The Monument Associated with Maulana Jauhar Must Be Reconsidered

Instead of merely demolishing the unauthorised structures of Maulana Mohammad Ali Jauhar University in Rampur, it would be more meaningful to rename the institution after a nationalist Muslim or Dalit leader who made a lasting contribution to education and social upliftment. Retaining the name of Maulana Mohammad Ali Jauhar, in my view, is inconsistent with the secular and democratic ideals of independent India. The choice of such a name reflected the ideological preferences of its founder, Azam Khan.

Maulana Mohammad Ali Jauhar and his brother, Maulana Shaukat Ali, were among the most influential Muslim political leaders of the pre-independence period. Although Mohammad Ali Jauhar briefly associated himself with the Indian National Congress, he later distanced himself from it and aligned himself with the politics of the Muslim League. During his presidency of the Congress, he attended a session of the Muslim League and sharply criticised Mahatma Gandhi, making the controversial remark: “I do hold an adulterous and a fallen Musselman to be better than Mr. Gandhi.” Such statements reflected the deep political and ideological divisions that had emerged during the closing decades of British rule.

Gandhi had initially supported the Khilafat Movement and worked closely with the Ali brothers in the hope of fostering Hindu-Muslim unity. However, after the abolition of the Ottoman Caliphate and the collapse of the movement, their political paths diverged. Mohammad Ali Jauhar became an outspoken critic of Gandhi, accusing him of inconsistency.

From this perspective, it may be argued that institutions or public monuments commemorating personalities closely associated with the politics that culminated in Partition deserve reconsideration. Such historical figures should certainly be studied in schools and universities, but naming public institutions after them raises legitimate questions about the values that independent India wishes to celebrate.

The history of Partition also contains several unresolved anomalies. It has often been argued that, during the negotiations surrounding Partition, there were proposals involving the exchange of major educational institutions, including Aligarh Muslim University and Lahore's DAV College, although these proposals never materialised. Likewise, questions continue to be raised regarding the minority character of institutions such as Aligarh Muslim University and Jamia Millia Islamia, particularly because members of Scheduled Castes who belong to non-minority communities do not receive reservation benefits in these institutions.

It is also noteworthy that Nawab Mohammad Ismail Khan, a prominent Muslim League leader associated with the demand for Pakistan, chose to remain in India after Partition and subsequently served as the first Vice-Chancellor of Aligarh Muslim University in independent India, although all his three sons shifted to Pakistan and enjoyed very high positions in that country. Similarly, a number of Muslims who had migrated to Pakistan later returned and reclaimed their properties in India. These historical developments continue to influence public debate about the legacy of Partition and the manner in which independent India remembers that era.

In my opinion, while personalities such as Maulana Mohammad Ali Jauhar should undoubtedly remain part of India's historical discourse, public institutions and monuments bearing their names warrant a fresh and objective review. Independent India should reserve such honours for individuals whose contributions unequivocally strengthened national unity, constitutional values, and social harmony.

A Misplaced Critique: Why Justice Ujjal Bhuyan’s Observations Miss the Mark

 

Supreme Court Justice Ujjal Bhuyan’s recent remarks at the Justice G.P. Singh Memorial Lecture in Bhopal are, regrettably, neither legally sound nor logically acceptable. Expressing concern over the alleged criminalisation of "normal activities," he criticised what he termed a disproportionate police response to youths organising an Iftar and consuming chicken on a boat on the Ganga River. Questioning their arrest and subsequent three-month denial of bail, he argued that "there is no law prohibiting the consumption of chicken over the Ganga."

With the utmost respect to the honourable judge, I must strongly beg to differ. I wish to draw attention to Section 196 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which addresses the offence of promoting enmity between different groups on the grounds of religion, race, place of birth, or residence. Criminal liability hinges on two foundational elements: mens rea (guilty intent) and actus reus (guilty act). In this incident, both elements undeniably coexisted. The actions of these individuals on the Ganges were not benign; they constituted a deliberate offence.

In a communally sensitive atmosphere, choosing to break a religious fast by consuming meat on the Ganga—a river revered as profoundly sacred by the majority of the country—was a calculated act of provocation. This was not a simple dietary choice; it was a brazen affront designed to mock and deliberately hurt the religious sentiments of the majority community in a deeply venerated space.

It is unfortunate that instead of commending the authorities for their timely intervention—which likely prevented the situation from spiralling out of control—the honourable judge chose to criticise them. The BNS clearly stipulates that committing an offence in a place of worship or during religious ceremonies carries a penalty of up to five years of imprisonment, alongside a fine. By consuming chicken and discarding the waste directly into the holy river, the intent of these miscreants to foment unrest was glaringly clear.

