On October 6th, the Indian Penal Code completed 161 years of its enactment. This was the codification of definitions of crimes and determination of their penalty. Since its adoption by the Imperial Legislative Council, as the standard law for punishment in erstwhile British India, many changes have been made to it. The Supreme Court of India decriminalised adultery in 2018, Indian Government, through an amendment, criminalised triple talaq in the year 2019. The Hon’ble court accused these laws to be a privilege for men, but, contradictorily, Indian law and penal code has been, and still, giving endorsement to the loathful crime of marital rape through the second exemption of section 375 of IPC.

 in the third anglo-Maratha war; this eventually left the company with the control of almost the whole of India, either directly or through a subsidiary alliance. In 1830, the company replaced the 

 emperor as the suzerain of India. The company, being a commercial body, was not entitled to rule a country, subsequently, 

 was passed by The British Parliament in 1833, which recognised the company as a full administrative body to rule Indian colonies under the British crown through the board of control.

The company needed a set of laws to control a country as vast and diverse as India, the British law could not be imposed because it was drafted for ‘

’. Resultingly, the first law commission was set up in 1833 under 

. The commission submitted its final report in 1856. With the efforts of 

 Before we move forward with this discussion two points must be noted; firstly, this codification was based on the infamous principles of a Victorian patriarchal society that never considered married women as a separate individuals and, secondly, these laws were specifically drafted to be imposed on ‘

In the primitive Indian judicial system, panchayats and local courts, marrying the victim were looked at as the solution for rape; if the accused or convict agrees to marry the victim he was immunised from penalty. But is this concept still relevant in contemporary and progressive India? Answering ‘no’ to this question is not that easy, even harder when not more than a year has passed since, then, Chief Justice asked a government servant if he would marry the minor victim he was accused of raping repeatedly (

Mohit Subhash Chavan Vs. the State of Maharashtra

). Seeing such a mindset at, even, the apex of the Indian judiciary must be disappointing for victims who still believe in the law.

 over 2018. The report also claims that about 70% of women have faced domestic violence of any form, of which 30% faced cruelty by husband or his relatives. The crime rate registered per lakh women was 62.4 in 2019. While presenting records of crimes against women NCRB should repeatedly and emphatically mention that they are only figures for reported cases; actual numbers are, certainly, way more than this.

 it is mandatory to talk about how Indian law deals with this crime. These two sections in IPC for this crime; 

375 that defines the scope of rape and 376 that determines the punishment for it

. The concept, or rather legitimisation, of marital rape, arises with the second exception of section 375 that states; “

sexual intercourse or sexual acts by a man with his wife, not being under the age of 15, is not rape

”. Here, it is not specified if the sexual intercourse is consensual or forced. That, substantially, depicts that there is no concept of consent for a married woman in Indian law.

On being sued, in August 2017, in Delhi High Court through a petition government of India told the court that criminalising marital rape will destabilise the institution of marriage. A married woman, in India, is believed to have given consent for intercourse any number of times, at the pleasure of her husband, according to current law if a woman agrees to marry she is considered to have given perpetual, or implied, consent to have sex with her husband.

This exception not only infringes basic principles of morality and human rights but also neutralizes many fundamental rights that should be equal for every Indian citizen; like the 

right to protection of life and personal liberty (article 21)

. The section is firmly based upon the patriarchal mindset that treats women as subjects to their husbands, serving their interests by abrogating the rights of a specific gender.

Besides being a privilege for men, this section can also be accused of discriminating against two Indian citizens belonging to the same gender; a married and unmarried woman. This exception immunises the husband of a married woman from a rigorous punishment that would be granted to another convict of the same crime while the victim is unmarried. Even when it is evident that it would not be easy for a married woman to escape such situations or report the crime. Our lawmakers do not understand the basic concept that consensual intercourse without marriage is legit and non-consensual with marriage can never be.

With visions of its founding fathers India should have been an icon for social justice and equality, 

s dream of wiping out tears from even the eyes of the last row of society would never be fulfilled with thousands of citizens struggling and suffering from their pain and so would our dream of a welfare state. Our government under the banner of “

” seems more interested in keeping the ‘

’ intact than upholding justice and equal rights.

