Dr. Govind Dhaske
History writing is an academic endeavor; however, in India, it is equally an active political field. Dilip Mandal’s recent confession-style posts have sparked intense debates regarding Fatima Sheikh’s association with Jyotirao and Savitribai Phule and her contributions to their educational work. These discussions have surfaced more fundamental questions about how histories are researched, interpreted, and manipulated in India. Regardless of the speculative aspects of Fatima Sheikh’s actual contributions, the sweeping denial of her existence is symptomatic of how historical narratives are easily politicized to undermine underrepresented individuals and groups. Furthermore, the fact that journalistic accounts, rather than credible academic research, control such narratives shows the historical crisis within India’s knowledge production culture. It is well known that privileged political and cultural entities shape the collective memory of the masses to suit their political objectives and regularly hijack narratives and underlying research-either implicitly or explicitly.
Despite the lack of adequately convincing evidence about Fatima Sheikh, she has been portrayed as the first female teacher from the Muslim community and co-founder of the first school for girls in India alongside the Phules. In doing so, several authors resorted to extrapolation due to insufficient available evidence. Consequently, a single piece of evidence was extensively used to fill gaps in the historical record of Fatima Sheikh. However, this process was gradually exaggerated to the extent that Fatima’s birth date was invented, and events were constructed around it without verification against historical records. While ‘extrapolation’ is a valuable tool for connecting dots to construct a fuller picture of a phenomenon under investigation, it must be used with fair judgment and integrity. Now the question is, what caused this debate?
The Politicization of Historical Narratives and Extrapolation
If one carefully examines texts written about Fatima Sheikh it becomes evident that there is no reference to any substantial valid, original evidence beyond a single mention of her name in a letter written by Savitribai Phule to her husband Jyotirao. In Fatima Sheikh’s case, where her history was not documented, extrapolation was necessary for sense-making. However, the texts and narratives shaped afterward expanded her work and role beyond the scope of available evidence. Eventually it distorted the historical truths about the revolutionary contributions of the Phules. The entire situation demonstrates how false extrapolations, when politicized, can complicate the histories of marginalized communities.
Extrapolation is a valuable strategy when writing the history of individuals and communities that have been intentionally excluded from mainstream documentation. Fatima Sheikh, a woman from Pune’s conservative, British-era society, represents the complex marginalization inherent in an intersectional identity. The historical record inadequately reflects the contributions of many marginalized groups, including women, Dalits, Muslims, and others, despite their significant efforts and sacrifices. While their identities often defined their victimization, their heroic deeds served to unite society across class, caste, and religious divides. To undo the centuries-old exclusion from historical texts, responsible extrapolation is necessary to recover their contributions. However, when driven by ideological or political motives, extrapolation can lead to speculative histories that fail to withstand critical scrutiny for evidence. Unfortunately, Fatima Sheikh’s history was drawn into controversy due to such false extrapolations. Fatima Sheikh’s identification as a pioneer of education has been celebrated, while the historical evidence for her life and work lacks robust documentation. Such circumstances have raised questions about authenticity and limits of historical construction in India.
At a very early stage, when unreasonable interpretations began to surface, researcher and writer Hari Narke cautioned against false interpretations. However, politically motivated writers continued to construct and expand false narratives trivializing history. Alongside this, their active political allies further deepened the narrative by integrating it into practice through events. Clearly, in this case, the integrity of history writing was at stake. Despite Mr. Narke raising valid concerns about the credibility, narratives were built around her contributions and ultimately, all this led to a collective embarrassment. At the core of such wrongdoing was an obsessive political agenda, a factor that is less explored in today’s social media-fed, polarized social psyche divided into the oversimplified groupings like the saffron right and the secular left.
Solidarity Through Speculative Histories?
The left-wing intelligentsia in India has been proactive in shaping narratives that amplify the voices of marginalized groups. Notably, a significant portion of Indian academia comprises left-wing thinkers adding to the advantage for influencing informed and well-articulated arguments on policy debates and political narratives. As part of their broader ideological commitment to the marginalized, historical figures like Jyotirao and Savitribai Phule have been central to their assertions, both political and academic. Within this context, Fatima Sheikh’s story holds tremendous potential to expand the legacy of the Phules to a wider audience including progressive masses with intersectional identities. Since 2014, the narrative of intersectional solidarity among OBCs, Dalits, Muslims, and women uniting against oppression has become a pressing political necessity for the left wing, and Fatima Sheikh’s legacy aligns with this agenda.
In this case, left-leaning ideologues endorsed arbitrary narratives through extrapolation but ended up bordering on controversial fabrication of some parts. Such political tendencies to manipulate history stem from the need to mobilize mass public support by creating symbols that appeal to marginalized communities. Building alliances against dominant power structures is a well-intentioned democratic act. However, this approach risks diluting the integrity of historical research.
In the case of Fatima Sheikh’s story, the left wing inadvertently undermined the credibility of their own narratives. Additionally, the left-wing writers also damaged the revolutionary legacy of the Phules- a legacy that has consistently endured despite relentless political opposition from privileged powerful caste-varna groups in India. Unfortunately, left-wing academicians have not expressed regret for their incompetence in this illogical surrender to journalistic narratives. Such failures are bound to face criticism from opponents, who may dismiss these narratives as ideologically driven rather than evidence-based.
Preserving Marginalized Histories with Integrity
As this debate became politically fueled, the right wing elites maintained a granular focus on building political capital from it. The most problematic aspect within the existing debate is the right-wing supporters’ self-proclaimed assertions as the ‘guardian of true history’ which contrasts with the broader perceptions. While sweepingly dismissing Fatima Sheikh’s existence, they simultaneously delegitimize collective efforts to reclaim marginalized voices in historical narratives. These strategies are highly compatible with their long-standing historical and cultural domination. Beyond settling political scores, the right wing has also managed to erase the historical resistance to Brahmanical cultural hegemony- a resistance originally championed by the pioneering cultural revolution of Jyotirao Phule.
The debate surrounding Fatima Sheikh’s historical role highlights the deep complexities of historical research and the representation of marginalized groups in India. Regrettably, both left- and right-wing factions, often dominated by privileged groups, have used the false extrapolation to advance their political and cultural agendas. These dynamics have compromised the authentic documentation of marginalized histories. The left wing’s survivalist tendency to create speculative narratives for political solidarity and the right wing’s exploitation of marginalized revolutions have together laid a challenging path for accurately and authentically representing the histories of excluded groups and their revolutionaries.
The history of intersectional resistance inspired by revolutionaries like Phule led to the emergence of Satyashodhak Muslims. Yet, even within Muslim intellectual and cultural circles, awareness and recognition of this legacy rooted in Phule’s non-Brahman movement remain limited. While Fatima Sheikh’s legacy is contested, it is imperative for Muslim scholars to focus on recovering and celebrating the authentically documented contributions of their reformists. At the same time, they must resist false extrapolations that result in undermining their credibility. This is particularly challenging considering the current political climate where awareness of the Satyashodhak legacy is convoluted. Nevertheless, countering the misuse of these histories by both left- and right-wing factions is essential to ensure protection of the histories of the marginalized. Despite her notable symbolic standing, Fatima Sheikh, as a secular representative of a religious minority, continues to await historical justice.
~~~
Dr. Govind Dhaske is an activist-scholar and socio-cultural theorist, deeply rooted in indigenous paradigms and decolonial frameworks, with a commitment to Lingayat social justice values. Currently, Dr. Govind serves as a social work educator in the USA and mentors first-generation students from marginalized communities in India, guiding them in pursuing higher education and research.
