Tag

saffronisation

Browsing

The recent conflict over the Madarsa Act, struck down on secular grounds, highlights rising
discrimination against Islamic Institutions in India. The SC ruling, though a relief, doesn’t discount the
growing hostility.

All governments affect education, but a totalitarian government disguised as a democracy does
that in the most detrimental way. It is easy to marginalize minority groups when the government
frames every unfavorable policy as a step towards equality, benefiting a majority that already
holds significant power. India has been no stranger to such circumstances. Over the past few
years, the Indian education curriculum has gone through several alterations. From the
infamously contentious New Education Policy 2020 to the controversial removal of chapters
Based on the Mughal empire from the Class 12th NCERT syllabus of history, the Indian education system has been victim to the very active saffron agenda. Another evidence for the
claim comes forward as we look into the recent case involving the Madarsa Act.

The Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004 (Madrasa Act) was introduced to
regulate madrasas, or traditional Islamic educational institutions, under the state’s supervision in
order to ensure the standardization of madarsa education and align it with the state’s
mainstream educational policies. It provided a legal framework where religious education was
being imparted alongside the curriculum designed by the NCERT. The act came into the
Allahabad High Court’s attention when a lawyer argued that the Act violated Constitutional
articles 14, 15, and 21 and claimed that Madarsas failed to deliver quality education compulsory.
up to class 8th. The Allahabad HC went ahead with the case, and the resultant verdict argued for
the striking down of the Act completely. The Allahabad HC argued that the Act violated the
principle of secularism, it violated the Right to Education (RTE) and was in conflict with the
University Grants Commission Act, 1956.

The Allahabad HC’s decision to invalidate the Madarsa Act on the grounds of secular principle
and Right to Education is troublesome when viewed against the selective enforcement of such
principles. Madarsas were placed under intense scrutiny under the argument that secularism
requires all educational institutions to conform to a uniform standard. However, similar
measures are rarely directed towards other religious educational institutions, such as Hindu
Gurukuls, or Christian Convent schools. These institutions also emphasize religious teachings,
and promote particular values, yet operate with little government supervision or pressure to
succumb to state-mandated curriculum. This discrimination highlights a problematic double
standard, where secularism and educational rights are invoked solely in order to regulate
Islamic educational institutions. This selective application of ‘secular’ oversight makes one
question about the true intent behind such rulings, as it suggests that traditional Islamic
Educational practices are somehow less aligned with national educational interests or public
good compared to those of other faiths. By focusing specifically on madarsas, it can be inferred
that the ruling implies that Islamic educational practices uniquely require reform, while similar
religiously affiliated schools are free to operate without government interference. This exposes the
selective pressures placed upon Muslim communities in India.

This differential treatment of religious institutions not only negates the secular ethos that the
The court aims to uphold but also brings into light a growing trend of Islamophobia within the Indian
socio-political landscape. By disproportionately subjecting madrasas to perusal, the judiciary
has subjected the broader population to believing that Islamic practices and institutions are
inherently suspect and perhaps even in conflict with Indian values. This selective regulation
feeds into the existing narrative that Muslim communities and their institutions are somehow at
odds with the nation’s aspirations, further marginalizing them in public spheres. The current
government’s nationalist and right-wing policies have already contributed to rising Islamophobic
sentiment, and the Allahabad HC’s seemingly one-sided ruling reinforces this hostile climate by
validating the suspicions and prejudices against the Muslim community. In a time where
Secularism is used selectively to pressure one religious group; true equality under law seems to
be a utopian goal.

The Supreme Court’s final decision to overturn the Allahabad HC’s ruling has been welcomed.
by the Muslim community, however, this doesn’t discount the lengthening traces of Islamophobia.
in the nation. One might argue that the judicial rulings, including those on the Madarsa
Act and operate independently of the legislative government in power, emphasizing the principle of
judicial autonomy. Nevertheless, it is crucial to recognize that the government has significant
influence over the broader social and cultural climate in which these legal decisions are
interpreted and received. The current rightist government of India increasingly casts minority
communities, especially Muslims, in a negative light. By promoting narratives that depict Islamic
practices as extremist and backward, the Allahabad HC has, directly or indirectly, nurtured a
social environment that is more tolerant of Islamophobic attitudes. This shift in public sentiment
can create an atmosphere where biased perspectives subtly creep into various institutions,
including the judiciary, making it challenging for minority communities to maintain their rights.
and identities without facing suspicion or prejudice.