Consent to Intercourse: Failures of the Indian Penal Code

It was a cold winter morning in Delhi on 26th November 2021, the Prime Minister of India was addressing dignitaries in the central hall of Parliament house to commemorate the 72nd anniversary of adoption and enactment of the Indian constitution. While paying homage to the framers of the constitution, the PM had repeatedly mentioned that India is a federal parliamentary system. But the question arises – are we really a full-fledged parliamentary system? And is the constitution, whose preamble starts with “we the people” and ends with “give to ourselves this constitution”, really preserved by its keepers?

Before discussing any further in comparing the present day condition of the Indian parliamentary system and how it was supposed to be, let’s first have a look at one of the architects of the constitution, that is, 

’s views on preserving and protecting our constitution. It was the same building (the Parliament house) in Lutyens’ Delhi, when on the eve of adoption of constitution, 

, Dr. Ambedkar delivered his final address in the constituent assembly. In this speech, commonly known as the ‘

 mentioned three points that should be followed to keep the basic principles of our constitution intact.

Dr. Ambedkar started off his address with a concern and a question. The concern was that the constitution of India may turn out to be bad if its interpreters do not discharge their duties. The question was whether India would maintain her independence or lose it? Later he mentioned three edifications for upcoming generations to follow so as to uphold the idea of India conceived by our founding fathers. Firstly, 

 to put one’s demands before the government when there are constitutional alternatives available. Secondly, 

 at any person’s feet no matter how great they are – personality cult and blind faith may lead a country towards dictatorship. And lastly, political freedom must not suffice us and 

 in Indian politics is now higher than ever before. Regarding this, Dr. Ambedkar had said:

“…. no nation can be grateful at the cost of its liberty. This caution is far more necessary in the case of India than in the case of any other country. For in India, Bhakti or what may be called the path of devotion or hero-worship, plays a part in its politics unequalled in magnitude by the part it plays in the politics of any other country in the world.”

The very next day of when this speech was delivered the constitution was enacted and it came into force after two months, on January 26th, 1950. The Parliament or 

 was established as the most powerful institution in Indian democracy by the constitution. The provision of three parliamentary sessions in a year was introduced so that members may meet and decide the course of the country. The legislature was also given the power to turn any bill, brought by the executive, into a law or reject it; it can also amend the constitution if it finds it necessary. The executive was held accountable to the legislature; 788 members of parliament can ask questions to even the head of government and the Prime Minister is bound to answer them. The central legislature of India is empowered to impeach the head of the state of the world’s largest democracy. This trust was vested in the legislature because the constituent assembly believed that there would be representatives of the people sitting in the house and they wanted direct interference of people’s opinion in the lawmaking of the country.

For the past few years the founding ideas of the Indian parliamentary system seem to have been sidelined by its own members. The ruling party has more than a special majority in the lower house. Resultantly, they are not relying on other parties for forming quorum and passing even those bills which require special majority. Even the opinions of coalition parties are not entertained by the government.

The parliament met in September 2020, first time after the pandemic, in the 4th session of the 17th Lok Sabha. The 

 introduced three farm bills and despite heavy resistance by the opposition and even the constituent parties of NDA, the bill was approved by the 

. What is even worse is that these laws were passed in the 

 without any discussion through voice voting. Later, the government scrapped the winter session of the parliament without any satisfying justification. These facts are enough to suggest that the legislature has become a puppet in the hands of the government and India is heading towards becoming a 

The monsoon session of 2021 also turned out to be one of the most unproductive sessions of the Parliament. Fourteen bills were passed by the Lok Sabha with the debate spanning 

; no bill was sent for scrutiny to the parliamentary committees. The session was filled with interruptions, the opposition was adamant and walked out over the demand of discussion on farm laws and the 

, and the government on the other hand took the maximum benefit out of it. Laws on sensitive issues like general insurance and juvenile justice were approved without any significant discussion.

