Barrister Mohammed Yaseen Nurie who served as a Minister in B.G. Kher’s cabinet
The lane leading from the iconic Mahim Dargah to Mahim police station has an important address: Nurie Villa. But you may never know it unless you enter the haveli-like home and meet its owner Owais Shakir Nurie. At the house’s delightfully decorated drawing room, Owais, 54, pores over a heap of old letters carefully kept in folders.
Look carefully as these letters, mostly typed but many handwritten too, reveal a lot about what Owais calls “the unsung hero, the forgotten freedom fighter who took Pakistan founder Muhammed Ali Jinnah head on.” These letters are addressed to Barrister Mohammed Yaseen (M Y) Nurie (1895-1971), Owais’s grandfather who lies forgotten in the saga of freedom struggle.
If our freedom movement, especially the years after Quit India Movement leading to Independence pockmarked by partition, was strikingly eventful, Nurie must occupy the place of an important player. Educated at Mohammedan Anglo-Oriental College (Aligarh Muslim University since 1920), Barrister from England, incarcerated for two years during Quit India Movement (1942), opposed Jinnah so much that he called Nurie “my fiercest competitor”, elected MLA from Ahmedabad in the 1937 provincial elections for the Bombay province which included Gujarat, made minister of public works in the B G Kher cabinet, Nurie played multiple roles and yet remains largely unsung.
Letters written to him by luminaries like Jawaharlal Nehru, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, Lal Bahadur Shastri, Morarji Desai, Syed Mahmud (External Affairs Minister), V K Krishna Menon (Defence Minister), S K Patil (Transport and Communications Minister), testify to Nurie’s importance in national and Maharashtra’s politics.
Yet, if Nurie does not figure immediately in the national imagination created and promoted, post-Independence, through careful curation and diligent deletion, blame it on the “syndicate” within the Congress party which suffered Indira Gandhi’s wrath for opposing her politics.
“Since my grandfather was in the syndicate led by the likes of K Kamraj and Morarji Desai, he too was denied positions in the 1960s and a place in the government-backed history projects,” says Owais, a govt contractor. “My father (Shakir Nurie) had seen how his father and the family suffered for siding with the Syndicate.”
The family was evicted from its rented Colaba home. “Nobody knew that there existed a tranche of letters, photographs and other documents related to my grandfather’s role in the freedom struggle and his interactions with so many important leaders till I opened the cloth bundle dumped at our Bewar (Rajasthan) haveli,” says Owais.
In his handwritten letter (November 17, 1956), Nehru profusely thanks Nurie for his birthday wishes. Through a 31st July, 1954 letter from Istanbul (Turkey), a director friend informs Nurie how Mehboob Khan-directed, Dilip Kumar-starrer Aan (1952) was a huge success in Egypt and he wants to show it in Turkey too.
Among the Nurie papers is a detailed protest letter Nurie lodged against a proposal to turn the historic Khilafat House in Byculla into a musafirkhana for Haj pilgrims. “It was due to his protest that the Khilafat House did not become the Haj House (it came up much later near Crawford Market). Nurie sahab had served the Khilafat Movement and knew its importance in our national life,” observes Khilafat House’s trustee Rauf Pathan, currently engaged in the redevelopment of this iconic building.
Owais thanks his friend Sunil Bhatia who drew his attention to the blog created by the Ministry of Culture as part of its initiative on “unsung heroes” under the Azadi Ka Amrit Mahotsav. Ministry officials jumped with excitement when they saw some of the letters and requested Owais to collect and add more credible information to the project on Nurie’s life.
At a meeting in 2018 in Ahmedabad, held by businessman Zafar Sareshwala, a Hindu businessman felicitated Owais after he learnt he carried the Nurie legacy, the freedom fighter who opposed Jinnah and, as PWD minister (1937-39), must have overseen work on Queen’s Necklace , Marine Drive.
source: http://www.timesofindia.indiatimes.com / The Times of India / Home> News> City News> Mumbai News / by Mohammed Wajihuddin / May 24th, 2026
Can a stable and just democracy flourish on foundations of wilful amnesia and erasure?
A c. 1800 painting showing the last stand of Tipu Sultan, ruler of Mysore in 1799 at the end of the Anglo-Mysore Wars with the East India Company. Photo: Henry Singleton/Public domain.
Many will ask why a book about Muslims who fought for India’s freedom? There’s no answer to such questions except another question. Had we been better memory keepers as a nation, could we have avoided the peak disinformation and stupidity which normalises reviling ordinary Muslims as outsiders, infiltrator and insurgents?
Muslim Freedom Fighters of India is a two-volume biographical compilation by Salim Khan on less-known, mostly forgotten and hardly known Muslim figures. The books aim to clear the fog around Muslim freedom fighters whose names are heard of without them being extensively known and this requires us to understand why this fog exists. Written in an extremely readable and accessible format, these biographical accounts embed the historical figures in the context of their times, responding to unprecedented events with foresight, clarity and conviction that sealed their fate and shaped and the nation’s destiny.
Whether we are reading about Generals of 1857 – Bakht Khan and Khan Bahadur Khan – or the Cambridge-educated Rampur scion Mohammad Ali Juahar of Khilafat moment and his fiery mother Bi Amma, the larger questions seething beneath the stories keep rising to surface. Who does a society and nation choose to remember and celebrate? Whose memories are deemed worthy of preserving? History is always shaped by those who control archives, narratives and memorialisation and hence memory.
Reading about Tipu’s dazzling reign through the three Anglo Mysore wars where he proved superior to British forces, I was reminded of the controversy sparked by the late Girish Karnad’s suggestion of naming the Bengaluru airport after Tipu Sultan. Karnad had said, “It is true that Tipu Sultan was not born in Bengaluru, but he was a son of this soil and a freedom fighter. Had Tipu been a Hindu, he would have achieved the status of Shivaji, and the airport would have been named after him.” I recalled Karnad because his play Dreams of Tipu Sultan echoes the same theme that this two-volume tribute to erased, obscured and deliberately unremembered historical figures echoes: that when politics lays down who should be forgotten, remembering the erased becomes a duty, an affirmation and a political act.
