Revision as of 15:12, 16 December 2024

History

How Sir Syed collected funds for his AMU dream

ASAD REHMAN, Nov 17, 2024: The Indian Express

The university traces its origin to the founding of the Madrasatul Uloom in Aligarh by Sir Syed on May 24, 1875. On January 7, 1877, the Madrasatul Uloom became MAO College. Then, after the AMU Act was passed in 1920, nearly four decades later, MAO College got its current name.

The university traces its origin to the founding of the Madrasatul Uloom in Aligarh by Sir Syed on May 24, 1875. On January 7, 1877, the Madrasatul Uloom became MAO College. Then, after the AMU Act was passed in 1920, nearly four decades later, MAO College got its current name.

At the Aligarh Numaish (exhibition), an event started by the British that evolved into a major socio-cultural affair over the years, on February 6, 1894, Sir Syed Ahmad and his group of friends took the stage to recite ghazals and act in a play. Proceeds from their performance were earmarked for the development of the Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental (MAO) College, founded by the Muslim scholar, to further the cause of the community’s education in the country.

In Jahan-e-Syed, authors Mohammad Asim Siddiqui and Rahat Abrar quoted Sir Syed remarking, “If anyone is surprised to see me on stage, then he has no regard for his people…I am truly sorry for the people of this community who hold disgraceful things to be the cause of their honour and glory, but consider anything done in good faith for the benefit of their fellow men to be a cause for shame… You nobles, you wealthy men, you take pride in your riches and honour: Do you imagine that our children can profit from what you have, while your community is in such a poor state… I have done everything to raise money for the education our children must have… But my efforts have been to no avail…It is for this reason that I am standing on this stage, trying to do what I can for the education of our children.”

In 1920, two decades after Sir Syed’s death on March 27, 1898, MAO College would become Aligarh Muslim University (AMU). Over a century later, on November 8 this year, the Supreme Court underlined that the determination of the “minority character” of an institution is not a rigid concept and, in a narrow 4-3 majority verdict, overruled its 1967 ruling that had held that AMU was not a minority institution.

The university traces its origin to the founding of the Madrasatul Uloom in Aligarh by Sir Syed on May 24, 1875. On January 7, 1877, the Madrasatul Uloom became MAO College. Then, after the AMU Act was passed in 1920, nearly four decades later, MAO College got its current name.

MAO College’s journey to becoming AMU was realised due to Sir Syed adopting a multitude of ways to collect funds for his vision. MAO College was patterned on the universities of Oxford and Cambridge, which Sir Syed had visited in Britain. His objective was to build a college in line with the British education system — but without compromising on Islamic values.

While Sir Syed had a “dream” and a “team of dedicated friends and well-wishers to help him in this mammoth exercise”, he had “no money”, Jahan-e-Syed states. The book’s chapter on fundraising for MAO College states that “he ran from pillar to post to raise funds for building MAO College. He met nobles and aristocrats, Rajas and Nawabs, and ordinary men and women on the street to generate resources for the college”.

As per a coffee table book published by AMU in 2020, its centenary year, Sir Syed collected funds though all possible means and methods — donations, lotteries, and sale of pictures and books, among others. “In the Aligarh Exhibition, an annual feature, he set up a book stall and sold books. He even put on a beggar’s jholi and begged for money,” says the book.

Rahat Abrar, a retired AMU professor and the former director of the Urdu Academy, says Sir Syed devoted his whole life to ensuring education for the Muslim community.

“He found innovative ways to collect money. Instead of seeking funds from the government, he wanted to collect money from the people. In 1875, he announced that those who gave Rs 25 would have their names written on the boundary wall of the Madrasatul Uloom (which later became MAO College and then AMU). Similarly, the names of donors who gave Rs 300 were written on the wall of a classroom or hostel. The names of those who contributed Rs 500 were written on the wall of the Central Hall (later the Strachey Hall). Till date, 285 names are written on AMU’s boundary walls,” Prof Abrar tells The Indian Express.

