New Delhi- In 2016, during an event held in an auditorium at Jawaharlal Nehru University, Streekaal honored senior Ambedkarite writer Anita Bharti with the Savitribai Phule Ideological Award. During this event, Anita ji mentioned to me, "Nowadays, discussions about Fatima Sheikh often begin on January 3rd, along with Savitribai Phule. Those who engage in these discussions haven't even bothered to research her birthdate. These are the same people who never remember Savitribai Phule alone."

Fatima Sheikh: A Post-Truth

Fatima Sheikh is mentioned in a single sentence in a letter written by Savitribai Phule to Mahatma Phule in 1856. In this letter, Savitribai refers to "Fatima." Over the past decade, Fatima Sheikh's birth anniversary began to be celebrated alongside Savitribai Phule's on January 3, or she was at least remembered on the same day. This led to questions about why her birth anniversary wasn't celebrated on her actual birthdate and why there was no research into it.

Soon, within two to three years, Fatima Sheikh's birth date was fixed as January 9, 1831—the same birth year as Savitribai Phule. This birth year, along with a date and year of death, was recorded on Wikipedia and Google. In 2022, Google even created a Doodle in her honor on January 9, marking her supposed birthday.

This development is often seen as a response to the growing influence of the Sangh Parivar and a supposed effort to promote Dalit-Muslim unity. In the third decade of the 20th century, a purported photograph of Fatima Sheikh with Savitribai Phule was published in a magazine and became widely accepted under her name. However, when Google released the Doodle in 2022, Hari Narke, a scholar specializing in the Satyashodhak movement and the era of Mahatma Phule and Savitribai Phule, expressed his objection and sarcastically commented on social media, "It's funny; today Google created a Doodle for Fatima Sheikh." He questioned, "But who discovered this birthday? Which document mentions it?"

On January 8 this year, Anita Bharti posted a picture of Fatima Sheikh on her Facebook page, identifying it as Shaguna Bai. On January 9, Dilip Mandal quoted Anita Bharati from an interview he conducted in 2019 for The Print, and passed off Fatima Sheikh as his own creation.

Dilip Mandal, a social media influencer working in the Bahujan space, has recently been associated with communal politics, receiving support and benefits from the BJP government. His actions are being compared to those of Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma.

This statement sparked widespread debate, and Dilip Mandal’s claims were debunked as false. Anita Bharti, distancing herself from Mandal’s communal intentions, issued a note clarifying her stance. However, she maintained her position against the growing myth around history.

Dilip Mandal's claims, though partially true, are misleading. While it is true that Fatima Sheikh has been discussed since the third decade of the 19th century, there is no concrete evidence of her birthdate or any authentic photograph of her. No primary sources document her contributions. Additionally, despite being a literate woman from that era, no personal writings of hers have been found. In contrast, Mukta Salve, a Dalit student of Savitribai Phule's school, has left behind written work.

During the debate, which spanned two or three days, a flood of references from sources like Indian Express, BBC Hindi, and others emerged. Some highlighted Google Doodles, while others presented research conducted in a couple of universities. Yet, after all these discussions, certain conclusions were reached:

1. Fatima existed, and she belonged to the Osman Sheikh family, where Savitribai Phule reportedly stayed for 11 days, but it is not fully proven.

2. Fatima’s photograph has been identified from a group photo of Savitribai Phule, but the original photo does not mention any names. It remains to be verified if the photo indeed belongs to Fatima or someone else. If it is someone else, that too must be established with evidence. Some people doubt her Muslim identity based on the style of wearing a sari, among other factors.

3. Fatima’s birth date, month, and death have not been proven through primary sources.

4. While some writings exist about Fatima, they mostly begin and end with a single line from Savitribai Phule. The rest appears to be imagination or rumors. Her actual contributions during her lifetime are yet to be authenticated.

5. Her supposed death date (October 9, 1900) is also unverified. It needs to be determined whether she was alive after Savitribai Phule’s death and, if so, whether such an important companion or personality wrote or spoke anything about her.

6. All university-level research conducted on Fatima, which has been brought forward, still requires comprehensive verification.

The Truth Behind Phule-Ambedkarite Concerns

There is a growing controversy among historians regarding the figure of Fatima Sheikh. In the last five years, several studies and research papers, notably from BHU and Jamia Millia Islamia, have emerged without any primary evidence. However, these have contributed to a "post-truth" narrative that has gradually established Fatima Sheikh as the first Muslim woman teacher alongside Savitribai Phule. The Wikipedia page on Fatima Sheikh continues to be edited based on these recent, often speculative, studies. Researchers themselves admit to the absence of concrete primary sources.