, the president of constituent assembly, quoted 

 while addressing the assembly on December 9, 1946:

“[The constitution] has been reared for immortality, if the works of man may justly aspire to such a title. It may, nevertheless, perish in an hour by the folly, or corruption, or negligence of its only keepers, THE PEOPLE.”

The winter session of parliament is scheduled to start soon and the people of India may witness what is written in their destiny by their “

”. A fully fledged parliamentary system where the government delivers its duty, the opposition is aware of its role, where the executive is held responsible by the legislature, and where debate is considered as the way towards better functioning. Or a system that can at least be seen as the remnants of the one that existed before.

Remnants of a Parliamentary System

India is one of the most diverse countries. It’s a melting pot of different religions, ethnical backgrounds and cultures. The country of which Swami Vivekananda said, “I am proud to belong to a nation which has sheltered the persecuted and the refugees of all religions and all nations of the earth.” However, violence based on community, language and ethnicity is not uncommon in India. Riots are a common crop of said “violence”. So how to riots start and are they always religiously motivated in India.

 riots broke out, resulting in injury, loss of life and property. It all started with the Union Home Minister presenting a bill in Lok Sabha proposing Amendment to ‘

’. Throughout the protests and the subsequent riots the biased attitude of the police was more than apparent. Actions of both, government’s subordinates and administration, suggested that violence was premeditated and incited, be it 

 or various by right wingers open firing on the protest site with minimal consequences.

Protests are defined as a public expression of objection, disapproval or dissent towards an idea or action, typically a political one. But in Delhi, protests were redefined. There were protests held by 

‘s members to support the CAA. These two parallel protests often clashed and, expectedly, turned violent. Provocative remarks against the 

 community were made by BJP leaders in presence of the police and so called “

Rioting started in the morning of 23rd February and soon spread throughout South East Delhi. Reports said out of all reported deaths 35 were identified as Muslims, still the right-leaning populace refers to this as a ‘

 when talking about the worst riots in the history of independent India. 

 genocide in Delhi started on 31st October 1984 soon after Prime Minister 

 was assassinated by her two Sikh bodyguards. Conditions for a mass genocide were ripe in northern India since the start of the 

 insurgency. Already many Sikhs had been killed in Delhi and 

 as a retaliation for Killing of non-Sikh Punjabis by 

Many Congress leaders were seen gathering crowds distributing arms and inflammables during the night between 31st October and 1st November. According to government estimates about 2800 Sikhs were killed in Delhi and 3350 nationwide, while independent sources claim deaths to be around 8000-17000. Police was nothing more than a silent spectator, in some places they have allegedly helped mobs to kill Sikhs. Meanwhile, when number of citizens were burnt alive, women were raped and houses were looted, countries Prime Minister passed his infamous remarks about “

Whoever kills the sons of the snakes, I will reward them. Whoever kills Roshan Singh and Bagh Singh will get 5,000 rupees each and 1,000 rupees each for killing any other Sikhs. You can collect these prizes on November 3 from my personal assistant Jai Chand Jamadar

Noticeably, the number of crimes against minorities have increase just before elections. In the past few days, we have seen mob-lynchings of Muslim vendors and traders.

Following MP, UP has become the centre for crimes against minority communities, both states have seen a dramatic growth in lynching cases, more than two dozen cases were reported in both the states in the month of August. Its interesting to see that the UP Assembly elections are upcoming in less than five months. Famous Economist, Philosopher and Nobel Prize Laureate Dr. 

“Violence is fomented by the imposition of singular and belligerent identities on gullible people, championed by proficient artisans of terror.”

Each and every riot, specifically in India, serves someone’s political interests. Riots may start from temple or mosque, may take place on streets but it is, surely, planned and sponsored at the places far from the common man’s reach. And whenever political parties come in power, they rescue “

” from weak grip of law and order. Riots are a permanent scar on the lives of many. Sometimes in the name of country, sometime in the name of religion the population is tried to be polarised. Famous Pakistani revolutionary poet 

Watan ko kuch nahi khatra Nizam-e zarr hai khtre mein

Haqiqat me jo rahzan hai wahi rahbar hai khatre mein

Agar tasvish lahaq hai to sultan’on ko lahaq hai

Na tera ghar hai khatre mein na mera ghar hai khatre ME.“

(Country is not in danger but their system of wealth is,

Who is actually a robber, that leader is in danger,

If anxiety is contiguous it is for emperors

Neither your abode is in danger nor mine.