In 1891, he says, Sir Syed gifted Mir Mahboob Ali Khan, the sixth Nizam of Hyderabad, a painting. “The Nizam bought the painting for a handsome amount. That money too went for the construction of the college,” Prof Abrar says.

Sir Syed had a few more aces up his sleeves. “When he travelled across the country to collect funds for MAO College, he would refuse to eat feasts prepared by his patrons. He would say that instead of feeding him, the money should be donated to MAO College,” says Prof Abrar.

AMU’s 2020 coffee table book mentions the lengths that Sir Syed went to in order to collect money for the college. “It became his practice that on every occasion of family festivities and ceremonies, he donated the money which he would have spent on the feasts, to the college fund. It is interesting to note that he did not give a walima (reception) party on the occasion of the marriage of his son Justice Sayyid Mahmood; instead contributed Rs. 500 to the college fund,” the book states.

Sir Syed’s son studied law in England on a scholarship. An author, Mahmood too dedicated his life to the cause of Muslim education. Mahmood, who died on May 8, 1903, would go on to become a judge in the court in the North-Western Provinces (now the Allahabad High Court).

A fund named “Sir Syed Fund” was started after Sir Syed’s death in 1898, says Prof Abrar. In 1920, the British government demanded Rs 30 lakh to turn MAO College into a university. A committee headed by Sir Agha Khan, under the aegis of the Aligarh Movement, continued to collect funds from people from different walks of life. “While most of the funds were provided by the Muslim community, Hindus too came forward to donate for the cause…the names of several Hindu rulers are still written inside the AMU premises. The sum of Rs 30 lakh was paid to the government and AMU came into existence through the AMU Act, 1920,” says Prof Abrar.

Artefacts

2018: Artefacts, some over 5,000 years old, missing

Anuja Jaiswal, Artefacts, some over 5,000 yrs old, missing, April 24, 2018: The Times of India

Around 25% of rare artefacts have gone missing- Aligarh Muslim University (AMU)
From: Anuja Jaiswal, Artefacts, some over 5,000 yrs old, missing, April 24, 2018: The Times of India

Feared Stolen From AMU, Probe Ordered

Around 25% of rare artefacts kept in Aligarh Muslim University’s archaeology section, some of them even 5000 years old, have gone missing. The head of varsity’s history department has ordered an internal inquiry.

According to departmental sources, the artefacts, collected from various excavation sites of Atranjikhera, Fatehpur Sikri and Jhakhera, were either stolen or misplaced during the shifting of the varsity’s archaeological section in 2014. Several other artefacts have been also damaged in the process.

The missing artefacts include wires and bangles of ochre coloured pottery (OCP) culture and terracotta balls of painted grey ware (PGW) culture. While OCP culture is a 2nd millennium BC Bronze Age culture of the Indo-Gangetic plain, extending from eastern Punjab to western Uttar Pradesh, the PGW culture is an Iron Age culture of the western Gangetic plain and the Ghaggar-Hakra valley, lasting from roughly 1200 BC to 600 BC.

Chairman and coordinator of AMU’s history department, Prof Syed Ali Nadeem Rezavi, said the archaeology section had a stock of around 9,000 artefacts but no record is available now. He said, “It’s a loss for the nation as these artefacts were a national treasure.”

According to Prof Rezavi, the university’s founder, Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, had himself collected a number of these artefacts, including rare Hindu and Buddhist sculptures. “The actual loss can only be confirmed after the inquiry is completed, as we are still quantifying them,” he said.

Dr MK Pundhir, who took charge of the archaeology section last year, said these antiquities were collected over a period of 40 years, but due to carelessness of the staff involved in the shifting of the stock, many of these priceless articles have either been misplaced or damaged. He said, “Many artefacts had no marking on them and they were dumped like useless items in bags, as no one knew what they were.”