The situation has reached a point where Wikipedia has even suggested that Fatima Sheikh received her education in a madrasa, a claim based on a speculative assertion from a Jamia Millia research paper. If such claims are accepted as fact, the history of the first women’s school, established by Savitribai Phule in 1848 for the education of women, may face serious challenges.

This would undermine the legacy of her pivotal role in women’s education and dismantle the historical narrative of Bahujan struggles. Cultural nationalist ideologies have long propagated that Vedic sages like Gargi, Lopamudra, Ghosha, and Maitreyi were educated in ancient Indian gurukuls.

On January 3, the birth anniversary of Savitribai Phule, leftist scholar and critic Jagdishwar Chaturvedi wrote, “We have forgotten Bhagwati Devi!”

Bhagwati Devi, mother of Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar, played a pivotal role in shaping his character, particularly instilling in him compassion and a commitment to serving the poor. While Vidyasagar is often remembered, his mother’s contribution is largely overlooked.

Similarly, while Savitribai Phule is celebrated, Bhagwati Devi is forgotten. Around the same time, social media was flooded with articles and videos from alleged leftist factions, rejecting the contributions of Mahatma Phule, Savitribai Phule, and Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, even labeling them as anti-national.

These events resonate with the concerns raised by senior writer Anita Bharti and others from the Phule-Ambedkarite community, who fear that such narratives are weakening Bahujan spaces. Both the Left and Right seem to be reinforcing conservatism—some crediting madrasas for the foundation of women’s education, others pointing to gurukuls. The attempt to strip Savitribai Phule of her rightful recognition threatens the already fragile legacy of Bahujan icons.

Is Speaking the Truth Against a Myth an Act of Communalism?

Why can’t Savitribai Phule, the hero of marginalized communities, be regarded as a national icon for all of India? Why is it necessary to pit her against a fictionalized Muslim woman teacher, created based on a single reference? Why this need to compare them? This is communalism. Those who engage in such acts, or succeed in doing so, are merely promoting communalism. While the RSS celebrates December 6 as Victory Day, the other day marks Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar’s death anniversary. This pattern, this tendency, exists in both camps, and its root cause is Brahmanism.

The solution to communalism is simple: let every heroine be everyone’s heroine, every hero be everyone’s hero. Let Savitribai be for all, as well as Begum Aizaz Rasul (a member of the Constituent Assembly) or Iqbal. In parliamentary politics, leaders should be representatives of all, not just one community. Muslim leaders should be leaders for all, Bahujan leaders for all. However, in current parliamentary politics, Muslims must have their own leadership and representation. A secular life means including others—particularly Muslims—in every possible space. We must bring them into the departments we influence, into the NGOs, into research institutions, and into our daily lives. The question is whether those claiming to promote 'Dalit-Muslim unity' are creating compartments or practicing secularism. The sequence of "the first teacher, the first Muslim teacher, and so on" continues, and it will continue.

Countering Post-Truth and the Threat of Fascism

Fascism’s major weapon is post-truth, and it must be confronted promptly. In the case of Fatima Sheikh, individuals like Anita Bharti and others face a dilemma—should they speak the truth now or not? But there is never a wrong time to speak the truth. Fascism thrives in silence. If history is being distorted in our time, it must be called out. The RSS and BJP machinery have used post-truth tactics to create the Ayodhya narrative and to dilute Dr. Ambedkar’s anti-Hindutva legacy. Similarly, so-called liberal circles are also complicit in this post-truth game.

The question arises: why have those who remained silent for decades on the history of Phule and Ambedkar suddenly begun creating confusion and demanding silence from those who have unearthed the truth? The Bahujan perspective does not frame issues in binary terms of Hindu vs. Muslim. Instead, it focuses on hierarchies such as Pasmanda vs. Ashraf, Bahujan vs. Savarna, Dalit vs. Savarna. The answer to the divisive agendas of communal leaders like Himanta Biswa Sarma or Dilip Mandal is not silence but to present the truth in all its complexity. Often, that complex side is the simple side.

The story has been translated from Hindi to English by Sakshi Gedam, a freelance journalist and student at Chandigarh University, passionate about reporting on social issues.