FOUNDATIONS OF A RIOT

On the morning of 26th June 1975, the news that the Emergency had been proclaimed by the President the previous night shook the citizens of India. Soon after this, Jayaprakash Narayan, leader of the famous Bihar Movement, attracted a gathering of 100,000 people at the Ramlila Grounds and thunderously recited Rashtrakavi Ramdhari Singh Dinkar’s wonderfully evocative poetry ‘Singhasan Khaali Karo Ke Janata Aaati Hai’. What happened after this has been discussed extensively, but in this article we shall discuss something less talked about: what were the circumstances that forced the head of the world’s largest Democracy to sign the Emergency proclamation a few minutes before the clock hit midnight? Why the Cabinet ministers were called and asked to approve a proposal predetermined by the Prime Minister? And who can be convicted for abrogating people’s liberty?

Two crises of an unprecedented magnitude rocked 

 during the years 1974 to 1977. From January 1974 to June 1975, the country went through a turbulent period marked by a series of agitations, 

, strikes, closures of colleges and universities, shutdowns, and two massive popular movements in 

 that demanded the resignations of the state governments and dismissal of the state assemblies. While the movement in Gujarat was successful in achieving these twin objectives, the one in Bihar, popularly known as 

Severe drought and the failure of two crops in succession had caused a rise of more than 100 per cent in the prices of food grains and cooking oil in Gujarat during 1973. Simultaneously, essential commodities started disappearing from the market. People, in general, and students in particular, whose hostel bills for the bad quality food had increased by 40% in the month of December alone, blamed the price rise and the scarcity of essential goods on the collision between traders, black marketers, and the politicians in power.

On December 1973, the movement started when the students of 

, protesting against a substantial increase in mess charges, set fire to the college canteen and the Rector’s House. A fortnight later, on January 1974, they went on a strike and destroyed college and hostel furniture. The police was brought in, and a large number of students were beaten and arrested.

This was the turning point for the Movement. Despite the government’s intensified attempts to crush the agitation, it found a huge base in the urban middle classes. And the Movement which was started by the students against the unchecked fee hike now demanded the resignation of the state government. On January 11, the students formed the 

 to ensure the attainment of the cause. The Samiti demanded fresh elections, and the opposition parties supported this. 

 again went on an indefinite fast on 6 April 1975 to support it. Finally 

 gave in; fresh elections were held on 10 June, and the results were declared on 12 June 1975.

, and inspired by its success, an agitation on the same lines with similar objectives was started by students in Bihar in March 1974. For years, the conditions were ripe for a mass movement in Bihar. The state was economically more backward and more misgoverned as compared to Gujarat. There was an absence of law and order and the security of common people. Inflation and corruption were at their peak.

 (coalitions of small student organisations) started in the middle of March, often turning violent and clashing with the police, sometimes leading to lathi charge and firing. The Bihar students’ movement attracted all-India attention when, on March 18, the BCSS organised a gherao of the Governor and the assembly. The agitation immediately spread to other Bihar towns.

A new dimension was added to the Bihar movement when Jayprakash Narayan agreed to take over the leadership of the student movement in April and lent it credence. JP was a major socialist statesman, an exceptional orator, and a mass leader. The Movement got extensive under his leadership, and on June 5, there was half-million-strong March on 

 under his leadership, demanding the resignation of the 

 and the dissolution of the assembly. The same evening, at a mammoth public meeting, he called for a total revolution. Later the Movement extended its demands to the resignation of Prime Minister Mrs. Gandhi. Addressing a mass rally in October he said, 

“The people have given their verdict. People of Bihar have unmistakably demanded that the present ministry and the assembly must go. If the Prime Minister refuses to do so, I say it with full responsibility that she should quit her post. She is unfit to be the prime minister of this great country.”