Read Also: From Killing Ideas to Killing Intellectuals: The Institutional Murder of G.N. Saibaba

Featured Image Credits: Hindustan Times

Ashita Kedia
[email protected]

Prof. G.N. Saibaba did not ‘pass away’ on 12th October 2024. He was gradually and brutally murdered by the state, the Indian academia, and our collective silence. The Indian university has become a graveyard, with students and academics being executed for voicing their opinions. Is staying silent the best that we are capable of?

 

The first time I came across G.N. Saibaba was in a social media post from 2022 that dealt with his ongoing case and featured the poem ‘I Refuse to Die’ from the collection of his prison poetry and letters, Why Do You Fear My Ways So Much? The poem and his case prompted me to buy the book and read more about him. G.N. Saibaba was the first poet I read after getting admitted to the literature program at the University of Delhi in 2022, and I carried the text with me to my first lecture in college only in the hope that someone would recognise it. The text became my first introduction to the oppression that the DU administration and the state are capable of meting out to a 90% disabled professor, even before I physically reached my college. It was only a matter of a few months before I would witness academic precarity firsthand in my department when my professors would be displaced, and later, Prof. Samarveer Singh of Hindu College would be forced to take his life

 

G.N. Saibaba’s death is simultaneously, both a rare case of UAPA in which each institution of the state and even the university administration worked in tandem with each other but led to Saibaba’s eventual bail and also another case of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) imposed on the academic-activist on no solid grounds, except for his alleged “links with the banned Maoist party.” 

 

Though the BJP-led government has made significant amendments to the UAPA and excessively imposed it on students, academics, and activists to curb any criticism of the state in the last decade, it is important to note that the draconian law was imposed on Saibaba by the Congress-led UPA government in 2012. The misuse of the colonial era law by the UPA government, a part of which today stands as an alternative and the opposition to the NDA alliance, allowed the exploitation of the law and for it to be made arbitrary by the latter, to the extent that the law was amended to shift the burden of proof from the accuser, usually the state, to the accused, making bails in such cases extremely rare.

 

Though Saibaba was granted bail, he was not even allowed to visit his mother’s funeral and was physically tortured by the prison authorities during his abduction-cum-arrest from DU campus and in jail that led to the paralysis of his left arm, denied basic healthcare facilities, and even contracted the coronavirus twice while he was in jail. Despite all of these grave concerns, Saibaba was continuously denied bail, even though several high profile individuals were given bail during the pandemic. When he was finally acquitted in October 2022 by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, the Maharashtra government filed a petition and challenged the HC’s order at the Supreme Court, and on the very next day, Saturday 15th October 2022, a special bench of the SC comprising Justice Bela Trivedi and Justice M.R. Shah stayed the HC’s acquittal order, citing how the “brain is the most dangerous and integral part of committing terrorism-related offences”. 

 

The profiling of progressive academics, activists, and intellectuals as ‘terrorists’ has been made into a common practice by the state and the university administrations have also been actively complicit in this. It is alleged that a colleague of Saibaba at the Ram Lal Anand College was responsible for helping the state frame him in the case. Prof. Saibaba was also unfairly terminated from his job as an assistant professor at Ram Lal Anand College, DU even before he was proved guilty in the case. 

 

This atmosphere of fear and surveillance in the saffronised university space has not only been responsible for the death of several intellectuals but has also been actively used by the state to break networks of solidarity—in the case of Prof. Hany Babu who was a part of the defence committee for Saibaba and has also been incarcerated under UAPA. Even the lawyer Surendra Gadling who fought the case for Saibaba’s release was charged with UAPA and the judges who had acquitted Saibaba have faced consequences for the same. 

 

In conversation with DU Beat at a memorial organised for Saibaba, Professor Jenny Rowena, wife of Hany Babu, said,

We always talk about issues when somebody dies, then it becomes a viral thing. We saw Rohith Vemula when he was alive. How much attention do we give to these people? Even now, people who are in jail because they campaigned for Saibaba, like Hany Babu, Rona Wilson, and Surendra Gadling, who was their lawyer, are still in jail. These people also have a lot of health problems, so are we waiting for the same to happen to them? We all should really protest against UAPA. All condolence meetings that we have should also be against UAPA. There should be a mass movement against it, because they [the state] are using it ruthlessly now to crush any kind of opposition and dissent.”

