious and educational institutions. He pointed out that this stance could appear to be a form of double standards.

With this, the point I am trying to emphasise here is: in order to strengthen the fight against Neo- Hindutva and in order to strengthen the hands of the likes of Yogendra Yadavas, Apoorvanands, Harsh Manders, Ravish Kumars, Ruchika Sharmas, we ought to resolve that critiquing and exposing the Muslim right wing should not be the business best ignored by thought-leaders, opinion-writers, academics, public intellectuals bearing Muslim names. They must not shy away from this urgent task. They must not keep arguing to the tune that ‘this is not the right time for burdening Muslims of India’ with such a task. For too long we have made such a fallacious and counterproductive argument. This is one of the many factors having contributed to the rise of Neo-Hindutva. The projects of communalising the textbooks, the state and the society have been gaining strength with the way we have been arguing, “this is not the right time to critique, expose and resist the Muslim conservatives and right wing ……’

Do we really even realise the depth of the threat?

I am very sorry to say the answer to this question is not in the affirmative. I am saying this with the unique experience of working with and living on a Muslim majority campus. This is a pessimism coming from me who in his own self-assessment is not someone who gives up on anything easily.

Before I leave, I must clarify what Neo Hindutva is:

The term “Neo-Hindutva” is a relatively recent academic and journalistic concept used to describe the evolution and new expressions of Hindu nationalism in contemporary India, popularised by scholars such as Edward Anderson and Arkotong Longkumer in a 2018 special issue of the journal Contemporary South Asia and an earlier 2015 article, which is, “idiosyncratic expressions of Hindu nationalism which operate outside of the institutional and ideological framework of the Sangh Parivar”, quite distinct from  the modernisation of Hinduism by figures like Swami Vivekananda in the late 19th century.

Neo-Hindutva is defined as a more diffused, mainstreamed, and adaptable version of traditional Hindutva. Unlike the original ideology formulated by Vinayak Damodar Savarkar in 1923, which was explicitly a political theory of Hindu nationhood, Neo-Hindutva is characterised by its ability to permeate new spaces and take on various forms.

Key characteristics that distinguish Neo-Hindutva from its traditional counterpart include:

• Mainstreaming and Normalisation: It is no longer confined to the institutional and ideological boundaries of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and its affiliates (the Sangh Parivar). Instead, it has become a normalised, everyday discourse that is seen in popular culture, social media, and even in spaces like yoga and spiritual movements.
• Focus on Development and Neoliberalism: Unlike traditional Hindutva, which was often viewed as separate from economic policy, Neo-Hindutva has been linked to a specific brand of neo-liberalism. It often frames economic progress and material prosperity as a result of and a prerequisite for Hindu assertion. This ties national pride and economic growth together.
• “Hard” vs. “Soft” Expressions: Scholars like Anderson categorize Neo-Hindutva into two types: Hard Neo-Hindutva: This includes groups and movements that are openly connected to Hindu nationalism but operate outside the direct control of the Sangh Parivar, often with a more militant or vigilante approach. Soft Neo-Hindutva: This is a more subtle and concealed form, often avoiding explicit links to majoritarian politics. It operates through think tanks, international organisations, and cultural groups that promote a Hindu identity and narrative under the guise of cultural preservation, charity, or community building.
• Appeal to new constituencies: Neo-Hindutva has expanded its appeal beyond the traditional upper-caste support base by incorporating and co-opting the aspirations of lower-caste groups and Adivasi (tribal) communities, often by offering them a space within a broader, unified Hindu identity.

Thank you for the patience in listening to my discomfiting words!

(The author presented this view on August 4, 2025 at a symposium held at the Constitution Club of India, New Delhi, topic Distortions in the Syllabus of History Books; the presentation sent to us by the author has been suitably edited for publication)

[1] Brazilian educator, Paulo Freire written in Portuguese between 1967 and 1968.

[2] Assistant Professor of History and Endowed Professor of Israel/Palestine   in the Program for Jewish Studies at the University of Colorado Boulder

[3]  2008 comic novel by the Pakistani writer Mohammed Hanif. It is based on the 1988 aircraft crash that killed Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq, the sixth president of Pakistan.