After reaching its peak, the JP Movement was losing its lustre despite rapid efforts by leaders to renew it. The country was in deep political chaos as many small movements started to emerge that often got violent and resulted in casualties. In the meantime, the 

, the case over Mrs. Gandhi’s electoral malpractice from 

 which became the immediate cause of imposition of emergency. Consequently, emergency was declared on 26th June 1975, and Mrs. Gandhi tried her best to enjoy absolute authoritarianism.

Democracy was the key word that both JP and Mrs. Gandhi used to appeal to the people. Each accused the other of endangering it, held the other responsible for the ‘

’, and justified their own political actions in the name of safeguarding democracy from the assault mounted to it by the other. Ironically, neither of them chose the democratic way. JP on his part could have waited till the final judgement of the Supreme Court or till the next elections instead of provoking people to block the country’s machinery. Mrs. Gandhi, on her part, instead of using force, could have listened to the movement’s valid demands or announced the fresh elections that she was delaying. Noted scholar 

In the Name of Democracy: JP Movement and The Emergency

If JP did not realise that there has to be limits to any agitation, however popular, and the movement he was leading had a fascist potential, Mrs. Gandhi too was unable to understand that the emergency should not serve as an excuse for the suppression of all liberties, and it was bound to become authoritarian

Conclusively, it can be asserted that before the Emergency was declared, both sides escaped their responsibilities of defending democracy, but Mrs. Gandhi is solely responsible for whatever happened during those 18 months: the rise of 

 decisions, controlled press, dissolution of elected state assemblies, and the pushing of the country into one of the 

 periods of its post-independence history. Now if you wonder why ‘one’ was used when that was evidently the darkest period for Indian democracy, it is so because the way Indians have turned a deaf ear towards the unethical decisions of the present government, I believe, the darkest days are yet to come.

The Road Towards the Darkest Days of Democracy

Nationalism, according to the Oxford dictionary refers to a feeling of love and pride in your country; but in India, Nationalism has demonstrated many other aspects than this. It is someone’s matter of pride, someone’s reason to live, someone’s reason to die, and also someone’s reason to be killed. But how does the man, whose composed song has been adopted as the National Anthem of India, describe it?

, was an Indian polymath. A poet, a painter, an essayist, an author, and most importantly 

. Although Tagore always backed India’s freedom struggle with his novels and songs, he never accorded with the idea of nationalism possessed by many freedom fighters. His debates with 

 over the evolution and acceptance of nationalism are still popular and known as 

This is enough to describe Tagore’s discontent with 

, Gandhi asked Indians not to buy British goods and products and only consume Indian products. But Tagore has already considered it immoral. In his essay 

 (Bangla for the Right Path), published in 1909, became the voice of Indian traders who were facing problems, as Indian goods were more expensive and lower in quality than foreign goods. He even referred the boycott as “

”. According to him, we are only free when our minds are completely free. Until you are not free to think for yourself, you are not free. Despite all these disagreements Tagore and Gandhi always shared a strong bond, and when Gandhi visited 

 (Bangla for Keep Walking Alone) be sung to welcome him and to make his will even stronger.

Tagorian Nationalism was based on love for all, unification of the Human race, and developing a common solution for everyone’s problem instead of competition, wars, and exclusion. In his book titled “Nationalism” he asks the human race to choose between two alternatives “

to go on fighting with one another or find out some true basis of reconciliation and mutual help

”. He has also criticized the curriculum of history that is taught in schools as he believed that rather than telling students the stories of kings and emperors they should be taught about the history of human civilization and the principles of humanity. In the same book, he writes: “

There is only one history the history of man. All national histories are merely chapters in the larger one. And we are content in India to suffer for such a great cause.