 

Protests at Jantar Mantar were bound to collapse

 From day one, it was a foregone conclusion that the Jantar Mantar movement was bound to fail, as it was taken over by lumpen elements, transgenders, and loose girls spitting indecent abuse. It was an open secret that the so-called movement was foreign-funded, as the meals distributed at the protest site were ordered from Germany, the US, and Dubai. Now, with the resignation of Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan, there is nothing left, and most of them have already dispersed. The number of students participating in the protest was negligible, as they had already seen through the politics of some Aandolanjivis. Many faces appear only during some or other agitation.

What was most disturbing was that these protestors were crossing all the limits of obscenity during the demonstrations. There was one demonstrator who was seen flashing his private part, and many lumpen girls were seen indulging in vulgar dance. What was all the more condemnable was the misbehaviour towards media persons. They were abused and molested.

Even Sonam Wangchuk, who had brought some energy to the protests, has disowned the CJP movement. One may recall that the day Deepake returned from the US and sought permission from the Delhi police to hold a protest at Jantar Mantar, he was readily granted permission, but there were not a dozen persons with them. It was Mr Wangchuk who brought some Ladakhis to give it the look of a protest.

The real drama began to unfold when some political parties brought their own supporters to participate in the march, and they started pulling the protests in their own directions. Rahul Gandhi, who looks like a dry drug addict, changed the venue from Jantar Mantar to a high-security zone near the PM residence. Others like Akhilesh Yadav, who is totally bereft of any ideas, were clueless about the protests. Persons like Kejriwal were trying to hijack, but Dipake and his company opposed them. Thus, the protest was rudderless from the beginning. However, if the Delhi police is not allowed to take any action against the lumpen elements, it will send a bad message to law-abiding citizens and among law-enforcing agencies.

Experts will have to devise ways to Prevent Unruly Ruckus in Courtrooms

The deplorable drama witnessed yesterday, i.e. Friday, in the Supreme Court courtroom defies all logic in the functioning of the court. Nobody has a ready-made answer to how such sordid scenes can be averted. There is no doubt that both judges on the bench have a high reputation for commendable behaviour, and the way the petitioner-in-person presented his case in court appeared to be mentally deranged. In a short span of a few months, such incidents have occurred twice in the Supreme Court, and if steps are not taken to prevent them, they are bound to occur elsewhere as well.

The petitioner-in-person is said to be an advocate by training. Earlier, the person who attempted to hurl shoes at the then CJI, Justice Gawai, was also an advocate. We have been watching such incidents in Parliament, Assemblies, hospitals and other areas of public life, but courts have been largely free from such unruly behaviour. Heated arguments have certainly taken place between lawyers and judges elsewhere, but no one can blame either lawyers or judges alone. Both have been responsible in their own way; however, what happened yesterday was unprecedented.

In fact, the courts and other experts will have to jointly think over devising ways to prevent the occurrence of such incidents

Appointment of a Dalit as the General Secretary of Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas Must Be Welcomed

 The appointment of Shri Krishna Mohan, a member of the Dalit community, as the Chief Executive Officer of the Ram Janmabhoomi Trust in Ayodhya deserves to be wholeheartedly welcomed. He succeeds Shri Champat Rai Bansal in overseeing the administration of the grand Shri Ram Temple, one of the most significant religious and cultural projects in independent India.

This appointment also serves as a powerful response to the politics of caste symbolism. Those who repeatedly invoke the slogan of "PDA" while claiming to champion the cause of the marginalised now find their narrative seriously weakened. Shri Akhilesh Yadav and his party have long relied on caste-based political mobilisation in Uttar Pradesh. Yet the decision of the Nyas demonstrates that genuine social inclusion is achieved through meaningful responsibility and leadership, not merely through electoral rhetoric. Despite projecting himself as a modern, educated leader, Shri Yadav too often reduces public discourse to narrow caste calculations, exposing the hollowness of his claims.

The contribution of Shri Champat Rai to the construction and management of the grand Ram Temple is beyond dispute. His dedication and administrative ability have earned him widespread respect across the country and abroad. Many facilities available to devotees today—including wheelchairs for the elderly and differently abled, well-organised pilgrim services, and free darshan for all—reflect the vision and commitment of the Nyas. In several respects, these arrangements compare favourably even with those at some of India's most prominent temples.

It is, therefore, both unfortunate and puzzling that attempts are now being made to cast aspersions on the temple administration over allegations relating to donation receipts. In most temples across India, devotees make offerings as an act of faith without expecting formal receipts for every contribution. Any genuine complaint should, of course, be examined fairly. Still, it is equally important that speculation and politically motivated campaigns do not undermine the credibility of an institution built through the sacrifices and devotion of millions.