It is important to clarify that this is not a compilation of eulogies but well-researched fact based account of people who had the uncommon clarity to resist colonial domination even before the nationalistic narratives took shape. That they happened to be Muslims is important today because of the distortions that have obscured and erased them. But back then when they fought and resisted, they were simply rallying for the cause of their soil and their watan. From the earliest times they understood that freedom from foreign domination required Hindus and Muslims to put up a united front as in the war of 1857, the Khilafat movement, and the period between 1919 and 1924. Back then too, traitors cut across religious lines – Jagat Seth, Mir Jafar, and Ilahi Baksh.
Muslim Freedom Fighters of India: Part 1 and Part 2’, Salim Khan, Qalam Aur Kaagaz Books.
From Siraj ud Daulah to Tipu to Shahzada Firoz Shah, the book shows how the fog around these personalities is not accidental but meticulously designed – initially by the colonial mind, then picked up by early nationalists and woven into simplistic narratives. The macabre dance of history further stifled Muslim voices. Cataclysmic events like the ‘end’ of the Mughal Dynasty in 1857 and the Partition in 1947 sundered clans, erased family histories, legacies crumbled with no one is around to defend and uphold them. Today, even people who don’t know history have heard of Lakshmi Bai, but many who read history may not have heard about Shahzada Firoz Shah, the Mughal Emperor’s grandson who in August 1857, led a band of armed soldiers to rally the rebels in Rohilkhand and Malwa and who fought alongside Tatia Tope and called for a united Hindu-Muslim front against the Company.
The British understood the dangerous potential of popular memory and subverted any potential for memorialisation of hugely influential figures. No one knows if Shahzada Firoz died in battle or escaped to West Asia. The Maulavi Ahmadulla of Faizabad whose authority and fearlessness scared the British so much that they kept a reward on his head, was likewise interred in an unmarked grave. Knowing that even his memory could become a node to unite the rebels, the British saw to it that no commemoration was permitted or possible. Zafar, the last Mughal was exiled to Rangoon for the same reasons.
In her book, India, 5,000 years of history on the subcontinent, Audrey Truschke, elucidates how Muslim rulers like Nawab Siraj ud Daulah and Tipu Sultan to Zafar felt a responsibility for their subjects no matter what their religion. For example, Siraj ud Daulah actively intervened in times of famines and drought in Bengal. But after the British took over they did nothing to alleviate human suffering, so that 20% of Bengal’s population died in the famine of 1768 and the small-pox epidemic of 1769-70 following it. This had never happened during earlier episodes of failed harvests. Truschke says, British historians initiated the custom of categorising Indian rulers as tyrannical, effete and incompetent, reducing them to their religion and writing in terms of Hindu rulers and Muslim rulers. The British needed to demonise Muslim rulers who were their immediate predecessors in subcontinent so that they might look good by comparison, Truschke notes. It was a part of the colonial propaganda.
Another pattern Salim Khan’s compilation brings out is that from mid-18th century onwards, the first responders and the most committed crusaders resisting colonial domination – the kings, queens, princes, preachers, noblemen – were Muslims. Not only because the British had wrested from them the power they had wielded for centuries (howsoever fragmented or diluted it may have become); but also, because they were looked upon as leaders. In Awadh, for example, the Shia elite took it as their moral-ethical duty (see Chapter 7, volume I: Shia Ullema and Noblemen of Awadh)
Even in the 20th century, Muslim freedom fighters like Hasrat Mohani of the Inquilaab Zindabad fame and Asfaqullah Khan of the Kakori conspiracy who was an icon for Bhagat Singh, remain in the shadows, seen only in a hazy half-light. Were their contributions any less or only less remembered? One of the most important projects post-Independence should have been to restore memory and affirmation to those whom the British put on the wrong side of history, no matter what their religion or caste. But we know this is not what happened.
Since the arrival of the political controversy over Tipu Sultan, we have entered in an era of deliberate distortion of history. The larger question that these accounts refrain from asking but that jumps to any thinking person’s mind is this: can a stable and just democracy flourish on foundations of wilful amnesia and erasure? Should the memory of Muslim freedom fighters be kept only by the Muslims? The heritage and memory of Indian Muslims needs to be reclaimed by them. But equally, these volumes are required reading for the casually miseducated, hopelessly disinformed or simply ignorant Hindus who have been stupefied into denying and distorting their composite history.
Varsha Tiwary is a Delhi-based writer and translator. She has recently published 1990, Aramganj a translation of the best-selling Hindi novel Rambhakt Rangbaz.
Seohar Town (Bijnor District), BRITISH INDIA / NEW DELHI :
For too long, a handful of names have dominated the history of the years leading up to 1947 with Gandhi, Nehru, Jinnah, Patel being the most-often cited.
Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru and others at Governor-General‘s Dussehra reception held at Government House, New Delhi on September 29,1949. At extreme left is Asaf Ali, the then Governor of Orrisa. Edited via Canva. Photo: Photo Division, Govt. of India
For several years I worked in a publishing company situated on the bustling Asaf Ali Road, a road that serves as a cordon sanitaire between the squalor of Old Delhi and the (relative) order of New Delhi. Once an important business hub, by the time I went to work there in the late 1980s, this long stretch of colonnaded corridors with a warren of densely-packed offices wore an unmistakably grubby, down-at-heel look. At the head of the road, stood the statue of Asaf Ali in a derelict enclosure near Delhi Gate (or Dilli Gate as the locals pronounced it). The dark statue, generously speckled with startlingly white droppings from the many pigeons that frequent this neighbourhood, looked forlorn, especially so with the shervani-clad, bespectacled figure standing with hands clasped in a peculiarly supplicatory posture.
TCA Raghavan, Circles of Freedom: Friendship, Love and Loyalty in the National Freedom Struggle, Juggernaut (2024)
I must confess that in the four years I worked at Asaf Ali Road and passed this statue twice a day, morning and evening, it evoked no curiosity in me and I knew virtually nothing about Asaf Ali. Perhaps, his wife Aruna Asaf Ali’s name seemed more familiar given that she was still alive and active. I suspect I was not alone in this. For most people in Delhi, Asaf Ali is a forgotten footnote from long-ago history lessons, one of the many ‘obscure’ people who were part of the national freedom struggle. If the situation is so dismal in Delhi, where he had lived and worked, a city that had been home to his ancestors, I suspect it can only be worse in the rest of the country.