 

The law has been reduced to a tool of state repression and is being increasingly used to arrest students, young activists, academics and other intellectuals who criticise the state under the garb of ‘national security’ and by labelling them as terrorists. Not only is it absurd that young students and 90% disabled professors are labelled as ‘terrorists’ and potential ‘threat to the nation’ but it is against the constitutional values that promote critical and free thinking. In fact the very structured and systematic manner in which each institution of the state and each public institution including the universities and the media is working in complicity with the state to corner dissenters is in itself a symptom of a regime of terror that the UAPA supposedly seeks to counter. 

 

It is also important to take into cognizance the notions of ‘terrorism’ that UAPA seems to be against. Is fighting for the rights of Adivasis and against their killings terrorism? Is peacefully opposing state operations such as Operation Green Hunt and Operation Samadhan an act of terrorism?

 

Is mere ‘links with Maoist organisations’, as Saibaba was accused of, or ‘possession of Marxist literature’ terrorism? If yes, do students of the humanities and social sciences, particularly literature and history, who study Marxism as a compulsory part of their course, pose a threat to the nation and are terrorists? Does mere engagement with or belief in a particular ideology that may or may not be critical of the state’s beliefs, constitute as terrorism? Today, even asking these questions can lead to the imposition of a UAPA case. In fact, academics who have worked on such topics for their PhDs are often harassed by prestigious academics and labelled as anti-national in job interviews. 

 

The law is being increasingly used to destroy public universities by imprisoning students such as Umar Khalid, Gulfisha Fatima, and Sharjeel Imam, among hundreds of other students for peacefully protesting against divisive laws, an undeniable law of each citizen. The incarceration of these students under UAPA have also been orchestrated so as to ‘set an example’ for dissenting students and to silence them, developing a disquiet culture of suppression and destroying the culture of resistance that India’s public universities have been known for. 

 

The constant ‘red-flagging’ of individuals who identify with the Left or are in opposition to the state policy and may or may not identify with the Left, in conjunction with the profiling of individuals as “urban naxals” by state authorities, including the Prime Minister, not only qualifies as discrimination on the basis of ideas and leads to connotations of anti-state and anti-national individuals, but also leads to anti-intellectualism that has been identified as one of the most important factors behind the development of a fascist state.

 

Though the judges at the Supreme Court have been citing how “bail is the rule and jail is the exception”, it does not seem to apply to UAPA cases, more than half of which are not being investigated, as per the National Crime Records Bureau. In Saibaba’s murder and the human right violations as a part of it, the state did not merely attempt, though unsuccessfully, to kill his ideas but also take away his life, as it did with Father Stan Swamy, Pandu Narote, and SAR Geelani. By unfairly terminating his contract with the university, it was ensured that Saibaba does not get to teach his students ever again and one of his most heartfelt desires to teach students after being released from prison, was left unfulfilled. As Saibaba remarked in one of his letters to his students and colleagues from the prison:

I hope none of you should feel sympathetic to my condition. I don’t believe in sympathy; I only believe in solidarity. I intended to tell you my story only because I believe that it is also your story. Also because I believe my freedom is your freedom.”

 

Even in solitary confinement, his desire for freedom was not restricted to himself. The campaign against him was not only unfair to him but also his family and also his students, who were not allowed to be taught by a brilliant scholar, teacher, and translator whose translations of Kabir have been the most significant and timely in English so far. 

 

Though we have been reduced to observing birthdays, death anniversaries, and anniversaries of arrests of activists and students as they remain incarcerated without trials and more than a handful of unsuccessful hearings, the outrage at the murder of Prof. G.N. Saibaba is both a culmination of our complicity in his murder and simultaneously a rupture in the amnesia surrounding state repression under UAPA. That should pave the way for a movement against UAPA and the larger culture of saffronisation-infused anti-intellectualism. For the message should be clear: the state should not and cannot kill ideas, let alone individuals. As Saibaba himself claimed and rightly so, he and his ideas and struggles refuse to be forgotten and to die..

 

Read Also: DU Collective comes together in solidarity and remembrance of Professor G.N. Saibaba

 

Featured Image Credits: Shahid Tantray’s Instagram 

 

Vedant Nagrani

[email protected] 

Under the guise of the Bharat Literature Festival (BLF), there is a discernible attempt to spread Hindutva ideology in academics and on campus. With declining academic freedom, BLF appears to be a facet of the regime’s wider effort to systematically alter academic discourse and the college environment.

