Government of A.P., Hyderabad and another, Appellants v. J.B. Educational Society, Hyderabad and another, Respondents.
UMESH CHANDRA BANERJEE, C.J. AND SYED SAADATULLA HUSSAINI, J.
A.P. Education Act (1 of 1982), Section 20 – All India Council for Technical Education Act (52 of 1987), Section 10 - Establishment of private Engineering Colleges - Location of – Section 20(3)(a)(i) is repugnant to Section 10(1)(a) of Central Act and Regulations framed thereunder.
Establishment of private Engineering Colleges ... State Government cannot refuse or withheld permission after Council grants approval. The State Government has no legislative competence to refuse or withhold permission for establishing any private Engineering College in the covered Revenue Divisions as per the State Government's policy after the Council grants approval. ... Words "related matters" in Section 10 - Has wider amplitude - Includes location of colleges. The word "related matters" in Section 10 has wider amplitude and it takes in its sweep all related considerations with regard to technical education, which necessarily includes the location of private Engineering Colleges. (Source: AIR 1998 Andhra Pradesh 400)
Madras High Court on Transfer of Course from One College to Another
Rajalakshmi (minor), Petitioner v. The Directorate of Collegiate Education and another, Respondents.
S.S. SUBRAMANI, J.
Constitution of India, Articles 226, 14 -Education -Transfer of course from one college to other - Sanskrit course - Number of students seeking admission for less than 50% of sanctioned strength for the course ... - Policy decision to transfer, not mala fide or against propagation of Sanskrit, ... - cannot be judicially reviewed ... (Source: AIR 1998 Madras 367)
Educational Backwardness of Muslims
In 1865 at Calcutta, 9 Hindus passed M.A. examination but not a single Muslim; 41 Hindus and 1 Muslim passed B.A; and 17 students, all Hindus, passed the law examination. All the medical graduates were also Hindu.
In 1867, when 88 Hindus passed M.A. and B.A., not a single Muslim was in the picture. Between 1858 and 1878,only 57 Muslims received degrees in contrast to 3155 Hindus.
(Source: The History and Culture of the Indian People, Vol. X, published by Bharatiya Vidya Bhawan)
Kanchan Gupta on Muslim Objection to Vande Mataram
Islamic fundamentalists, led by Maulana Abul Hasan Ali Nadvi, chairman of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board, Syed Shahabuddin, editor of Muslim India, and Mr. Tahir Mahmood, chairman of the Minorities Commission are celebrating the fatwa against Vande Mataram and insisting that for all good Muslims the nation must remain subordinate to Islam..
The champions of the fatwa against Vande Mataram ... represent those who delight in denigrating Indian nationhood and pouring scorn and abuse on the soul of this nation. They celebrate each blow that they strike against that, which is held sacred by Indians, and cry foul when told that their profanity is tantamount to anti-national activity.
"Cow slaughter in India is a great Islamic practice (said) Mujaddid Alaf Sanni II. This was his far-sightedness that he described cow slaughter in India as a great Islamic practice. It may not be so in other places. But it is definitely a great Islamic act in India because the cow is worshipped in India ... " These words of exhortation are from Ali Mian's stirring address to a congregation of Indian and Pakistani Muslims at Jeddah on April 3, 1986. Ali Mian's logic is simple: Since the cow is sacred to millions of Indians, indeed since the cow is worshipped by the Hindus who form the majority community in India, Muslims must slaughter the cow.
The same logic has been applied by him and his acolytes while issuing the fatwa against Vande Mataram: Since Vande Mataram, as ... Gandhi, who "associated the purists' national and spirit with it", described it, is an "ode to the motherland" and held sacred by all those who see India as not merely a geographical entity but as their motherland, it must be denigrated and profaned.
