The Indian Specific (‘SC affirms minority rights, units apart its verdict that rejected AMU standing’, November 9) succinctly outlined the 2 assessments that the Supreme Court docket utilized whereas overturning its 1967 ruling that denied Aligarh Muslim College (AMU) the standing of a minority establishment. They have been: “What’s the establishment’s origin? Objective? Is there a minority position in its establishing? Does its administration affirm minority character and serve minority pursuits?” In brief, the apex courtroom wished to uphold the aim for which AMU was created.
Syed Ahmad Khan, the inspiration behind AMU, belonged to a feudal Muslim household, joined the East India Firm in 1838 and retired in 1876. Throughout the First Conflict of Independence in 1857, he was loyal to the British and earned their belief. In 1869, Khan visited England the place he was awarded the “Order of the Star of India.” In 1887, he was nominated by Lord Dufferin to the Civil Providers Fee. The next 12 months, he based the United Patriotic Affiliation at Aligarh to advertise political cooperation with the British and safe Muslim participation within the British authorities. For his unwavering loyalty, Khan was honoured with the “Khan Bahadur” title and was knighted by the British authorities in 1888. He was additionally awarded the “Knight Commander of the Order of the Star of India” (KCSI).
Khan displayed outstanding flexibility in his rhetoric. Nevertheless, his core agenda was to deepen the divide between Hindus and Muslims whereas strengthening the bond between his fellow Muslims and the British rulers. On this context, Khan’s speech delivered in Meerut on March 16, 1888, is critical. Listed below are some excerpts:
“Now, suppose that the English group and the military have been to depart India … who then could be the rulers of India? Is it potential that below these circumstances, two nations — the Mohammedans and the Hindus — might sit on the identical throne and stay equal in energy? Most actually not. It’s needed that certainly one of them ought to conquer the opposite…
“God has stated that no folks of different religions may be mates of the Mohammedans besides the Christians… Due to this fact, we must always domesticate a friendship with them and undertake the tactic by which their rule might stay everlasting and agency in India and should not go into the palms of the Bengalis.” Khan expressed his disdain for Congress leaders by dismissively referring to them as “Bengalis”.
Over the last 13 years of his life, Khan established academic establishments for Muslims, together with Madrasatul Uloom Musalmanan-e-Hind and Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental Faculty. These establishments ultimately advanced into AMU, 22 years later, after his demise in 1898.
Has AMU lived as much as Khan’s expectations? In January 1941, the College students’ Union resolved that “one of the simplest ways to realize India’s freedom and to result in lasting peace within the nation is to try for the institution of impartial states within the areas of Hindu and Muslim majorities.” On March 10, 1941, Muhammad Ali Jinnah described AMU because the “arsenal” of Pakistan. “Aligarh is the arsenal of Muslim India (Pakistan), and you’re its greatest troopers”, he informed the scholars of the College. Muslims, who opposed the demand of the Muslim League for Pakistan, have been vilified by AMU college students. In 1941-42, Maulana Azad was attacked whereas passing by way of Aligarh on a railway prepare by the AMU college students.
F A A Rehmaney, the biographer of Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed (fifth president of India), has this to say about Aligarh’s position in Partition, “…from 1940 and onwards, the Muslim League made this College a handy and helpful media for the unfold of its political ideology, of sowing the seeds of the venomous two-nation principle… groups of scholars and lecturers of the College unfold everywhere in the nation explaining the virtues and goals to the Muslims in case Pakistan was fashioned…”
Earlier than Independence, then, there was an plain severance between India’s nationwide aspirations and AMU’s agenda.
After August 1947, a newly impartial India aimed to empower marginalised sections of society that had confronted historic injustices. As a part of affirmative motion, the Constituent Meeting launched reservation for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs). Nevertheless, AMU has persistently refused to increase reservation to the focused sections.
The core subject is whether or not establishments funded by impartial India ought to proceed to advertise the “function” for which they have been arrange by colonialists or be realigned with the aspirations of a brand new inclusive India. The Supreme Court docket has missed this very important subject whereas adjudicating this case. Its break up verdict seeks to show the clock again.
The author is former chairman of the Indian Institute of Mass Communication