On November 28th and 29th, 2023, Kirori Mal College (KMC) hosted the Bharat Literature Festival (BLF), which drew severe criticism from college students. BLF, which “intends to connect the learnings of the complicated past with the hope & aspirations of a fascinating future,” organised its Litfest in partnership with KMC. Various renowned authors and journalists were invited for the discussions. However, the event drew more criticism as its itinerary was released, which included discussions regarding RSS and Hindutva. “Pranam Main Hindu Hun: Exploring Inner Hindutva in Popular Culture”, “Sanghe Shakti: Bharat @2047”, “Indian Continent in the Era of Prime Minister Narendra Modi”, etc. were among the topics discussed. Not only the topics, but several of the invited speakers openly support the regime and have called for the genocide of Muslims in the past. 

When viewed in the context of the government’s increasing influence on academic structures, courses, academic discourses, and crackdown on academicians critical of the government, such discussions and events in a central university college with the college as co-organisers highlight how BLF is not just a litfest but a part of a broader movement seeking to assert and disseminate Hindutva principles within the realms of academics.

The Academic Freedom Index (AFI) report, published by the Global Public Policy Institute, placed India in the bottom 30% of 179 countries in 2022, with a score of 0.38 out of 1. Down to Earth extracted the Academic Freedom Score of India and found out that, “The country’s freedom index score was high in the past, ranging from 0.60-0.70 between 1950 and 2012, except from 1974-1978, data showed.” The AFI report reads, “Around 2013, all aspects of academic freedom began to decline strongly, reinforced with Narendra Modi’s election as Prime Minister in 2014.”

TW// Mention of suicide

The suicide of Rohit Vermula, the arrest of Umar Khalid, Natasha Narwal, and many other students under UAPA for participating in anti-CAA protests, the increasing crackdown on Kashmiri students, and the recent controversy over a research paper by an Ashoka University professor titled ‘Democratic Backsliding in the World’s Largest Democracy’, which alleged voter suppression to favour Modi in the 2019 election, all highlight the country’s deteriorating academic freedom. 

All of this, when reviewed in the context of NEP and CUET implementation, points to a more concerning scenario. With the adoption of CUET, student population diversity has decreased, with the majority of students being affluent ‘apolitical’ CBSE students from the North Belt. This apolitical student group fails to understand and acknowledge the hidden politics behind these events, and they fall into the trap that gradually shapes their way of thinking in the direction the regime wants. 

On the condition of anonymity, a third-year KMC student stated, “A lot of my friends and classmates were there, posting stories about BLF.” They are the same folks that will go and discuss casteism, patriarchy, and Islamophobia in their events and discussions. This set of students only wants to talk about these topics in order to feel good about themselves and fall into the category of ‘Progressive Liberal DU Student,’ while failing to understand the real-life ramifications and implementations of the same.”  

In a message circulated in Whatsapp groups, the principal wrote, “During the event, I expect you to (i) Be very disciplined and well behaved, (ii) Be appropriately well dressed according to the theme of the festival…Please note that there is no change in the teaching schedule of the college.” In contrast, students reported disruptions and class cancellations as a result of classrooms being converted into visitor rest areas. A volunteer from the BFL organising committee spoke about the threats posed by the conveners of their college societies. A person said, “We had pressure from the administration, who threatened us. The context for that is hard to explain, but we are being heavily monitored.” 

Another thing to notice here is the indirect imposition of Hindi throughout the event. The majority of the discussion titles were in Hindi, and there was no representation of North-East and South Indian literature at the event. Not just the language, but even the titles, were linked to the regime’s policies and marketing strategies. “Mann ki Baat: Confluence of Policy and Communication in New India” and “Namami Gange” are a few examples.

While all of these are sufficient to understand that the BLF is more than simply a litfest, it also serves as a means of spreading Hindutva ideology and BJP politics. Events like these, as well as the government’s growing control over academics, limit academic freedom, further eroding it. The AFI report explains, “Pressure on institutional autonomy and campus integrity combined with constraints on academics’ freedom of expression is what distinguished India from other countries’ scores on the index. The attacks on academic freedom under Modi’s Hindu nationalist government were also possible due to the absence of a legal framework to protect academic freedom.” The report’s authors further called on higher education policymakers, university leaders, and research funders to promote academic freedom in their own academic institutions as well as abroad.” But until then, the only ways to tackle religious politics and prevent them from impacting colleges and universities are through critical study of such events, self-education, and civil disobedience.

Read Also: The Fear of Being Identified

Featured Image Credits: KMC Instagram Page(@kmcollegedelhi)

DU Beat