In writing Circles of Freedom: Friendship, Love and Loyalty in the National Freedom Struggle, TCA Raghavan corrects an old wrong. For far too long the tall poppies of the freedom movement have overshadowed the countless others who devoted their entire lives to the cause of independence and struggle against colonial rule. For too long, a handful of names have dominated the history of the years leading up to 1947 with Gandhi, Nehru, Jinnah, Patel being the most-often cited.
Over the past decade, with history being rewritten by new, dominant players, new names are being invoked and icons fashioned from often slender resources. In this unseemly clamour for space and recognition, some names have almost slipped through the crevices of the popular imagination, neglected and overlooked by the professional historian or, at best, relegated to the lowest rungs in a carefully crafted hierarchy of heroes. A park or a road named after the lesser-known evokes neither curiosity nor interest in their lives and the place they occupied in the shaping of a young nation. Asaf Ali (1888-1953) is one such person.
Raghavan’s book, however, is not a straightforward biography for it is not about Asaf (as the author calls him) alone. Instead, he chooses to tell his story through five protagonists who were inextricably tied by the threads of friendship and solidarity: Asaf Ali, Sarojini Naidu, Syud Hossain, Syed Mahmud and Aruna Asaf Ali. While Aruna enters this narrative quite late when she marries the much older Asaf, the other four meet in England just before the Great War where the three men have gone to study and Naidu, recuperating from an illness, is the erudite diva, eloquent poet, ardent nationalist and a veritable magnet for impressionable young men dreaming impossible dreams.
Over the next four decades, they meet, write long letters to each other, take a lively interest in each others’ lives and careers but ‘what gave meaning to their lives,’ as Raghavan notes in his conclusion, ‘was the great enterprise they chose to become part of’. And so it was the freedom struggle that not just formed the core of their relationship but also, in effect, shaped their lives. Were it not for this one singular, overwhelming zeal to seek freedom for their country, they could very well have lived other lives: Naidu would have remained a dulcet-voiced poet, both Asaf and Mahmud successful and wealthy barristers, Hossain a journalist and Aruna a do-gooder with no special qualifications. But such were the exigencies of the times that all five were caught up in different ways and different degrees with the national freedom struggle and that singular ‘great fight’ defined their lives.
With three extremely well-received books behind him – Attendant Lords: Bairam Khan and Abdur Rahim – Courtiers and Poets in Mughal India, The People Next Door: The Curious History of India’s Relations with Pakistan and History Men: Jadunath Sarkar, G. S. Sardesai, Raghivir Sinh and Their Quest For India’s Past – Raghavan, a former diplomat, can recreate history with the aplomb of a master story-teller and the meticulousness of a professional historian. Here, he weaves the events of the tumultuous years leading up to Independence with the lives of his five principal characters, keeping Asaf at the centre of his concern. Through Asaf, he teases out the nuances and dilemmas of the moderate Muslims in India who refused to be enamoured by the lures and promises of the Muslim League and remained steadfast in their devotion to the Congress and, by extension, Nehru.
The extreme deference that the nationalist Muslim leaders displayed towards Nehru is noted; each time a Muslim leader attempted to bring the ‘communal problem’ to Nehru’s notice, the latter would brush aside these concerns by saying, ‘The real problem is a political problem – the conflict between an advanced organisation like the Congress and a politically reactionary organisation like the League.’ Concerns of leaders such as Asaf who believed ‘self determination was preferable to a union that was forced’ were disregarded. Mindful of the suspicion that Muslim leaders within the Congress evoked amongst their colleagues, Raghavan notes, ‘Because he was a Muslim, the impression among some was that he was a fifth columnist for the League’. The coming of independence didn’t make it any easier for those Muslims who chose to stay on in India. Nationalism increasingly began to mean thinking and living in the Congress way and none other. Those who lived or thought another way came to be regarded as anti-national, a phenomena we see repeated in the New India that is Bharat, except that it is the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party that has replaced the ideological hegemony of the Congress.
Different readers will possibly take different things from this book: the broad brush strokes that delineate milestone moments from modern Indian history, Gandhi’s irresistible call to Quit India, the unfurling of the national flag at Gowalia Tank by a young Aruna that catapults her to national fame, the detailed account of jail-life for a group of high-profile, political prisoners inside the Ahmadnagar fortress, a meticulous dove-tailing of accounts from different sources and disparate perspectives to create a bright, colourful and immensely readable patchwork quilt of modern Indian history, and much else in this engrossing book.
I, however, was left with an ineffable sadness and a sense that the more things change, they remain the same – at least for India’s Muslims. Despite his many sterling qualities of heart and mind, despite a fine legal education, Asaf neither made a mark as a lawyer or a politician. Though seemingly destined for greatness, having aided fate by preparing himself assiduously for a life devoted to the larger good, Asaf never quite scaled the heights he aspired to. The few successes that came his way, such as a seat in the Constituent Assembly (from Delhi) or fighting high-profile cases such as those of Bhagat Singh or Shaikh Abdullah, were marred by controversy or a smaller share in the limelight than he felt he deserved. The mantle of statesmanship that should have fallen on him with the passing of Dr Ansari and Hakim Ajmal Khan, both national leaders from Delhi like him, and a seat at the high table that should have been offered to him as a veteran Muslim leader, did not happen.
Given the price paid by far taller leaders in the Congress – such as C. Rajagopalachari and Bhulabhai Desai – for showing initiative and thus offending the party high command, shows the extent to which the Congress, not unlike the League, was becoming a personality-dominated organisation. Asaf’s case was compounded – to use a modern expression – by the optics; his timorousness, his ‘going to pieces’ fretting with worry over his wife during his long years of incarceration, his marital woes, the shadow of mistrust and suspicion that clung to him all his life combined to create a persona that failed to inspire confidence.
For all his loyalty to Nehru, Asaf was not chosen for any cabinet position or placed on any important committee. Instead, he was sent as Ambassador to Washington, brought back to serve as Governor of Orissa and then sent again as Ambassador to Sweden where he died barely a few months into his tenure.
Just as being a moderate Muslim defined Asaf’s public persona, so did his marriage to Aruna. From a political novice she rapidly transformed into a stormy petrel causing immense anxiety, consternation and eventually a sadness in her husband. Raghavan is to be credited for staying steadfastly away from prurient gossip and portraying the changing contours of the marriage objectively: ‘… in fact the relationship had started changing quite early in the marriage and here Aruna’s own political journey was the driving factor.’ Reading between the lines of Raghavan’s carefully crafted text, one picks up the whiff of misogyny in the higher echelons of our national leadership. While acknowledging Aruna’s bravery and patriotism, Gandhi saw her as a ‘perpetual rebel’ and Nehru went so far as to call her ‘hysterical’ on one occasion – something Aruna never forgot.
