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.