There is an old belief in the Awadh region that Ayodhya has never spared even the noblest of its inhabitants from controversy. Since the time of Lord Shri Ram and Mata Sita, great personalities associated with this sacred city have faced trials, criticism, and allegations despite their virtue. It is therefore reasonable to expect that a selfless individual like Shri Champat Rai will emerge with his integrity intact after any fair and impartial inquiry.

Ayodhya, once neglected for centuries, has today been transformed into a city of pride and spiritual grandeur. A substantial share of the credit belongs to Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, whose leadership, together with the Ram Janmabhumi Nyas, has restored the city's historical and civilizational glory. This transformation will be remembered for generations. Those who seek to exploit controversies for political gain or create unnecessary discord around this sacred project may earn temporary headlines, but history is unlikely to judge them kindly.

 

Hopefully, the Indo-Bangladesh border will soon be fenced

 One shudders to think about the situation in West Bengal if Mamata Banerjee had again returned to power. Lawlessness and goondaism would have gone beyond imagination. The way Bangladeshi intruders occupied the streets and roads, and nobody had the guts to speak against them because the administration of Mamata Banerjee was always there to stand by the lawbreakers.

The fencing of the Indo-Bangladesh border could not be carried out because there was no local administrative support. The Bangladeshi intruders are now creating hurdles in fencing off the borders.

As a result of the porous border, cattle smuggling and other problems have crept up in India. The total length of the Indo–Bangladesh border in West Bengal is 22,17 km, out of which 1648 km has already been covered by a fence. With the change of government in West Bengal, it is hoped that the rest of the border will soon be fenced.

The way protest marches were taken out on the renaming of Suhrawardy Street after Gopal Prasad Mukherji, who was also known as Gopal Patha, the Hindu leader of pre-partition India, who saved thousands of Hindu men, women and children, is a matter of shame. Some people say the street was not named after the killer Suhrawardy, who later became the Prime Minister of Pakistan, but after his nephew, who happened to be the Vice Chancellor of Calcutta University. The moot question is why the name of any Suhrawardy should be there in any form?

What is more tragic is that the TMC has not expressed any regret so far over this situation in West Bengal, for which it is directly responsible. It is expected that the border will be fenced sooner rather than later, making the lives of the people and the security of the country safer.

 

 

 

 

Refusal of Lawters body to take up any case is unjustifed

 Disturbing reports from Ayodhya indicate that the district's legal fraternity has resolved not to represent individuals accused of misappropriating donations made to the Ram Mandir. If the allegations are true, the alleged theft of devotees' offerings is unquestionably reprehensible, and those responsible should be punished in accordance with the law. However, how can a body of lawyers effectively treat an accused person as guilty even before a court has conducted a trial?

The lawyers' association has adopted this position as a mark of protest against the alleged misappropriation of temple donations. It has reportedly also warned that any advocate who appears on behalf of the accused will face a penalty of ₹5 lakh.

In addition, the association has demanded that prominent temple trust functionaries, including Champat Rai and Anil Mishra, leave Ayodhya, failing which it has threatened to blockade the entire city. This collective boycott has reignited an important constitutional debate about every accused person's right to legal representation and a fair trial.

Indian law, including the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, recognises the right of every accused person to be represented by a lawyer. Where an accused is unable to engage or afford legal counsel, legal assistance is available through the Legal Services Authorities constituted under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.

The right to legal representation does not imply innocence. Rather, it ensures that guilt or innocence is determined through a fair, impartial, and lawful judicial process. Indian courts have consistently affirmed that the legal profession exists to serve the administration of justice, not to reflect public outrage or popular sentiment. Representing an accused person is not an endorsement of the alleged crime.

Although an advocate may exercise personal discretion in accepting a brief, the legal framework of India is unequivocal: every accused person, irrespective of the nature of the allegations, is entitled to competent legal representation and a meaningful opportunity to defend themselves before a court of law.

An advocate's foremost duty is to uphold the rule of law, which rests on the fundamental principle that every person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The presumption of innocence is a cornerstone of criminal jurisprudence and remains intact until a competent court records a conviction after a fair trial.

Indeed, even when a lawyer personally believes, or is aware, that a client may have committed an offence, professional ethics require the lawyer to provide competent, diligent, and fearless representation within the bounds of the law. A lawyer's duty is not to determine guilt, but to ensure that justice is administered through due process and that the constitutional guarantees of a fair trial are preserved for every individual.