MAULANA ABUL KALAM AZAD : !!!!! HIS LEGACY IS AN ANTIDOTE TO MAJORITARIAN CHAUVINISM !!!!!

Born in 1888 as Mohiuddin, he was a man of many parts. A precocious student, home-schooled and self-taught, he completed his religious curriculum at the age of 16. But his interpretation of Islam was not conventional. He believed in independent thinking based on reason and was critical of what he called “the shackles of conformity” and literal interpretations of Islamic texts. At a very early age he began a remarkable career in journalism. His writings and speeches in Urdu, unparalleled for their eloquence and sophistication, earned him the sobriquet Abul Kalam (father of speech), which became his adoptive name.

On February 22, 1958, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru went on air to announce: “Aaj hamara Mir-e-Karavan chala gaya (today we have lost the leader of our caravan).” He was referring to India’s first Education Minister Maulana Azad who had just passed away. Azad was the youngest and the longest serving President of the Congress during the freedom struggle.

He found no contradiction between being an Islamic scholar and an ardent Indian nationalist. He considered the fight for an independent, united India a part of his religious creed. Azad declared, “I [as a Muslim] am proud of being an Indian. I am part of the indivisible unity that is Indian nationality. I am indispensable to this noble edifice and without me this splendid structure is incomplete.”

Beginning in 1912 with the publication of his weekly Al-Hilal, Azad threw himself whole-heartedly into the independence struggle. He joined the Congress in 1920, when Gandhi launched the non-cooperation agitation in conjunction with the Khilafat movement, and became its president in 1923. Particularly committed to building bridges between Hindus and Muslims, he opposed separate electorates, which he attributed to the British policy of divide and rule. He vigorously challenged the separatist ideology of the Jinnah-led Muslim League, which he termed a “death knell” for Indian Muslims, earning him the derogatory epithet “Congress’s Muslim show boy” from Jinnah. During the Quit India movement, he was imprisoned from 1942 to 1945 with other senior leaders of the party. He led the Congress delegation to the failed Shimla Conference, convened to break the impasse between the Congress and the Muslim League.

Despite the Congress’s acceptance of Partition in 1947, Azad’s opposition to it remained undiminished. He wrote 10 years after Partition in India Wins Freedom, “As a Muslim, I for one am not prepared for a moment to give up my right to treat the whole of India as my domain and share in the shaping of its political and economic life. To me it seems a sure sign of cowardice to give up what is my patrimony and content myself with a mere fragment of it.” No proponent of Akhand Bharat could have said it better. It is unfortunate that Maulana Azad’s legacy, a superb antidote to majoritarian chauvinism so rampant currently, is all but forgotten today.

Source: Mohammed Ayoob a University Distinguished Professor & Emeritus of International Relations, Michigan State University

BATTLE OF BUXAR - 1764

The company sent in relief troops from Fort St. George of the Madras headquarters. The troops led by Robert Clive and Admiral Watson retook Calcutta on 2nd January, 1757. The treaty of Alinagar was signed between the Nawab and the Company.

However Clive's military ambitions were on the ascendancy. His troops captured the French settlement of Chander nagore. He tempted Siraj's uncle Mir Jafar to ally with him in exchange for the Nawab's position. On 23rd June, 1757, the Company troops marched against Siraj. Betrayed by his own men Siraj was defeated in the Battle of Plassey, which is said to have lasted only a few hours. He was soon assassinated in his capital Murshidabad. From being traders, the Company turned kingmakers in Bengal and Mir Jafar was installed as the new Nawab. 

Clive got his pound of flesh from the Nawab in terms of 234,000 pounds and was awarded an annual salary of 30,000 pounds per year. This made him one of the richest Britons in the world. The company also secures rights over a large area south of Calcutta. Construction of a new Fort William was started and was completed in 16 years in 1773. These events led to the rise of Calcutta and the decline of Murshidabad.

It is said that the origins of Calcutta's most famous public festival - the Durga Puja can be traced to the victory of the British in Plassey. Raja Naba Kissen Deb, a financial backer of the Company, threw a party in honor of Robert Clive during the occasion of Durga Puja.

In 1760, Mir Jafar was succeeded by his son-in-law Mir Kasim. He handed over the districts ofChittagong, Midnapore and Burdwan to the Company. Robert Clive returned to England in the same year. Mir Kasim (reign:1760 to 1763), made an attempt to recover Bengal from the hands of British. In 1764, he enlisted the help of Mughal Emperor Shah Alam II and Nawab Shuja Ud Daulah of Oudh. But their troops were defeated in the Battle of Buxar by the company troops led by Major Hector Munro.