In Tagore’s idea of Nationalism, a country can never be prioritized over humanity. In a letter addressed to his friend 

 in 1908, Tagore wrote that he will never let patriotism come before humanity. In 1905, when 

 announced the partition of Bengal into East and West Bengal, Gurudev wrote 

 (My Bengal of Gold) as a medium of protest and took music from a musician hailing from the proposed state of East Bengal to signify the unity of Bengal. On the other hand, he firmly opposed and criticized the violence and anarchy that was created by “

” freedom fighters. He said that no violence could be justified in the name of Nationalism. In his book 

a cruel epidemic of evil that is sweeping over the human world of the present age

 which ends in war, conflict, and retraction of citizen’s rights. Tagore also argued that when love for one’s country becomes a “

” then disaster is the only remaining outcome that is inevitable. In his essay Nationalism in India he writes: “…. 

from childhood I have been taught that idolatry of Nation is better than reverence of God and humanity, I believe I have outgrown that teaching, and it is my conviction that my countrymen will truly gain their India by fighting against the education that teaches that a country is greater than the ideals of humanity

Being against oppressive or aggressive nationalism does not suggest that Tagore didn’t consider India as a country. He established a college in erstwhile Bengal with objectives of upholding the 

 education system and providing free education to Indian students without being obliged to the British Government, which is now known as 

, at his own expense. At more than eighty years of age, he even organized stage shows to meet the expenses of the institute. While renouncing his Knighthood to the British Administration, following 

The time has come when badges of honor make our shame glaring in the incongruous context of humiliation. I for my part, wish to stand, shorn of all special distinctions, by the side of those of my countrymen who, for their so-called insignificance, are liable to suffer degradation not fit for human beings… And… ask Your Excellency, with due reference and regret, to relieve me of my title of Knighthood…

 comments seem more relevant for our country than ever before. The majority of our media houses rely on 

 and communal news for their business and the nation watches it with pride just to satisfy their void ego of Nationalism. The most recent example of it is the pictures of Pakistani girls were publicly auctioned and there are people, unfortunately in the country of Tagore and Gandhi, who justify this action and consider it 

. These are the circumstances Gurudev warned us about. Given the current circumstances of our country, Indians should be concerned rather than being proud.

Not only Pakistanis, but we also discriminate against our countrymen on basis of their “

” unlikeliness with us. The treatment northeastern Indians face in any other Indian state, and the recent example of the revocation of 

 led to numerous posts on social media urging people to beat someone just because they were 

. In many parts of India, a person can even be killed for the mere crime of sitting parallel to, so-called, Upper caste people. Surprisingly, all these misconducts are committed by members of organizations with the ideology of hard-core nationalism.

From Rabindranath Tagore’s ideology, we Indians must seek freedom of thought and freedom of soul rather than just being confined to the conventionalist approach of Nationalism that we have received an inheritance. By doing so we can acquire the India of Tagore’s imagination where everyone is free to think and free to express, where men’s energy is used in achieving new abilities rather than being wasted on fake and inconsequential feelings of patriotism. In Gurudev’s illuminated words:

“where the mind is led forward by theeinto that heaven of freedom, my father, let my country awake!”

TAGORE, NATIONALISM, AND “NATIONALISM”

Hindustani or Urdu; a language spoken by millions in the Indian subcontinent, the essence of our culture, and yet, almost unsheltered in its own home. The birth and evolution of Urdu have always been a matter of discussion amongst scholars but one thing that could be said is that the birth of Urdu was not, certainly, one dimensional. Urdu received multi-dimensional acceptance in its initial days of growth. Places like markets and military camps, where people of Central and South Asian origins assembled, emerged as the nucleus of its growth. Hazrat Amir Khusrow, a Sufi poet from Delhi, is the first and best-known poet of the fundamental dialect of the Hindi-Urdu complex. He was the first to initiate the use of this language in the royal court of Sultan Alauddin Khilji of Delhi.