Gender issues

Girls first elected to students' union cabinet in 2016

Anuja Jaiswal, In a first, girls elected to AMU students' body, Oct 10 2016 : The Times of India

In another step forward for gender equality at Aligarh Muslim University , for the first time in the institution's history , three girls were elected to the cabinet of the students' union.

The three female students -Ghazala Ahmad, Labeeba Sherwani and Sadaf Rasool -were elected to the 10-member cabinet

Minority status

Chagla’s 1965 Parliament speech

Sibal, Mehta spar over Chagla’s 1965 Parliament speech on AMU’s status

Mehta Quotes Sept 2 Address To Counter Sibal On Sept 3-6 Speech

Dhananjay.Mahapatra@timesgroup.com 


New Delhi : What was the understanding of the Congressled Union government in 1965 about Aligarh Muslim University’s character — a nondenominational body or minority educational institution — when it amended the AMU Act, 1920, to shift the administrative powers from the ‘University Court’ to its executive council and ended compulsory religious instructions to Muslim students?


The September 1965 speech in Parliament of then education minister M C Chagla, the celebrated chief justice of Bombay high court and who had refused then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru’s offer for Supreme Court judgeship and who, later, served as education minister.


the speech Chagla gave in September 3-6, 1965 in the backdrop of a war-l ike situation with Pakistan. Chagla had said, “There is an undeclared war. We should do everything in our power to maintain communal harmony. We should not say a word which will inter fere with that harmony which exists, and which should continue to exist.” Sibal wished these words to reverberate in the present “intolerant” atmosphere.


Chagla had also said that the 1965 AMU (Amendment) Bill “will not in any way affect the special character of the University” and Sibal cited this to buttress his point that lawmakers had always co nsidered AMU to be a minority institution. He backed it by narrating historical facts leading up to 1920 when the Muslim community collected Rs 30 lakh (Rs 500 crore at present value) to establish AMU. Sibal further quoted Chagla: “It (AMU) should be the symbol of Muslim culture in the context of secular India. It should be an example to the rest of the world how different communities can live together in peace and harmony in our country... Aligarh should be strengthened and should become a modern progressive university, that it should be a shining light not only in India but abroad, of our great composite culture.”


Sibal asked, “Why should the government try to destroy the minority character of a university of national importance that has embodied the country’s composite culture? Why would the court rule that this is not a minority institution and destroy the century-old legacy.”


However, Mehta accused Sibal of quoting Chagla selectively and not placing Chagla’s entire speech before the court. He cited Chagla’s September 2, 1965, speech in Parliament in which he had said, “My submission to this House is that AMU has neither been established nor is being ad ministered by the Muslim Community... Sir Syed Ahmed had asked the British government of those days to establish a university and the British government established the university. Therefore, the establishment of AMU was by the legislature and not by the community.”


“I say that this institution (AMU) was not established by the minority; nor is it being administered by the minority community. That is the legal position as far as Article 30 is concerned,” Chagla had said.


Sibal, who was the HRD minister in UPA government, wriggled out of the sticky situation by saying a minister’s (Chagla’s) contradictory statements is of no assistance to SC in determining whether AMU retained its minority status right from inception and whether SC’s five-judge bench erred by ruling in Azeez Basha case in 1967 upholding the 1951 and 1965 amendments to the AMU Act and ruling that the university was not a minority institution.

1967, 1981

Dhananjay Mahapatra, January 9, 2024: The Times of India

AMU’s status: A ruling from 1967 & adoubt from 1981

In 1967, a five-judge Constitution bench in S Azeez Basha vs Union of India had ruled that AMU “was neither established nor administered by Muslim minority”, and consequently, held that it can’t enjoy protection for minorities to administer educational institutions under Article 30(1) of the Constitution.


On November 26, 1981, a two-judge bench of the SC in Anjuman-e-Rahmania vs District Inspector of Schools questioned the correctness of the Azeez Basha ruling and referred the matter to a seven -judge bench. While the matter was pending consideration of a seven-judge bench, petitions were filed before Allahabad HC challenging AMU’s decision to reserve seats for Muslims in postgraduate courses. The HC on January 5, 2006, declared that AMU was never a minority institution, and that reservations for Muslim minority in postgraduate courses was declared as unconstitutional and impermissible.