That this attack lacks all legitimacy is underscored by the fact that those who have declared the jehad against Vande Mataram either represent anachronisms in secular India or have positioned themselves on platforms that rest on legally untenable foundations. Ali Mian heads the so-called All India Muslim Personal Law Board which is a private enterprise and not a statutory body. It hawks Islamic revanchism and preaches bigotry in the guise of protecting Islamic identity. Syed Shahabuddin edits a monthly magazine called Muslim India- the very name harks back to the days of brutal Islamic rule to which this nation was subjugated by the sword of Islam. It there is a Muslim India, as Syed Shahabuddin continues to believe, then there is a Hindu India. And much as he may hate it, the truth is that Hindu India comprises 85 per cent of India. As for Tahir Mahmood, he heads the Minorities Commission which should not have been set up in the first place and is a legacy of the days of shameless and grovelling minorityism by the Congress. If India is a Republic of equals then the very notion of three being a minority or a majority community is abhorrent; it perpetuates stereotypes and vests power in the hands of those whose interests definitely do not coincide with the interests of India – either as a nation or as a country.
The fatwa against Vande Mataram is not without history and can be traced to Congress capitulation in the face of Islamic opposition. In1923, the Congress met at Kakinada and Maulana Mohamed Ali was brought to the venue in a procession led by a raucous band. As was the practice, the session was scheduled to begin with a rendition of Vande Mataram ... Maulana Mohamed Ali protested, saying that music was taboo to Islam and therefore singing Vande Mataram would hurt his religious sensitivities.
Maulana Mohamed Ali may have been stumped on that occasion, but by the time India become independent from foreign rule, the Congress had conceded ground to those who today inspire Ali Mian, Syed Shahabuddin and Tahir Mahmood. By 1937, Vande Mataram had become a "Muslim grievance" and Ali Sardar Jafri convinced fellow traveller Jawaharlal Nehru that the song ... was actually "idolatrous in spirit". IN fact, Nehru went a step further and described the mantra of Indian patriotism as "out of keeping with modern notions of nationalism and progress".
The Muslim League was quick to take its cue from Nehru and a month later, on October 17, 1937, passed a resolution at its Lucknow session condemning the Congress for "foisting Vande Mataram as the national anthem upon the country in callous disregard of the feelings of Muslims". When the Congress working Committee met in Calcutta later that year with Nehru as Congress president, it officially recognised "the validity of the objections raised by the Muslims to certain parts of the Vande Mataram song" and "recommended that at national gatherings the first two stanzas only of the song should be sung". The cultural content of Vande Mataram was knocked out by the Congress on the altar of Muslim League policies.
But appeasement does not have any limits ... The Pirpur Committee, which was set up by the Muslim League to compile a list of "atrocities against Muslims", submitted its report on November 15, 1938. Among the "atrocities against Muslims" was listed Vande Mataram.
Sixty years later to the day, Ali Mian, Syed Shahabuddin, Tahir Mahmood have ... relaunched the assault on Vande Mataram. For them, that is the unfinished task of the Muslim League in undivided India.
It is not surprising that today's Congress should seek to rationalise the jehad against Vande Mataram. That which celebrates Indian nationhood cannot be expected to stir Ms. Sonia Gandhi's heart. (Source: The Pioneer, 26 November, 1998)
Vande Mataram - Editorial, The Pioneer, 25 November, 1998
... Respected Maulana Ali Mian's fatwa against Muslim school children participating in the rendition of Vande Mataram has snowballed into a potentially-dangerous controversy ..
Arguably, the Uttar Pradesh administration may not have been impelled by a sudden surge of nationalist sentiment ..
Ali Mian's fatwa characterising Vande Mataram ... as a "Hindu" ode can have serious consequences for communal harmony ... It is not too late for him to retract ...
Shahabuddin's Response, Letter to The Pioneer, 26 November, 1998
Mr. Kanchan Gupta in his article "Assault on the idea of India" (26 Nov., 1998) has attributed to me the view that for a Muslim the nation is subordinate to Islam and accused me of taking delight in denigrating Indian nationhood and pouring scorn and abuse on the soul of the nation and celebrating each blow struck against what is held sacred by Indians. This statement - perverse and vicious as it is – can make sense only if Mr. Gupta's obvious equation of India with Hinduism and of Indian nationhood with Hindutva and of Indian culture with Hindu culture is accepted. I do not and I must say that a majority of the Hindu Indians do not. I ask Mr. Gupta that my country and my religion are not in a perpetual conflict with each other. Indeed the secular state is nothing but a means of reconciling nationhood with religion. And if they are not in conflict, there is no question of one being subordinate to the other. As an Indian, if the independence, integrity and sovereignty of my country is under threat, I am an Indian first, an Indian second and an Indian last. By the same token, if my religion is under threat, I am a Muslim first, a Muslim second and a Muslim last.
