Why erasing ‘H’ from BHU and ‘M’ from AMU is an unworkable idea
This goes against the original charter of these institutions from the time of the British Raj
R ecently, a University Grants Commission (UGC) panel suggested that the words Muslim from Ali ga rh Muslim University (A MU) and Hindu from Ban ar as Hindu University (BHU) should be dropped. By suggesting this, the panel exceeded its brief, revealed its ignorance about the historic origin and unique character of these two institutions.
The movement for setting up denominational universities such as BHU and AM U has an interesting history, and it wasn’t easy for its founders to set them up. For example, Varanasi- based Central Hindu College—which later be came BH U—was established by Hindus for their educational advancement. This is because Hindus felt powerless under the British and were worried about the preservation of their culture. After the 1857 Sepoy Mutiny, Muslims were convinced that their salvation was in western education. They were also clear that it should not come at the cost of Islamic education. S ye d Ah mad Khan established Mad ar satu l-u lo om Mus alma nane-H ind in 1875 in Aligarh. Two years later, it was converted into the Mohammedan Anglo-Oriental College( MA O ), primarily meant to cater to the educational needs of Muslims.
On March 26, 1906, Lt Governor of Uttar Pradesh James La Touche wrote to educationis ta nd politician MM Malviya that‘ if the cultured classes throughout India are willing to establish a Hindu University with its colleges clustered round it, they have my best wishes for their success.’ His successor JP Hewett in a letter to the Government of India (GoI) on January 16,1909, stated that “he is against the denominational universities and even Indian Universities Commission in Para 32 .... had opposed such an idea”. The GoI too in 1909 agreed with this view but advised La Touche not to quote GoI. On July 18, 1911, GoI sanctioned negotiations on the draft constitution of a Hindu university.
Malviya had the task of raising funds for the proposed university. Lord Charles Hardinge on September 1, 1911, called Malviya ‘a real rascal ’. Ma ha raj a of Darb hang aR a meshwar Singh too wrote to the Go I against Malvi ya. Khan was also opposed by the clergy and five fatwas were issued against him. Subsequently Muslim nationalists opposed conceding any governmental supervision in the proposed Muslim university.
On the submission of the draft constitution of the Mos lem University by the Go I( November 2,1911), the then secretary of state— Marquess of Crew e—replied in 1912:“I observe that in the draft scheme the University is entitled The Mos lem University, or The Mos lem University, Aligarh. This title should be altered to ‘the University of Aligarh.” The copy of this letter was sent to promoter soft he Hindu university also.
The promoters of both universities were disappointed. The Darbhanga maharaja, president of the Hindu University Society, wrote to Harcourt Butler, member–in-charge of education, Go I that“the new name will not appeal to the Hindu public at large ”. He added that the name will not change the essential Hindu character of the university. On behalf of the Constitution Committee of Mos lem University, Raj a of M ah mood a bad wrote to Butler (August 13, 1912) that ‘in the concluding para of your letter you tell me that the secretary of state has decided that the future University shall be styled as University of Aligarh. This decision has caused the committee much pain, and in view of the fact that it goes against the long cherished and deeply felt sentiment of the entire Muslim community, the committee trusts that it will also be reconsidered”.
Viceroy Lord Hardinge in his letter to the secretary of state (October 7, 1912) stated that the official decision will lead to‘ insurmountable difficulty’ for the government and that “there is undoubtedly strong opinion that objection to word Moslem is being taken by many as part of policy of Christian nations to curb Islam. We suggest a Moslem University and should Hindu University material is ewe suggest for that Banaras Hindu University. These names grow out of existing names of Muhammadan Anglo Oriental College and Central Hindu College and unless there are objections of overwhelming weight we think it a concession that might well be made to local sentiment”.
In his reply (November 29, 1912), the secretary of state conceded ground. On July 10, 1913, the senior official wrote that ‘secular education has not produced results so satisfactory that effortto combine with it religious instruction—difficult though the task maybe —shall be discouraged. Denominational universities were needed as both the communities wanted to combine secular education with the instructions in respective religions. Butler finally wrote to Ma ha raj a of Darb hang a on July 18,1914, that‘ in order to meet the sentiment soft he subscribers it has been conceded that the university shall be called the ‘Banaras Hindu University’.
The Go I was clear that BHU wa snot a gov- er nm en t-established institution like the universities at Bombay, Madras and Calcutta. A Hindu member of Governor-General-in Council was asked to pilot the B HUB ill in 1915. Similar honour was given to a Muslim member to introduce the AM U Bill in 1920. All the properties gifted or willed by people in favour of the Central Hindu College and MA O on conversion into universities became properties of the respective universities.
So changing the name of these universities will not only go against the sentiments and wishes of those departed souls but will also be contrary to law of gift and will. The Centre deserves appreciation for negating the UGC’s proposal and saying that it is committed to retain the original nomenclature of BHU and AMU. The Centre must now rev ive the democratic functioning of BHU byres tori ng BHU Act, which has been under suspension for decades. Similarly the minority character of the AMU must be preserved.