The armies of Mir Kasim and his allies Emperor Shah Alam II and Shuja-ud-daula, Nawab of Avadh, out-matched the British in number. To Mir Kasim's force of 40,000 Robert Clive's army commanded by Major Hector Munro had about 18,000 men. Early on, East India Company forces had to retreat across the river. But they were allowed to get away; the forces retreat across the river. But they were allowed to get away; the forces regrouped and through a naval force attacked through the river route. Mir Jafar also had trained Afghan cavalry and modern cannon manned by European mercenaries and led a charge on the Company's forces. However, the Company relied on its strength of sequenced shooting-its musketeers put up volley of gunfire. This coordinated gun shooting became very much a trademark of the British way of war over the next few decades. The sheer power of gunfire ensured that attacking cavalry scattered.

The establishment of British paramountcy along with the diwani (revenue administration) of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa was the major significance of The battle of Buxar.

S.R. BOMMAI CASE !!!!!

Who was S.R. Bommai?

S.R. Bommai was the Chief Minister of the Janata Dal government in Karnataka between August 13, 1988 and April 21, 1989. His government was dismissed on April 21, 1989 under Article 356 of the Constitution and President’s Rule was imposed, in what was then a mostly common mode to keep Opposition parties at bay. The dismissal was on grounds that the Bommai government had lost majority following large-scale defections engineered by several party leaders of the day. Then Governor P. Venkatasubbaiah refused to give Bommai an opportunity to test his majority in the Assembly despite the latter presenting him with a copy of the resolution passed by the Janata Dal Legislature Party.

What happened then?

Bommai went to court against the Governor’s decision to recommend President’s Rule. First he moved the Karnataka High Court, which dismissed his writ petition. Then he moved the Supreme Court.

What did the Supreme Court do?

The case, which would go on to become one of the most cited whenever hung Assemblies were returned, and parties scrambled to for a government, took almost five years to see a logical conclusion. On March 11, 1994, a nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court issued the historic order, which in a way put an end to the arbitrary dismissal of State governments under Article 356 by spelling out restrictions.

What did the judgement say?

The verdict concluded that the power of the President to dismiss a State government is not absolute. The verdict said the President should exercise the power only after his proclamation (imposing his/her rule) is approved by both Houses of Parliament. Till then, the Court said, the President can only suspend the Legislative Assembly by suspending the provisions of Constitution relating to the Legislative Assembly. "The dissolution of Legislative Assembly is not a matter of course. It should be resorted to only where it is found necessary for achieving the purposes of the Proclamation," the Court said.

What happens if the Presidential proclamation is not approved by the Parliament?

"In case both Houses of Parliament disapprove or do not approve the Proclamation, the Proclamation lapses at the end of the two-month period. In such a case, the government which was dismissed revives. The Legislative Assembly,which may have been kept in suspended animation gets reactivated," the Court said. Also the Court made it amply clear that a Presidential Proclamation under Article 356 is is subject to judicial review.

 SEE ALSO: AMENDING PROCEDURE OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

What is the significance of the S.R. Bommai vs Union of India case?

The case put an end to the arbitrary dismissal of State governments by a hostile Central government. And the verdict also categorically ruled that the floor of the Assembly is the only forum that should test the majority of the government of the day, and not the subjective opinion of the Governor, who is often referred to as the agent of the Central government. "The Chief Minister of every State who has to discharge his constitutional functions will be in perpetual fear of the axe of Proclamation falling on him because he will not be sure whether he will remain in power or not and consequently he has to stand up every time from his seat without properly discharging his constitutional obligations and achieving the desired target in the interest of the State," the Court said.

When was the verdict’s impact was first seen?

In one of the first instances of the impact of the case, the A.B. Vajpayee government in 1999 was forced reinstate a government it dismissed. The Rabri Devi government, which was sacked on February 12, 1999 was reinstated on March 8, 1999 when it became clear that the Central government would suffer a defeat in the Rajya Sabha over the issue.

And later whenever the case of a hung Assembly, and the subsequent exercise of government formation, came up, the Bommai case would be cited, making it one of the most quoted verdicts in the country's political history.

Prof K Nageshwar On Inclusiveness In Higher Education