In addition, the HC struck down three important changes introduced through the AMU (Amendment) Act, 1981. Abatch of eight petitions, including one by the Union government, challenged the correctness of the HC verdict in the SC. The Centre, during the UPA government’s tenure, had supported the minority status for AMU. The NDA government in 2016 withdrew its appeal from the SC and said AMU was not a minority institution.


Though the controversy arose 57 years ago with the Azeez Basha case ruling and was referred to the sevenjudge bench for reconsideration nearly 43 years ago, the issue remains unresolved. A seven-j udge bench comprising CJI Chandrachud, and Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Surya Kant, J B Pardiwala, Dipankar Datta, manoj Misra and Satish Sharma is scheduled to commence on Tuesday proceedings on eight petitions in addition to the referred questions.


AMU, in its written submissions, finalised by senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, cited the historical facts including transformat ion of Mohammedan Anglo Oriental College into AMU and the architecture of the building — use of a deep green colour, domes, Quranic inscriptions — to buttress its argument about the Islamic character of the university.


The emblem of AMU contains a Quranic verse which is also its motto; has a university mosque; employs muezzins; has separate departments of studies for Sunni theology, Shea theology, Islamic studies, Arabic language and literature, Persian and Urdu, Islamic philosophy and Quranic studies — are the other characteristics which AMU cited to get back minority status. “AMU made accommodations for female students to observe purdah,” the AMU said.

2024: SC overturns ’67 verdict that removed AMU’s minority status

Dhananjay Mahapatra, Nov 9, 2024: The Times of India

A seven-judge bench of Supreme Court on Friday overruled by a four-to-three majority a 1967 judgment by a five-judge bench in Azeez Basha case, which had declared that Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) was not a minority institution as it was established by govt in 1920 and not by the minority community.

Without determining whether AMU is a minority institution or not, Friday's majority opinion penned by CJI D Y Chandrachud, for himself, CJI-designate Sanjiv Khanna and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra laid down elaborate indicia (parameters) for testing the minority character of an institution and tasked a regular bench with adjudicating the 57-year-old controversy based on the parameters.

The CJI said one of the key criteria for classifying an educational institution as a minority one was its establishment by a minority community for its members. Mere change of character of a college into a university through an Act of Parliament wouldn't negate its minority status, he said.

CJI: No minority tag if a community cedes institute’s administration after setting it up

This finding will favour the petitioners in placing their proposition that AMU is a minority educational institution.

Elaborating on the components of action to prove that an institution was established by the minority community to get the protection under Article 30(1) of the Constitution, the CJI said, "The indicia of ideation, purpose and implementation must be satisfied. First, the idea for establishing an educational institution must have stemmed from a person or group belonging to the minority community.

"Second, the educational institution must be established predominantly for the benefit of the minority community; and third, steps for implementation of the idea must have been taken by the member(s) of the minority community."

Article 30(1) states, "All minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice." After stipulating criteria for proving establishment of an educational institution by a minority community, the CJI turned to the requirements under ‘establish’.

"The administrative set-up of the educational institution must elucidate and affirm (i) the minority character of the educational institution; and (ii) that it was established to protect and promote the interests of the minority community," he said. If a minority community relinquishes administration of an educational institution after establishing it, the same cannot get minority tag, the CJI said.

The majority opinion said Article 30(1) was a non-discriminatory provision guaranteeing special rights to minority communities to establish and administer educational institutions., with which no law could interfere.

"Additionally, a linguistic or religious minority which has established an educational institution receives the guarantee of greater autonomy in administration. This is the ‘special rights' reading of the provision," it added.

The majority opinion said ‘minority tag' and consequential constitutional rights were available even to institutions established before 1950, when the Constitution came into force.