Incidentally, Gandhi, who was vehemently opposed to inter-religious marriages and had opposed his son Manilal’s relationship with Fatima (a Gujarati Muslim) and Hossain’s alliance with Nehru’s sister Sarup Rani (later known as Vijay Lakshmi Pandit), endorsed Asaf’s marriage to Aruna. Read Circles of Friendship to find out why.
Rakshanda Jalilis a Delhi-based writer, translator and researcher.
source: http://www.thewire.in / The Wire / Home> Books / by Rakshanda Jalil / August 29th, 2024
The 234th Urs-e-Sharieff of Hazarath Tipu Sultan Shaheed, organised by Hazrath Tipu Sultan Shaheed Wakf Estate, Ganjam in Srirangapatna, will be held on May 16 and 17 at Gumbad-e-Shahi at Ganjam in Srirangapatna.
The Sandal procession will commence from Masjid-e-Ala in Srirangapatna at 3 pm on May 16 and will reach Gumbad-e-Shahi at 5 pm.
Special programmes will be held from 7 pm at Gumbad and will continue the whole night till next morning.
For details, contact Hazarath Tipu Sultan Shaheed Wakf Estate on Ph: 08236-252786 or Mob: 97390-58786, according to a press release.
source: http://www.starofmysore.com / Star of Mysore / Home>In Briefs / May 05th, 2026
The half-baked propaganda of communal forces against the Tiger of Mysore is trying to divide communities
THE Tiger of Mysore (Sher-e-Mysore) Tipu Sultan often finds space in sections of the media, especially in Karnataka. There have been occasions of State-sponsored celebrations of his birth anniversary and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) regularly creates obstacles to these celebrations, resulting in unnecessary ruckus. This time around, Tipu Sultan is in the news from Malegaon in Maharashtra.
The newly elected deputy mayor of Malegaon Shan-e-Hind Nihal Ahmad, put up the portrait of Tipu Sultan in her office, upsetting the Shinde group’s Shiv Sainiks and the BJP. These forces got the portrait removed with the intervention of the authorities. Some protests were also held.
Maharashtra Pradesh Congress Committee President Harshvardhan Sapkal got incensed and defended Tipu Sultan, claiming that the contribution of Tipu Sultan to Mysore is equivalent to that of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj in Maharashtra.
But, Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis did not like the idea of comparing Tipu Sultan and Shivaji Maharaj, as it was an insult to the latter. Following this absurd comment, the Congress office was pelted with stones by BJP workers and nearly seven people were injured in the ensuing mayhem.
The objection of the BJP to the statement from the Congress leader is that Tipu was a “mass murderer of Hindus” and he tried to convert Hindus to Islam. There are many other charges put against Tipu by Hindutva elements. Most of these try to project Tipu as anti-Hindu and a cruel king. This is far from the truth.
Lots of these myths are part of the communal narrative, accentuated by the British narratives, which are harsher against Tipu in particular. This is because he was one of the few rulers who fought against the British. Tipu had asked Nizam and the Peshwas to oppose the armies of the East India Company. He foresaw the dangers of British power entrenching in India.
Tipu’s administration was a mixed one, with many top officers being Hindus. Purnaiah served him as the Mir Miran (head of a department) and was crucial to his administration. Krishna Rao was his treasurer. Shamaiya Iyengar held a high-ranking ministerial position and Narsimha Iyengar held a position in the postal department. Tipu Sultan reportedly provided grants to the Sringeri Shankaracharya, including for the rebuilding of the temple and the installation of the Hindu goddess Sharada. He granted land and endowments to various temples throughout his kingdom. During his reign, the 10-day Dussehra celebrations were an integral part of the social life of Mysore.
In 1791, Maratha forces led by Raghunath Rao Patwardhan attacked and plundered the historic Sringeri Sharada Peetham, causing the Shankaracharya to flee. Upon learning of this, Tipu Sultan expressed deep anger, stating that those who committed such acts would face consequences, and promptly sent funds, gifts, and letters to restore the temple and reconsecrate the idol. The raid was part of the Third Anglo-Mysore War, during which Maratha forces caused significant destruction to the temple complex, including killing or wounding people and looting property.
Tipu Sultan, who frequently interacted with the Sringeri Jagadguru and addressed him with high respect, immediately ordered the Mysore administration to assist in the restoration, demonstrating his patronage of certain Hindu institutions. Evidence of this restoration is found in several letters in Kannada, preserved in the Sringeri monastery records, where Tipu requested the Jagadguru to pray for the prosperity of his kingdom.
Tipu Sultan was a staunch opponent of the British. There is an accusation against him that he persecuted some Hindu and Christian communities. The reason for this persecution, however, was purely political, not religious. About these persecutions, historian Kate Brittlebank says that “This was not a religious policy but one of chastisement”. The communities targeted by him were seen as disloyal to the State.
The communities Tipu targeted did not belong only to the Hindu stream. He also acted against some Muslim communities, like the Mahdavis. The reason was that these communities were supporting the British and were employed as horsemen in the East India Company’s armies. Another historian, Susan Bayly, says that Tipu Sultan’s attack on Hindus and Christians outside his state is to be seen on political grounds, as at the same time he had developed close relations with these communities within Mysore.
Sarfaraz Shaikh, in his book Sultan-E-Khudad has reproduced the ‘Manifesto of Tipu Sultan’ in which he declares that he would not discriminate on religious grounds and would protect his empire until his last breath. He had a great interest in rocket technology. This finds appreciative mention in Dr APJ Abdul Kalam’s book, Wings of Fire.
It is interesting to note that in the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh’s series for children on Indian history, they had published a book on Tipu in the 1970s. BJP’s Yeddyurappa had adorned Tipu’s headgear to solicit votes in the 2010 elections in Karnataka. Then President, Ramnath Kovind, sent a eulogising message on the occasion of Tipu Jayanti (2017). He has an RSS background. He praised Tipu by saying that “Tipu Sultan died a heroic death fighting the British. He was also a pioneer in the development and use of Mysore rockets in warfare.” Tipu – along with Rani Laxmi Bai – are also depicted as freedom fighters through drawings in Part XVI (page 144) of the original, hand-written and illustrated copy of the Indian Constitution.
