India

What does the attack on Fatima Shaikh's legacy tell us?

Mandal has claimed he has fabricated Fatima Shaikh's story, despite evidence.

Credit : Indie Journal

 

On January 9, the day celebrated as the birth anniversary of Fatima Shaikh, who is known to be a close friend and colleague of Savitribai Phule, Dilip Mandal, erstwhile activist and now a media advisor to in the Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting stirred up a controversy. He made claims that Fatima Shaikh never existed and that it was him, who had created the so-called ‘character’ back in 2019. While the claims have led to debates on social media, activists and scholars have been pulling out references to Fatima Shaikh existence from historical and government-published documents, stating that the controversy has only been stirred up to cause political and communal unrest and negate the contribution of Muslims in progressive India’s history.

Fatima Shaikh is known to be a close associate of Savitribai Phule. It is also said that she worked alongside Phule and taught at the school they started for girls. While not much is found about Shaikh in the historic documents, she finds a reference in one of the letters that Savitribai wrote to Mahatma Phule. However, despite this, Mandal on Thursday claimed in a post on X (formerly Twitter) titled ‘Confession’ that it was him who created the “myth or fabricated character” of Fatima Shaikh in an article that he wrote for The Print in 2019. He also claimed that there had been no reference to Fatima Shaikh anywhere prior to his article. These claims have been busted by scholars, who have shown multiple references to Fatima Shaikh documented by the Maharashtra Government, over 30 years before Mandal says he allegedly fabricated her character. 

“It is true that we have just one solid piece of evidence that points to the existence of Fatima Bi. It is the letter that Savitribai wrote to Jotirao from her maternal village in 1856. In this letter, she expresses reassurance that ‘Fatima must be shouldering the hardships in my absence but she is not a person who would complain.’ Beyond this sentence, we do not get any reliable historical evidence about Fatima, says Shraddha Kumbhojkar, Professor and Head, Department of History, Savitribai Phule Pune University (SPPU).

 

 

However, she also points out that this sentence in the letter also means that there must have been a lady colleague of Savitribai, who would be shouldering the responsibilities in Savitribai’s absence. “So the sentence can be understood as an indication of the presence of an able colleague in the person of Fatima,” Kumbhojkar says.

She further says, “Satyashodhak movement started by the Mahatma Phule comprised people from various castes and religions. Muslims are known to be a significant part of this movement as well,” she says. When asked if all of this makes it plausible that a Muslim woman could definitely have been a close associate of Savitribai, Kumbhojkar responds with a ‘yes’.

 

Savitribai Phule and Fatima Shaikh's photograph created from a 100-year-old negative, mentioned by MG Mali.

 

Apart from the letter, social activist Paigambar Shaikh has also cited documents published by the Maharashtra Government back in 1988, wherein Fatima Shaikh has been mentioned.

“A book published by Maharashtra Rajya Sahitya Ani Sanskrutik Mandal in 1988, Savitribai Phule - Samagra Vangmay - mentions the letter written by Savitribai, in which she writes about Fatima. The book, edited by renowned researcher MG Mali, also talks about a group photo from which Savitribai’s photo was derived and photo negatives from which Savitribai and Fatima Shaikh’s photos were taken,” Shaikh adds.

The books editor has also mentioned in his foreword that he verified both these photographs himself.

Vanchit Bahujan Aghadi (VBA) President Dr. Prakash Ambedkar has condemned this controversy saying that “some so-called intellectuals, in service of RS-BJP, are trying to instigate Dalits against Muslims. He appealed to those following Shahu-Phule-Ambedkar to steer clear of these “thieves and quacks of RSS-BJP”.

 

 

“This controversy is more of an attempt to undermine the pluralistic nature of Satyashodhak movement, and confine it to one caste. They don’t like any movement to be pluralistic like that, and prefer it when progressive movements remain attached to a particular caste,” Kumbhojkar states, adding that the controversy around two important names in Satyashodhak movement as well as women’s education were questioned prominently for the first time in 2018, just after Bhima-Koregaon violence - Fatima Shaikh and Mukta Salve.

“Mukta Salve was a woman in Lahuji Vastad’s family who educated herself and then went on to be an educator. After her existence was questioned, a student at SPPU, Om Bodle, conducted research on her life and published his MA dissertation project on the same, which provides evidence to her existence. Now that they cannot touch Mukta Salve, they have targeted Fatima Shaikh again,” Kumbhojkar says.

Now she also states that whether her last name was Shaikh or Khan is indefinite. “However, does it really matter if she is a Khan and not a Shaikh. Targeting Fatima Shaikh seems more like an attempt to show how Muslims are not progressive. Once they prove that, they find it easier to vilify them,” she adds.

“Fatima Shaikh was neither the first, nor the only educated or progressive Muslim woman in India. There were many before as well as after her. At the same time, we have several Muslim men and women who have been part of progressive movements, who have taken feminist stands and who have been part of the Satyashodhak movement. So deliberating on whether it is possible that a Muslim woman be part of a progressive movement is ridiculous,” Shaikh says.

Many extreme right wing X (Twitter) handles have jumped on this bandwagon to target the role of Muslims in Maharashtra’s history, going as far as saying that the mention of Muslims in the history, which is backed by evidence, as fabricated accounts.

 

 

Many conservative trolls are also using 2022 tweets by late Prof. Hari Narke, where he questioned the determination of January 9 as Fatima Shaikh’s birth anniversary.

“What he questioned in those tweets was the date, not Fatima Shaikh’s existence. It is true that we did not have the exact date of birth for Fatima Shaikh. And is that really surprising? Until recently, many people would not know their actual date of birth due to a lack of proper documentation of births in India. Many people celebrate their birthday on June 1, as it was designated to be their date of birth at the time of their admission to the school. My own mother’s birthday is on June 1,” Shaikh says.

He adds, “Fatima Shaikh’s birth year was known - 1831. But her birth date was not known. So people would spread messages about her birth anniversary on several days throughout the year. In order to avoid this, January 9 was determined to be celebrated as her birth anniversary,” Shaikh says.

He also says that those using Narke’s name for trolling also miss out on his earlier statement, that he had been researching the lives of Mahatma Phule, Savitribai Phule and Fatima Shaikh for over 30 years.

“This is a good opportunity to ask both the sides to temper their arguments when it comes to history,” Kumbhojkar concludes.

 

More from Author