The post Distortions in the syllabus of history books, an uncomfortable perspective appeared first on SabrangIndia.

According to the report, the decision follows a meeting chaired by the Home and Political Department on July 17, 2025, under instructions from Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma. According to the official minutes, Foreigners Tribunals have now been instructed that they are “not supposed to pursue cases of foreigners belonging to the six specified communities…who had entered into Assam on or prior to 31.12.2014.” District Commissioners and police heads have been asked to hold immediate meetings with tribunal members and submit periodic action-taken reports on the withdrawal of such cases. This executive diktat, that clearly discriminates against citizens based on faith (violation of Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Indian Constitution) and has still to be accessed in the public domain (through a notification etc)

This comes just over a year after the Union Government notified the long-pending rules of the CAA in March 2024, nearly five years after the Act was passed in Parliament amidst widespread protests. The law fast-tracks Indian citizenship for undocumented migrants from Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Afghanistan belonging to six religious groups—excluding Muslims, Sri Lankans and Buddhists—on the condition that they entered India before the cut-off date of December 31, 2014.

The state’s internal notification also “encourages and supports” affected persons from these communities to apply for Indian citizenship under the CAA. Simultaneously, district authorities have been told to ensure compliance with earlier state instructions to withdraw cases against individuals from the Gorkha and Koch-Rajbongshi communities—both identified as politically significant electoral blocs.

Electoral calculations, policy contradictions

The timing of these directives is politically significant. Assam heads to the polls in 2026, and the withdrawal of cases against Bengali Hindus, Koch-Rajbongshis, and other non-Muslim groups may be read as a strategic move to consolidate the BJP’s support base. In April 2025, the CM had already promised to revoke 28,000 pending FT cases against Koch Rajbongshis—a move greeted with both celebration and skepticism. Detailed report may be read here.)

However, the credibility of these decisions remains under question. Despite the state’s commitment to drop all FT proceedings against Koch Rajbongshis, hearings continue against members of the community, such as Kishor Barman, whose case was heard at the Kajalgaon FT just days after the CM’s announcement.

These inconsistencies echo past episodes. For instance, despite an earlier 2021 promise to halt all new FT references against Gorkhas, members of the community have continued to face exclusion and legal scrutiny, including a former army jawan whose case reached the Gauhati High Court.

Moreover, while the government claims that indigeneity is a basis for withdrawing cases, especially in the case of Koch Rajbongshis. other indigenous communities like the Goria, Moria, Deshi, and Sayeed Muslims continue to be targeted by the FT system. The term “Khilonjia” (original inhabitants) remains undefined in Assam’s legal framework, raising troubling questions about the political selectivity of who gets protected and who remains vulnerable.

The CAA-NRC Convergence: A weaponised citizenship regime?

These developments lay bare the core fears that had animated the mass protests against the CAA in 2019–2020: that the law, in tandem with the National Register of Citizens (NRC), would create a two-tiered citizenship regime—offering protection and rehabilitation to non-Muslim undocumented migrants, while leaving Muslims, Sri Lankans and Buddhists vulnerable to statelessness and detention.

In August 2019, Assam released the final NRC list, excluding over 19 lakh people—around 5.7% of applicants. As per CM Sarma’s own admission in March 2024, this excluded group included five lakh Bengali Hindus, two lakh Assamese Hindus (from groups like Koch-Rajbongshi, Kalita, and Sarma), and 1.5 lakh Gorkhas.

Sabrangindia was the first to report on the demography of the exclusion. (Over 7 lakh Hindus among those excluded from the NRC, leaked data suggests)

The BJP’s public stance has been that Hindus left out of the NRC would be protected through the CAA—a promise that is now being visibly executed. But for Muslims similarly excluded from the NRC, no parallel legal shield exists. Instead, they continue to face FT proceedings, with the risk of indefinite detention, being illegally pushed back or statelessness.