Due to his policies, Tipu was popular among the people of Mysore. There are many folk songs, sung in villages, praising him. It is for this reason that one of our greatest playwrights, Girish Karnad, said that had Tipu been a Hindu, he would have the same status that Shivaji Maharaj has in Maharashtra. This is very close to what Sapkal stated, nothing extra.
This whole incident of opposing the portrait of Tipu in the Deputy Mayors’ office is one more instance of communal forces latching on to divisive politics. Kings should not be seen just by their religion; their policies towards people of different religions and people’s welfare should be the major criterion for evaluating them. Tipu stands very tall in this scale of religious tolerance. The half-baked propaganda of the communal forces is trying to divide communities.
A major tribute to Tipu was paid by Subhash Chandra Bose. He adopted Tipu’s ‘springing tiger’ as the insignia of Azad Hind Fauj, which fought against the British. The major contribution of Tipu was to forewarn the Indian rulers about the advancing threat of the East India Company, the British. It was for this that he bravely fought against the British and laid down his life in the fourth Anglo-Mysore War. The communal forces who are out to demonise Tipu belong to the ideology that did not even lift a little finger against the British rule.
source: http://www.clarionindia.net / Clarion India / Home> Opinion / by Prof Ram Punyani / February 18th, 2026
The Banyan tree on which the execution took place. Photo: Ghulam Ahmad Raza
During the 1857 revolt against British rule, Jharkhand too witnessed armed resistance. The rebellion had spread across regions including Ranchi, Hazaribagh, Ramgarh, Palamu and Singhbhum. In the dense forested border areas of Ranchi and Hazaribagh, the rebel forces were led by Shaheed Sheikh Bhikhari Ansari and Tikait Umrao Singh. From the dense jungles of the Chuttu Palu valley, their army fought British troops and prevented Ranchi from falling under colonial control. Both leaders were captured by the British forces on January 6, 1858 and were publicly executed by hanging on January 8, 1858, in the same Chuttu Palu valley.
The banyan tree on which they were hanged still stands today. The Jharkhand government has developed the surrounding area as a martyr memorial with the stated aim of preserving history and keeping alive the legacy of the region’s sites of resistance. Yet even today, many residents of the Chuttu Palu village where the memorial stands remain unaware of who these martyrs were.
Fifty-eight-year-old Nirmal Kumar, who works as a stone breaker near the memorial, often rests inside the premises during breaks. He says he has been coming here since childhood. Despite this, he is unaware of the historical significance of the site and does not recognise the names of Sheikh Bhikhari Ansari or Tikait Umrao Singh.
“I only know that blankets are distributed here every year on January 8,” he said. On the martyrdom anniversary, social workers and officials visit the site to pay tribute and distribute essentials among the poor.
Sanjay Munda, a resident of Chuttu Palu village, said that even today, most villagers do not know about the martyrs or the memorial’s history. “Members of the surrounding Scheduled Tribe (ST) and Scheduled Caste (SC) communities refer to the site in the local language as Fasiyahi Bar (tree where the hanging took place). Most people do not know about the 1857 revolt or the sacrifice of Sheikh Bhikhari and Tikait Umrao Singh,” he told Maktoob.
Despite the lack of awareness, locals often bow their heads in respect when passing the site.
The memory of these two revolutionaries who laid down their lives fighting British rule is slowly fading. Their history has largely been reduced to government files and digital web pages. On martyrdom days, ministers, officials and locals pay tributes, but beyond symbolic gestures, little is done. While the Jharkhand government has taken some steps to acknowledge them, no substantial initiative has been taken by the central government to formally recognise or honour their contributions.
Dr Muzaffar Hussain, researcher and author of Jharkhand ki Muslim Vibhutiyaan, says Muslim, SC and Adivasi martyrs have not received the recognition they deserve. “Jharkhand has produced many revolutionaries who sacrificed their lives for India’s freedom, but recognition has been limited largely to Birsa Munda only,” he said.
He points out that the 1857 revolt took place nearly 40 years before Birsa Munda’s Ulgulan (revolt). “Names like Nadir Ali, Imam Ali, Jatra Tana Bhagat, Sidhu–Kanhu, Phulo–Jhano, Nilambar–Pitambar, Sohbat Miyan, Chandan Miyan, Jaggu Miyan and Najahat Hussain are a part of Jharkhand’s resistance history during the 1857 revolt, yet they remain largely forgotten.”
Hussain argues that the Jharkhand government must project its revolutionaries on a larger scale for the central government to take meaningful steps. “Even platforms like Google and Wikipedia carry very limited information about them,” he said.
He suggests state-funded research, naming welfare schemes and government buildings after revolutionaries and honouring their descendants are ways to restore their place in public memory.
Ruchi Kujur, an activist working on SC and ST rights and a member of the Jharkhand State Commission for Protection of Child Rights, said every state has its own history, and Jharkhand is rich with stories of courage and resistance. “The list of Adivasi and SC heroes is long,” she said.
“People need to be made aware of their ancestors’ sacrifices. When these revolutionaries are honoured, it inspires the younger generation to work for society and the nation.”
Situated amid a valley rich in natural beauty, the martyr memorial complex (Shaheed Sthal) has been developed with basic amenities. Yet, several factors discourage people from visiting the site, further deepening the lack of public awareness about the martyrs. Surrounded by dense forests and hills, the memorial lies in an isolated location, with no human habitation within a radius of nearly five kilometres. This isolation is a major reason why people hesitate to visit the site, either alone or with their families.
The premise includes resting sheds, benches and toilet facilities. However, due to poor maintenance, thick shrubs have grown across the complex. Lights installed in the area and doors of the toilets have reportedly been stolen. Although the police conduct patrols from time to time, the absence of adequate security continues to deter visitors.
Ghulam Ahmad Raza is a Jharkhand-based freelance journalist with over four years of experience. He has worked as a City Reporter with Pratah Awazand as aSub Editor with Prabhat Mantra. His reporting focuses on marginalised communities, forgotten histories and grassroots political narratives.
source: http://www.maktoobmedia.com / Maktoob Media / Home> East India / by Ghulam Ahmad Raza / January 29th, 2026
The Indian Army has posthumously awarded the Sena Medal to Havaldar Jhantu Ali Shaikh of the elite 6 Para Special Forces, recognising his exceptional courage and sacrifice during a counter terrorism operation in Jammu and Kashmir. The gallantry award was announced on the occasion of Republic Day 2026.