When civilizations meet, they do not always meet to clash and try to destroy each other. Destruction happens but it is not the only thing that happens. By the end of the 12th-century, central Asian languages such as 

, who wished to build an empire and travelled to trade and earn profit. During the Turkish invasion, the 

 also recruited Indian Soldiers which led to the growth of a mixed central 

 (Lashkar means Army). With these Lashkars, some 

 saints also moved to India, one of them being 

 after the invasion of Ghori and founded the 

 spiritual group in medieval India and many of the most beloved and venerated Indian Sufi saints were Chishti in their affiliation. The important characteristic of Chishti order poets was that they wrote in languages spoken by the common population. Two of the most famous poets of the Chisti order are 

, giving birth to a new language, namely 

. Hazrat Amir Khusrow is thus considered to be the father of present-day Urdu literature, as illustrated by the words of renowned scholar, and founder of 

“Urdu started growing as a language of literature the day Hazrat Amir Khusrow wrote Zihal e Miskin Makun Taghaful”

, was an Indian Sufi singer, musician, poet and scholar who lived under the Delhi Sultanate. He was an iconic figure in the cultural history of the Indian subcontinent. He was a mystic and a spiritual disciple of 

. He wrote poetry primarily in Persian, but also in Hindiwi. Khusrow is sometimes referred to as the “

Khusrow is one of the most influential and transformative figures in the cultural history of Northern India. He epitomizes the coming together of the genius of the South Asian and Central Asian creative processes. He was the first and best-known poet of Hindiwi, which later divided into Hindi and Urdu. These two languages owe a lot to Khusrow. He was born to a 

 mother which is the reason why he wrote in Persian in the initial days of his career, although Indian languages were not unknown to him. Following are some lines of his most renowned Persian kalaam:

“Nami danam chi manzil bood shab jaay ki man boodam; Baharsu raqs-e bismil bood shab jaay ki man boodam. Khuda khud meer-e majlis bood andar laamakan Khusrow; Muhammad shamm-e mehfil bood shab jaay ki man boodam.” (I wonder what was the place where I was last night, All around me were half-slaughtered victims of love, tossing about in agony. God himself was the master of ceremonies in that heavenly court, Oh Khusrau, where the Prophet too was shedding light like a candle.)

 and other places as an official chronicler with one King or another. He travelled to Punjab with his spiritual guide and 

 as a curious traveller. It was in these expeditions that he picked up words from different languages and used them with great felicity and imagination in his songs, of course, but also in riddles, which have become part of everyday speech in large swathes of South Asia. Many poets of the early medieval time wrote poems in Hindiwi following Khusrow; the prominent ones among them are 

Malik Mohammad Jayasi’s ‘Padmavat’.

Delhi was home to many Sufi saints including Nizamuddin Auliya, the fourth head of the Chishtiya order. That was the time when 

 was becoming popular among the Indian population. The doors of 

, a monastery, were open to all creeds and classes. The Sufis who mostly spoke Turki, Persian, 

, wished to communicate with the growing number of new adherents of their culture in their language. Those who settled in Punjab chose 

 and Punjabi as the language of their discourse, just as those who travelled to 

. In Delhi, Nizamuddin Auliya asked his favourite disciple, Khusrow, to write in the language of people, so they could “

”. As it turned out, the disciple did much more than that. He mixed languages in his exclusive style. For instance, in every stanza of his most discussed 

, he has used Persian in the first line, whereas Braj in the second:

“Shaban-e-hijran daraz chun zulf, Wa roz-e-waslat cho umer kotah. Sakhi piya ko jo main na dekhun, To kaise katun andheri ratiyan” (Long like curls in the night of separation short like life on the day of our union. My dear, how will I pass the dark dungeon night without your face before.)

Hazrat Amir Khusrow Qalandar died in 1325, and after his death, Hindiwi received the acclaim and patronage it deserved. It was recognised as the court language in the 

Royal Durbars of Bahmani, Gujarat and Delhi sultanates

. However, during the initial days of the 

 rule, Hindiwi lost its lustre. The main reasons were that the Mughals preferred typical Persian as their court language over Indian or mixed languages. Secondly, they claimed themselves to be descendants of 

 while Amir Khusrow and other contemporary poets criticized Mongols’ policy of expansion and portrayed them as inhumane plunderers. Nevertheless, Hindiwi evolved again as Rekhta or Urdu around the 18th century in the 

 which is still one of the most accepted languages in India.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the author. They do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of The Jamia Review or its members.

HINDIWI, URDU AND AMIR KHUSROW

On the 26th day of November 1949, the newly formed democracy of India adopted its constitution and on the very first page under Article 1(1), it was imprinted that “

India that is Bharat shall be Union of states.