A legally divisive, politically calculated shift

The state’s current instructions, coupled with CM Sarma’s selective commitments, reinforce what critics have long argued: that the CAA-NRC framework is less about identifying undocumented migrants and more about institutionalising religious discrimination in India’s citizenship law. Assam’s implementation model offers a blueprint of how this discrimination is playing out on the ground—one in which the fate of a person’s citizenship is decided not by facts or legal consistency, but by their religion, political expediency, and electoral arithmetic.

As Assam moves closer to the 2026 elections, the government’s latest moves seem less about course correction and more about shaping a religiously filtered citizenry—an outcome long feared by constitutional scholars, civil society groups, and affected communities alike.

Related:

‘An Explosive Situation’: Gun licences, evictions, and the manufacturing of a majoritarian crisis in Assam

Assam’s Foreigners’ Tribunals bypass constitutional safeguards: Report

Development by Displacement: Assam evicts thousands for Adani project without due process

The contested interpretation of the Immigrant Expulsion from Assam Act, 1950

The post Assam Government moves to drop ‘foreigner’ cases against non-Muslim communities citing Citizenship Amendment Act appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In a strongly worded statement of commemoration on August 6, 2025, the Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament and Peace (CNDP) states that, ‘as we mark eight decades of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we must confront the fact that this template of misinformation crafted in 1945 remains largely intact. Today, we live in an era where media monopolies and concentrated information power have reached unprecedented levels. Social and mainstream media alike often serve more as instruments of propaganda rather than as platforms for critical analysis. As a result, the global public remains dangerously uninformed about what a nuclear war would actually mean for humanity and the planet.

‘We are witnessing an alarming resurgence of militarism and nuclear brinkmanship. Nations are modernising their arsenals, dismantling arms control frameworks, and inflating defence budgets. Today, from South Asia to West Asia, nuclear tensions simmer dangerously. Recent escalations from the near-war between India and Pakistan to Israeli-US strikes in Iran underline how quickly the threat of nuclear confrontation can re-enter our reality.

‘But perhaps the most insidious threat lies in how these issues are reported or rather, misreported. Public fear is stoked without accompanying understanding. The voices of peace, disarmament, and justice are routinely marginalised, while the dominant narratives reinforce inequality, nationalism, and the illusion of “strategic deterrence.”’

On this occasion, says the statement, the Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament and Peace (CNDP), Indian Doctors for Peace and Development (IDPD) and PEACE has also organised a special lecture by senior journalist and founder of the People’s Archive of Rural India, P. Sainath entitled The Media and the Bomb- The Big Lie template for reporting nuclear issues was set in Hiroshima-Nagasaki. The lecture will be chaired by Prof. Anuradha Chenoy (Academician) and is being held at HKS Surjeet Bhawan, New Delhi on Saturday August 9 at 5 p.m.

Related:

Anti-nuclear activist raise alarm over India’s ASAT missile testing

Keyboard commandos, here’s one simple reason why nuclear war is a bad, bad thing

The post Militaristic nationalism, pushed by complicit big media have blurred dangers of nuclear war to the planet: CNDP appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The report of Al Jalzeera states that the killer, Yinon Levi, a settler from the nearby illegal outpost of Carmel, opened fire indiscriminately after tensions flared over a bulldozer damaging Palestinian infrastructure. The bullet struck Hathaleen in the chest as he stood near the community centre yard—a space he helped build, and where he taught children the English language.

According to the report of The Guardian, despite his critical injury, Israeli forces did not allow a Palestinian ambulance to take him. Instead, a military ambulance from the Carmel settlement transported him. Later that night, Israeli authorities informed his family of his death—without returning his body. To date, Israeli officials continue to withhold the body, in violation of Islamic customs that require immediate burial.

Sequence of events leading to the killing

The violence began the day prior, when a settler-operated bulldozer entered Umm al-Kheir and began destroying agricultural land and vital infrastructure, including a water pipe. Villagers had attempted to coordinate its passage to avoid such destruction, but their warnings were ignored. According to witnesses, the bulldozer operator used the vehicle’s claw to strike a villager in the head, leaving him semi-conscious.

As villagers gathered to protest, according to AP News, Levi reportedly emerged with a gun and began firing toward the crowd. Hathaleen was standing at a distance of about 10–15 metres, observing the unfolding situation. One eyewitness, Israeli activist Mattan Berner-Kadish, recounted to Al Jalzeera that Levi showed no remorse and was overheard saying: “I’m glad I did it.”