Havaldar Shaikh, a resident of West Bengal, laid down his life during a fierce encounter with terrorists in the Udhampur district on April 24, 2025. He served with the 6 Para Special Forces, one of the Army’s most demanding combat units. During the operation, he faced heavy fire and suffered grave injuries. He continued the mission despite his condition and ensured pressure on the terrorists until his final moments.
Army officials said his conduct reflected discipline, courage, and devotion to duty. His actions helped protect fellow soldiers and upheld the operational objective. The Sena Medal recognises acts of bravery and exceptional service. His name features among 70 gallantry award recipients announced this year, highlighting the continued sacrifices of armed forces personnel.
The White Knight Corps paid tribute to Havaldar Shaikh and acknowledged his role in counter insurgency efforts in the region. Fellow soldiers described him as committed and fearless, with a strong sense of responsibility toward his unit and the nation.
Havaldar Jhantu Ali Shaikh’s sacrifice holds deep meaning for the country. His story reflects service guided by faith, duty, and courage. His legacy stands as a reminder of the price paid by soldiers who protect national security and civilian lives, even at the cost of their own.
source: http://www.radiancenews.com / Radiance News / Home> Latest News> Report / by Radiance News Bureau / January 27th, 2026
Mecca, (Ottoman-SAUDI ARABIA / Kolkata, WEST BENGAL / DELHI :
Abul Kalam Ghulam Muhiyuddin (November 11, 1888-February 22, 1958), better known as Maulana Azad, was a writer-activist-statesman.
Historian S Irfan Habib speaks on Maulana Azad on his birth anniversary at an event organised by the Maulana Azad College alumni association in Calcutta on Tuesday / The Telegraph
Historian S. Irfan Habib, while delivering his Maulana Abul Kalam Azad memorial lecture titled “Revisiting Maulana Azad in Contemporary India” on Tuesday, rued how in today’s India, anytime he posts anything on social media on the freedom fighter, 80 per cent of the comments comprise hateful abuse.
“Full of abuse… 80 per cent of the comments. And from people who have no idea of who he was, what he stood for, and what he did for India,” said Habib, whose lecture on the Maulana on the icon’s 137th birth anniversary was organised by the Maulana Azad College alumni association to mark the college’s centennial.
Abul Kalam Ghulam Muhiyuddin (November 11, 1888-February 22, 1958), better known as Maulana Azad, was a writer-activist-statesman.
One of Mahatma Gandhi’s most trusted lieutenants and the youngest president of the Indian National Congress, he made crucial contributions to the freedom movement. He was also Independent India’s first education minister.
“I will speak about those issues relevant for today’s India. What he did for education, how he defined nationalism — today all those who have no idea of what nationalism is are nationalists — and how he defined Islam…. Islam too is in danger when we see what we believers have done to our own faith,” said Habib, former Maulana Azad Chair at the National University of Educational Planning and Administration, New Delhi.
Maulana Azad’s family moved from Mecca to Calcutta when he was two. He spent several decades of his life in this city, his residence on 5 Ashraf Mistry Lane of Ballygunge now a museum.
November 11 is celebrated as National Education Day to recognise his contribution in establishing the education foundations of India — from the Indian Institutes of Technology, the University Grants Commission, the All India Council for Technical Education, the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, the Indian Institute of Science, and the Sahitya Akademi, the Sangeet Natak Akademi and the Lalit Kala Akademi, besides the Indian Council for Cultural Relations.
“Patriotism, nationalism and humanism, the difference between them Maulana tried to look at. In this (the belief in the culmination in humanism) he was very close to Gurudev Rabindranath Tagore, and he actually writes about it, that he believes in the idea of nationalism which was pitched by the idea of Tagore’s humanism and universalism,” said Habib.
“True relationship is only one, where the entire earth is one’s native land. This is necessary is today’s India, where we indulge in othering among own citizens, in the name of religion, caste, language, all sorts of issues, all sorts of divisive tools we use to divide Indians, while Maulana says mankind is one family and all humans are brothers, this is the idea of humanity of nationalism which Maulana left behind,” he added.
Habib underscored how the Maulana began as a pan-Islamist, speaking against the subjugation of Muslim nations by imperialist powers — a sentiment expressed strongly in his papers Al-Hilal and Al-Balagh, and it was because of his role as a fiercely upright journalist that the British Raj viewed him as one of the most dangerous persons in India.
Habib stated that after the Maulana was released from exile in Ranchi in 1920, he was torn between reading and writing in seclusion, or public life and the freedom struggle. It was soon after coming out of exile that the Maulana met Gandhi on January 18, 1920, for the first time.
“The meeting seemed to have had a profound impact on both… and they remained inseparable for the rest of his (Gandhi’s) life,” he said.
According to Habib, the Maulana fought on multiple fronts, not only against the British, but also Hindu and Muslim communalists.
“Maulana stressed on indivisible or composite nationalism, where he went back to early Islamic history, when the Prophet (Muhammad) created the first Muslim nation in Medina by aligning with the Yehudis (Jews). He saw no reason why Muslims could not join hands with Hindus and others in nation-forming…. He was appalled with communalists busy with sectarian campaigns when the need was to fight the British as a composite nationalist group,” Habib said.
“Maulana stood for a united India and remained steadfast in this resolve till the end. We are amid polarising politics where religion has become a distinct marker of identity…. The majoritarian nationalism being flaunted today runs contrary to the idea of composite nationalism espoused by Maulana all his life,” he added. “Maulana found the demand for Pakistan absurd as he was conscious of the fact that religion cannot be a binding factor for a nation.”
source: http://www.telegraphindia.com / The Telegraph Online / Home> West Bengal / by Meghdeep Bhattacharyya / November 12h, 2025
A new book sheds light on the ‘Malabar Revolt’ in a region which had a history of Muslims and Hindus collaboratively persevering in their resistance against colonial forces. Other books explore its links to the Khilafat movement and why it is more than a peasant uprising.
Moplah prisoners go on trial in Calicut | Photo Credit: Getty Images
Growing up in Delhi, one had only a limited idea about the resistance movement in the Malabar region. The popular history books tended to treat it at best as a little outpost of the freedom movement. Noted historian Bipan Chandra in India’s Struggle for Independence (Penguin) dubbed it as a peasant movement.