” A union of states because the framers of our constitution believed that our first step towards a welfare state should be providing citizens with grassroots democracy. They dreamt of a Union where the central government would act as a paperweight to bind different opinions of people of different origins in this vastly diverse country. But this idea of our founding fathers seem to be suppressed in recent times.

Federal Parliamentary Constitutional Republic

 which means that citizens of India have the right to elect their representatives at the central and provincial level. Both governments have the right to make laws on their respective subjects as described in part eleven of the Constitution. Federal states differ from confederations where the central government is comparatively weak and subordinate to the regional governments and from a Unitary state which has a strong and restraining central government with no or subordinate regional power.

While justifying the validation of this act, a spokesperson of the central government said that if the people of Delhi wanted the 

 government, they would have voted for them in the 2019 general elections. This is where it is hard for one to decide whether to laugh at such thinking or be compassionate of the one possessing it. India’s founding fathers always believed that people’s opinion may differ at every level of government. 

 is the best example of it where the people have the right to vote at even the smallest units of democracy. Potentially, the spokesperson and the leadership of the ruling party of worlds largest democracy failed to understand the basics of a federal system.

The act was also widely criticized by the top bureaucrats of the country as there is no clarity as to what proposal or matters are required to be submitted to Lieutenant Governor before issuing an order thereon. Some retired Administrative Services officers, who have served the country in different prominent fields in past, remarked that 

this act will practically paralyse the Government of Delhi.

While discussing the suppression of the federal nature of our country, the 

 state becomes remarkable. In August 2019, speculations were accelerated that something ‘major’ was going to happen in the valley when the central government doubled the deployment of central forces in the state, specifically Kashmir valley.

 announced in the Parliament that all the subsections, except clause 1, of Article 370 of the constitution, that had given J&K special status, were going to be ineffective. In addition 

Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act 2019

 was introduced according to which the state of J&K was to be partitioned into two Union Territories, namely, Jammu and Kashmir, with unicameral legislature, and Ladakh, without legislature.

It is true that without proper knowledge of the political temperament of the region one cannot comment whether the revocation of Article 370 was right or not but the way it was implemented was unethical, for sure. Rather than consulting the representatives of the state about this matter, the central government had put all prominent Kashmiri leaders under house arrest. Talking about J&K Reorganisation Act, this is surely an injustice to the people of the state, to the citizens who still believe in democracy. Ideally, before taking such a decision for any state government should have the consent of the state legislature. The argument from the Centre’s side was given that the legislature was not in function. Here is another question: 

 Because the President’s rule was imposed by the central government in the state since 2018. That implies, someday government can handpick one state, that could be Maharashtra or Rajasthan, dissolve its legislature and then splitting it into several central controlled territories with a clarification that the legislature was not in function. This way there would only be two types of Province in India, either ruled by the party ruling the centre or controlled by the centre.

There are evident incidents in recent past where the Central Government has ignored Federal Nature of the Constitution like approval of 

Articles by Syed Mohammad Ali

Consent to Intercourse: Failures of the Indian Penal Code

Remnants of a Parliamentary System

FOUNDATIONS OF A RIOT

The Road Towards the Darkest Days of Democracy

TAGORE, NATIONALISM, AND “NATIONALISM”

HINDIWI, URDU AND AMIR KHUSROW

THE DECLINING FEDERALISM OF INDIA

ETHICS OF BEING A DICTATOR

THE FACE OF YOUR LORD

‘MEER TAQI’: AN INCURABLE LOVER

Consent to Intercourse: Failures of the Indian Penal Code

Remnants of a Parliamentary System

FOUNDATIONS OF A RIOT

The Road Towards the Darkest Days of Democracy

TAGORE, NATIONALISM, AND “NATIONALISM”

HINDIWI, URDU AND AMIR KHUSROW

THE DECLINING FEDERALISM OF INDIA

ETHICS OF BEING A DICTATOR

THE FACE OF YOUR LORD

‘MEER TAQI’: AN INCURABLE LOVER