Berner-Kadish also stated that Israeli soldiers who arrived at the scene expressed sympathy with Levi, with at least three soldiers allegedly saying they wished they had shot Awdah themselves.

Aftermath and military crackdown

Following the killing, the Israeli army sealed off the village, declaring it a closed military zone, and arrested at least five members of the Hathaleen family. Among the detainees were relatives of the deceased and two international solidarity activists. Soldiers stormed the mourning tent, evicted mourners, and threw stun grenades at journalists and residents who resisted dispersal.

According to Vulture, despite the declared military closure, video footage later emerged showing a settler operating a bulldozer within the village, highlighting the disparity between military restrictions on Palestinians and impunity for settler activity.

Meanwhile, Israeli authorities charged Levi with negligent homicide, not murder. He was released to house arrest within three days. Levi had previously been sanctioned by the European Union, United Kingdom, and United States under President Joe Biden for violent settler attacks—but was delisted by Donald Trump on his first day in office.

A legacy of peace and education

Awdah was deeply embedded in the cultural and resistance life of Masafer Yatta. A teacher by profession and an activist by necessity, he taught English to grades 1 through 9 in the local school, believing language could be a tool to amplify Palestinian voices globally.

He was also a co-producer and on-screen voice in the Oscar-winning documentary “No Other Land,” directed by Basel Adra and Yuval Abraham, which captured Israel’s systemic efforts to evict Palestinian communities from their homes in the firing zones of Masafer Yatta.

Beyond activism, Awdah was remembered as a devoted father to three young children—Watan (5), Muhammad (4), and Kinan (7 months)—and a vibrant presence in the community. He was known for his love of football, often playing with children on the makeshift pitch outside the community centre, and for his affection for Real Madrid. He was also described as a coffee connoisseur, regularly gifted Italian coffee by international allies.

“There was nobody who contributed as much to the community in Umm al-Kheir as Awdah,” said his cousin and brother-in-law, Alaa Hathaleen, as reported by Al Jalzeera.

“He was a radical humanist,” said Micol Hassan to Al Jalzeera, an Italian-Jewish activist and close friend who has been barred by Israel from reentering the West Bank.

Final message and global response

In a message sent just hours before his death, Awdah warned: “The settlers are working behind our houses… they tried to cut the main water pipe… If you can reach people like the Congress, courts, whatever, please do everything.”

His killing has drawn international condemnation. The French Foreign Ministry called it “a form of terrorism,” urging Israel to ensure accountability. Human rights lawyer Michael Sfard called settler violence “state violence” in Israel, citing widespread legal and military backing for settlers.

As reported by Al Jalzeera, Basel Adra, his colleague and co-director of No Other Land, wrote in mourning: “My dear friend Awdah was slaughtered this evening. This is how Israel erases us—one life at a time.”

Settler violence in context

The killing of Hathaleen is part of a broader pattern of increasing settler violence in the West Bank. Since October 2023, at least 1,009 Palestinians have been killed and over 7,000 injured, many in attacks involving armed settlers under the protection of Israeli military units. According to international law, all Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank are illegal.

Umm al-Kheir, like many villages in Masafer Yatta, lies within Area C, a zone where Israel maintains full civil and military control. The entire region has been designated a “firing zone” by Israel, a status Palestinians say is used as a pretext to forcibly evict communities. Awdah had been documenting and resisting this very policy until the last day of his life.

Related:

Gaza: 700 citizens demand release of detained Madleen activists, call upon UK to fix Israel’s accountability for genocide, blockade, war crimes in Palestine

Illegality of the Israeli Occupation of Palestine

Former DU Professor, Achin Vanaik, stands by his lecture on Palestine despite pressure

Mumbai police’s FIR against individuals at prayer gathering commemorating children killed in Palestine condemned: PUCL

“Don’t pray for Palestine,” Delhi Police reportedly warns mosque imams

The post Palestinian peace activist Awdah Hathaleen shot dead by Israeli settler in occupied West Bank appeared first on SabrangIndia.