“In August 1921, peasant discontent erupted in the Malabar district of Kerala. Here, Mappila tenants rebelled. Their grievances related to lack of any security of tenure, renewal fees, high rents…the impetus for resistance had first come from the Malabar District Congress Conference at Manjeri in April 1920,” Chandra writes. Sumit Sarkar too, confined himself to calling it an “anti-landlord revolt” in his book, Modern India (1885-1947), published by Pearson. There have been noises about the association with the Khilafat movement in academic circles, though. Just as there are historians who see it merely from a communal prism. A holistic picture had failed to emerge.
Enlightening exploration
Some belated but well-deserved attention on the resistance movement has come courtesy Abbas Panakkal’s Musaliar King: Decolonial Historiography of Malabar’s Resistance (Bloomsbury). Starting off as an exploratory exercise on the 75th anniversary of the movement, Panakkal’s venture transforms into an enlightening journey.
Early in the book, the author writes, “The socio-geographical landscape of our community underwent profound transformations in the wake of the cataclysmic events of 1921-22. This epoch witnessed a staggering loss of lives, the forced displacement of families… The old mosque of Tirurangadi emerged as a veritable repository of memories and narratives, a historical bastion of ideological resistance against the British colonial apparatus.” Fittingly, it was on the commemoration of the 75th anniversary of the 1921 resistance that Panakkal started his exploration, speaking to the family members of those directly involved.
Among them was Muhammed Ali Musaliar, grandson of Ali Musaliar, a luminary of the 1921 struggle. The British referred to Ali Musaliar as a king; the locals regarded him as a community and spiritual leader, calling him Musaliar Uppapa. Indeed, if Musaliar was a ‘king’, Malabar was his ‘kingdom’.
Incidentally, the term Malabar is derived from the vernacular Mala, signifying hill, and the affix originating from the Arabic word barr, which means the source of all goodness. The region had a long tradition of anti-colonial resistance dating back to the 16th century. “Muslims and Hindus collaboratively persevered in their resistance against colonial forces,” writes Panakkal.
This strong anti-colonial stance had unforeseen consequences. The British, with not a little help from some Indian officials, sought to undermine the movement. Among them was C. Gopalan Nair, Malabar district deputy collector, who “unabashedly deployed his literary prowess in favour of the British cause”. Observes Panakkal: “The usage of terms such as Malabar Revolt and Moplah Rebellion to delineate these struggles is emblematic of this issue. Revolt itself is a term crafted by colonial administration, characterising violent actions against a recognised government or ruler.”
‘Peaceful coexistence’
There were others, though, whose hearts beat for the locals, luminaries who either linked the resistance to the Khilafat movement or, in isolation, read it as an agrarian struggle. Among them were Saumyendranath Tagore, who regarded it as “an organic and spontaneous ‘uprising’ of the Malabar peasantry against British imperial rule” and E.M.S. Namboodiripad, who too “didn’t discount the role played by agrarian discontent”. There was a common thread: the oppression and exploitation meted out by colonial officials and landlords was no less severe upon the Hindu peasants as they were on their Muslim counterparts. Writes Panakkal, “The Malabar narrative heralded a rare phenomenon: the harmonious convergence of Hindus and Muslims. This coalition was underpinned by a shared objective — to oust the oppressor — and a collective aspiration for a peaceful coexistence in the region.”
It is something with which even R.N. Hitchcock, police superintendent of Malabar, agreed. As written by N.P. Chekkutty in Mappila and Comrades: A Century of Communist-Muslim Relations (Other Books). “Hitchcock also reveals that Hindus were involved in the rebellion, at least in some parts of the affected areas. ‘The Hindus took an active part only in the extreme south-eastern area of the Valluvanad taluk and in small numbers for a concise time. They were then responsible for much property damage’.” In his persuasively argued book, with much of the focus on the post-resistance time in the late 1930s and 40s, Chekkutty also talks of the rebels not harming any substantial section of the local population before going on to document the failure of the Congress to retain local Muslim support after the resistance movement. It was a vacuum which both the Communist Party of India and the All India Muslim League attempted to fill.
The Khilafat angle
Interestingly, against this background of common cause transcending the confines of faith came the pan-Islamist Khilafat movement. Things became even more ironic as Malabar’s historical tapestry of anti-colonial resistance “had been woven with threads of unity binding Muslims and non-Muslims in a shared ‘jihad’ to safeguard the throne of the Hindu king, the Zamorin of Calicut,” as analysed by Panakkal. Khilafat, Non-Cooperation, Mappila, with seemingly disparate social elements, all fused to bring about a strong anti-colonial movement.
Indeed, here both the communities enjoyed a rare camaraderie, and there was a happy collective involvement even in religiously significant events like the nercha and utsavam. During the latter, Muslim families returned with bags full of jaggery candies, much like Ali Musaliar used to do for Amina, his daughter. Sums up Panakkal: “The experience of Muslims and Islam in South India is different from the experience in North India, and this is not trivial.”
source: http://www.thehindu.com / The Hindu / Home> Books> Bibliography / by Ziya Us Salam / September 18th, 2025
One of the oldest places in Uttar Pradesh is Sambhal in District Moradabad, has a long list of people in its history who confronted with British and posed great resistance with their historic acts of gallantry. Abdul Qaiyyum, Lala Prem Pal, Qari Abdul Haq, Maqsood Turki, Chaudhary Riyasat Ali, Lala Chandulal, Lala Roop Kishor, Maulvi Noorul Hasan, Sheikh Abdul Raheem, Chetan Swaroop, Radhey Lal Poddar, Munshi Moinuddin, Ml. Sultan Ahmad,Maulvi Abdul Waheed are prominent among such people.
The exact date of birth of Maulana Ismail Sambhli is not known however, he might have taken birth in 1899 at Mohallah Deepa Sarai. He belonged to the Sarwar Waley family of Turk community. His father, Munshi Kifayatullah was considered among the educated people of the area and was famous with the nickname ‘Munshiji’. His grandfather’s name was Sarwar Husain who was a native to village Mundha in J. P. Nagar. Later he shifted to Sambhal. His family surname, Sarwar Waley was due to his grandfather’s name.