I call myself a Muslim Indian, an Indian who happens to profess Islam and not an Indian Muslim, a Muslim who happens to have been in born India. Yet, for good measure, Mr. Gupta takes objection to the title of the journal Muslim India which I edit. Yes, Mr. Gupta, there is a Hindu India; there is also a Christian India, a Sikh India, a Buddhist India, a Jain India. Not only that, there is a Bengali India, a Gujarati India, a Telugu India, a Tamil India; Also an Arya India, and a Dravidian India; a Brahmin India, a Yadav India, a Shudra India, an Achhut India, an Adivasi India. All these Indias not just co-exist but interpenetrate each other. Inseparable, they form the rich tapestry of Indianness. But all this is anathema to Mr. Gupta. He rejects all but what is strictly Hindu. To him the term Hindu and Indianness are co-terminus. To me they are not. He reduces India; I see it as a replica of the world as no other country is.
Mr. Gupta has himself recorded the Muslim conscientious objection to Vande Mataram. I may add that Netaji also saw the point and adopted JAI HIND. Vande Mataram is our national song, not the national anthem. Has any Muslim ever objected to the national anthem or refused to sing it. Why should Vande Mataram take precedance over the national anthem? Just to spite the Muslims?
Personally, I do not see anything explicitly idolatrous in the opening stanzas which constitute the national song despite the facts that Anand Math was pro-British and anti-Muslim and the later stanzas invoke the goddess Durga. I must confess that I have sung it in good conscience. I have admitted so in public and on TV. But I reject compulsion and imposition. I shall never sing it if its singing is made a condition precedent of my citizenship and of my rights as a citizen. I reject the political motive behind the compulsion with the contempt it deserves which is explicit in the slogan plastered all over the country: "Is desh me rehna hai, to Vande Mataram kahna hoga" now transformed, courtesy Kalyan Singh, into "Sarkari school me padhna hai, to Vande Mataram kahna hoga".
I would also like to tell Mr. Gupta that the national song, like the national flag and the national anthem, has its place of honour. Why make it a common song? Even the DD has stopped telecasting it, once the observance of the 50th anniversary of independence was over. Why not include other suitable songs as well and give the schools a repertoire and a choice, for inculcating patriotism and nationalism in the children? Mr. Gupta has like all good Hindurashtravadis clutched at this opportunity to split venom against the .Muslims Indians. But will his abuse convince anyone who is against compulsion or sees in this sudden love for Vande Mataram coupled with Saraswati Vandana a slow erosion of the secular order and its steady substitution by the Hindu Rahstravad, under the benign unbrella of the BJP rule?
Hinduism is Indo-centric but India is multi-religious. Kanchan Gupta should know the difference.
Statement of Abul Hasan Ali Nadwi
The state government's reported move to make singing of Vande Mataram compulsory in government schools ... is unconstitutional and against the Holy Quran. Muslim children will stop going to schools but will not recite Vande Mataram. We are ready to die but cannot accept Vande Mataram. A Muslim can tolerate everything in life but cannot tolerate interference with his religion.
Article 28 of the Constitution says that no religious teaching is allowed in government-aided institutions. ...
I regret that the Muslim MPs did not object when Vande Mataram was adopted in 1957 (sic) ... Three basic principles for our nation are democracy, secularism and non-violence. If any of the three principles is defied, the country will suffer. We also love this country like any one else but the singing of Vande Mataram is un-Islamic. (Source: The Pioneer, 29 November, 1998)
Kalyan Singh On Vande Mataram
The chapter is closed. But ... opposition to Vande Mataram is not justified. The song had been a source of inspiration to our freedom movement and is sung in Parliament and in State Assemblies. Those opposing it should bring a change in their attitude and accept it as the national prayer.
The song is a legally acceptable part of our Constitution. (It) is not worship of any deity but a tribute to our motherland which should be sung by each citizen of the country. If the RSS has decided to observe 1999 as the Vande Mataram year, I personally welcome it.
(Source: The Indian Express, 22 December, 1998)