Incorporation of Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College, established in 1877, into Aligarh Muslim University in 1920 was argued by the govt as a major reason behind the institution losing its minority tag. The Act was amended in 1951 and 1965, both of which were upheld by the SC's five-judge bench in 1967.

Based on the 1967 judgment, Allahabad HC in 2005 had struck down reservation for Muslim students in AMU. This was challenged in the SC by AMU along with a bunch of other Muslim petitioners and Islamic organisations.

Countering the reasoning of Basha judgment, the majority opinion said, "Incorporation of the university would not ipso facto lead to surrendering of the minority character of the institution. The circumstances surrounding the conversion of a teaching college to a teaching university must be viewed to identify if the minority character of the institution was surrendered upon the conversion.

"The court may on a holistic reading of the statutory provisions relating to the administrative set-up of the educational institution deduce if the minority character or the purpose of establishment was relinquished upon incorporation.”

Ramzan

Non-Muslims are served lunch

Non-Muslims at AMU to get lunch during Ramzan, June 1, 2017: The Times of India

University Clarifies After Protests In The Last Few Days

Faced with sudden criticism over “not providing“ lunch to non-Muslim students in hostels during the month of Ramzan, Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) has clarified that food is available “on demand“ to such students.

In a statement the central university said: “Dining halls of various residential halls and hostels in AMU are serving food during lunch hours in the holy month of Ramzan to students who are not observing the fast.“

Following “protests“ by some students in the last couple of days and the corresponding controversy that erupted on social media, the varsity has been hard put to explain its stand.

Many teachers and students have, however, maintained that this is a “non-issue“ and is being given an “unnecessary a communal colour“. Shahzad Alam Burni, former president of AMU stu dents' union, said the practice had been going on for “ages“ but no one had ever objected. He alleged that this year a deliberate attempt was being made to give a communal tinge to the matter.

Former students, including Hindus, said everyone in the past “cooperated on this convention to respect the sentiments of fasting students“. Prof Syed Ali Nadeem Rezavi, chairman of AMU's history department, said, “Besides, there are dozens of big and small eateries in the vicinity and nobody really bothers about just one meal.“

Prof Shaefy Kidwai, member in-charge of AMU's public relations office, said non-Muslim students never objected to this ageold practice in the past.

“But since they have, lunch will be provided to them on advance notice,“ he added.

The controversy started with a tweet from Prashant Patel, a Delhi high court layer, highlighting the “problem“. As it went viral on social media, with people's opinion divided on both sides of the debate, a number of AMU students, both Muslims and Hindus, joined it.

Rashmi Singh, who resides in Begum Sultan hostel of the varsity , wrote in her Facebook post that the students are getting breakfast and dinner as usual. “They are getting a light lunch because the number of students having lunch is less,“ she wrote, adding that she is getting to enjoy sehri and iftar as well.

Sports

Distinguished alumni

Ishita Mishra, December 10, 2018: The Times of India  

Anees-Ur-Rehman, a former Indian international hockey player from the mid-80s and current deputy director of the AMU sports committee.

AMU has boasted of many illustrious male hockey (and football) players through the decades, with former 1980s captain, Zafar Iqbal — born in Aligarh, his father was head of the Chemistry department at AMU — being the last Olympic gold medal winner (Moscow 1980) from the university.

Other stalwarts include Masood Minhaj (Los Angeles Olympics, 1932), Ahsan Mohammad Khan (Berlin Olympics, 1936), Lt A Shakoor, Madan Lal, Lateef-ur Rehman, Akhtar Husain Hayat (all of whom played in London Olympics, 1948), Jogendra Singh (Rome Olympics, 1960) and SM Ali Sayeed (Tokyo, 1964) among others.

See also

Aligarh Muslim University (AMU)

Aligarh Muslim University: Vice Chancellors (1920-79)

Aligarh Muslim University: Vice Chancellors (1979 onwards): list

Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) Women’s College

Faculty of Law, Aligarh Muslim University

Syed Ross Masud