He received primary education at Madrasatul Mohammadia, Deepa Sarai and was admitted to class VI to continue further education in English against his mother’s wish. She wanted him to get Arabic education and finally her will prevailed. Meanwhile, his father passed away and he was sent to his elder brother at Bahawalpur where he had the honour to receive education from Maulana Farooq Ahmad, Sheikhul Hadees and Head, Jamia Usmania.
Maulana Farooq Ahmad was the disciple of Shaikhul Hind Maulana Mahmoodul Hasan and relative of Maulana Mansoor Ansari who was put on exile on the pretext of abetting and participating in the freedom movement. He was extremely unhappy with British and a staunch supporter of freedom struggle. It was his company that helped instill a sense of nationalism in the heart of Maulana Ismail Sambhli and inspired him to participate in the freedom struggle.
After completing education at Bahawalpur, Maulana Ismail Sambhli returned back to his native place, Sambhal and continued with his education at Madrasa Sirajul Uloom. In the meantime the barbaric incident of Jalianwala Bagh took place that put the whole of India on fire. A protest strike was observed in Sambhal as well and a mass gathering of all communities was organized at the gardens of Gul Chhatar. Maulana Ismail Sambhli delivered a very inspiring lecture at the mass convention. Maulana was the youngest among all orators yet his oration impressed the public most and thus his national and political life began. Maulana gained popularity as Raees-ul Muqarrareen (master orator).
When the British defeated Turkey, the resulting loss and the sense of defeat made the Muslims furious. On November 22, 1919 the Khilafat Committee was founded and the Jamiatul Ulema-e-Hind took birth in Delhi. The Khilafat Movement was pronounced through out the country. Just months after the sad demise of Sheikhul Hind Maulana Mahmoodul Hasan, Maulana Ismail Sambhli took admission in Darul Uloom Deoband where his nationalist ideas and concepts received firmness. He started partaking in the nationalist activities with much vigour and zeal and despite him being a student he was arrested on February 22, 1921 for his radical ideas and inflammatory speeches. After two – three days his case was heard at Moradabad Jail and he was sentenced to two years’ rigorous imprisonment. Then the political detainees were generally subject to extreme brutalities. Maulana and his companions borne all types of atrocities. They were put under penal servitude, were imprisoned in small cages and were compelled to sleep handcuffed. Precisely, they were put to all types of brutalities but did not tender apology. Finally, he was released after the term of his punishment was over. Back to home he concentrated on completing his education. After completing courses at Darul Uloom Deoband he joined Jamia Qasmia Madrasa Shahi, Moradabad as a teacher in later 1924. The country’s condition had changed by the time, Khilafat had come to an end, there were communal disturbances through out the country and Congress had suspended its Civil Disobedience Movement. Mahatma Gandhi was imprisoned for six years. People were feeling let down but Maulana Sambhali kept moving ahead with full confidence.
In 1930 when Congress proclaimed for complete freedom. On March 13 Mahatma Gandhi commenced his famous Dandi march in violation of the laws of salt. A Civil Disobedience Movement was also commenced.
The Britishers put the nationalist people to extreme brutalities. They were mercilessly beaten, shot by guns and imprisoned. The Jamiatul Ulema sense the need of the hour and vowed to support Congress in its Civil Disobedience Movement. It established a Daira-e-Harabia (Circle of War). Mufti Kifayatullah, Maulana Ahmad Saeed, Maulana Husain Ahmad and Maulana Mubarak Husain Sambhli were arrested one by one. Maulana Mohammad Ismail Sambhli was the seventh in this order to be arrested and was sentenced to six months’ rigorous imprisonment.
When the time came for Provincial Assembly elections, the Muslim League Parliamentary Board came to existence. On behalf of Maulana Ahmad Saeed, Nazim of Jamiatul Ulema Mohammad Ali Jinnah was given the right to nominate members to the parliamentary board. Mr. Jinnah nominated 22 members from 56 out of which 20 were of Jamiatul Ulema and two of Ahrar. The Provincial Boards were under the control of Central Board. Maulana Ismail Sambhli was admitted to UP Board. He was also declared candidate from Sambhal of Moradabad and Tehsil Bilari constituencies. Those days the land lords, nawabs, kings and English title holders enjoyed great immunity and British supported people were considered prominent in the society. The nationalists participated in the election to defeat the pro-British candidates.
In 1939, the war in Europe started and the Indian government without taking the members in confidence sent the Indian army to war. The Congress opposed the move and boycotted the Assembly. It convened its session at Ramgarh on March 20-21, 1940 under the president ship of Maulana Abul Kalam Azad. The Civil Disobedience Movement was pronounced in the session and finally in the last of 1940 the non-violent civil disobedience movement commenced. A programme was chalked out for individual speeches. Maulana Ismail Sambhli was arrested in Moradabad during the movement and was sentenced for nine months’ imprisonment. In August 1942, Congress gave the famous ‘Leave India’ slogan. Mahatma Gandhi was arrested and sent to Sabarmati Jail. There were arrests every where in the country. Maulana Ismail Sambhli was again arrested in Sambhal and was put under house arrest at Moradabad Jail for indefinite period. Later he was released after one year.
In 1946, when elections were declared, the tussle between Congress and Muslim League was at its peak. Maulana Sambhli was elected, remained MLA till 1952.
Maulana Ismail Sambhli did not participate in the 1952 elections and stationed at Delhi as the Nazim-e-Ala of Jamiatul Ulema. He served Jamiat for four years and remained busy in social and political affairs. In 1957 he resigned from Jamiat and returned to Sambhal.
In 1962, he was appointed as Sheikhul Hadees at Madrasa Imdadia, Moradabad and served there for about three years.. In 1974, he shunned the idea of service and returned back to Sambhal and engaged himself in the literary work only to complete the half hatched books. “Maqalat-e-Tasawwuf”, “Akhbarul Tanzeel” (the Quranic prophesies) and “Taquleed-e-Aimma” are some important books authored by him.
Meanwhile he went to Mawana, Meerut and taught Quran’s translation for eight months. In his last age, he spent a few Ramadhan months in Bombay delivering lectures on the translation and analysis of Quran every night after Taraweeh. He fell sick in the last Ramadhan of his life yet, and after returning to Sambhal he breathed his last on 23rd November 1975 after one and half months’ prolonged illness. (deoband.net)
source: http://www.milligazette.com / The Milli Gazette / Home> News> Family & Kids / by Mohammad Najeeb Qasmi / May 22nd, 2016
