Latest news with #BombayPolice
News18
3 days ago
- Politics
- News18
Indians Have Fought To Save Stray Dogs Since 1832
Only in India could there have been a riot to save voiceless animals; no wonder the British were totally taken aback in Mumbai The irony in the judgement by a two-judge Supreme Court Bench on stray dogs in Delhi becomes apparent when the unique 'Bombay Riot' of 1832 is recalled. That 'riot' was not, as some may think, a communal conflagration. It was over stray dogs. The British had decided to 'clean up" Bombay (now Mumbai) by killing all its stray dogs. But they had to face the wrath of the large Parsi community, which revered canines. Finally, the British had to back down. It actually began in 1813—some 212 years ago—when the British imposed a regulation to 'control" the city's stray dog population by permitting two periods of 'culling"—the euphemism for officially sanctioned mass slaughter. But it was never operationalised fully. Nearly 20 years later, though, they doubled down and even offered monetary incentives (eight annas) for every stray culled/killed. That led to greedy civic employees and private individuals killing even pet dogs. In May 1832, the Bombay Police was allowed to extend culling (killing) to 'any time that a nuisance and danger was deemed to exist". The then Governor, the Earl of Clare, declared that 'the lives of the inhabitants are endangered by the numbers and ferocity of these noxious animals which now infest every part of the Island". The East India Company also said stray dogs were 'worthless, noxious and disgusting animals". Notice the similarities with the rhetoric in 2025? But the British miscalculated on the propensity of Indians to be swayed by eight annas when it came to killing Bombay's stray dogs. The Parsi community was particularly incensed, especially the 'culling" being extended to any time of the year. Not many Indians today know—including even some Parsis presumably—that all dogs are sacred to the Zoroastrian faith as canines are believed to guard the Chinvat Bridge to heaven and are crucial for the soul's safe passage. In Zoroastrianism, dogs are considered beneficent, righteous and clean creatures who have special spiritual virtues and must be taken care of. A dog's gaze is said to drive off demons and they are supposed to be fed at commemorations of the dead. 'Ehtiram-i-Sag" or respect for the dog is an injunction for all Zoroastrians. Traditional funerary rituals also include Sagdid or 'dog-sight", when a dog confirms the death of a person by refusing to look at his/her mortal remains. The Vendidad (part of the holy Avesta) has detailed descriptions about treatment of dogs, including punishments for harming them. Zoroastrians are exhorted in scriptures to help dogs, both domestic and stray, and such acts are equated with helping humans; harming them is also regarded as harming humans. The Parsis of Bombay in the early 1800s still lived by these precepts though in the next two centuries many of these beliefs and traditions have apparently been sidelined. Back in 1832 the Parsis of Bombay were very aware of the regard for dogs in their faith and rose up in anger at the killing of strays ordered by British authorities who were ignorant of or oblivious to local sentiments. Matters came to a head on July 6, 1832, which happened to be a holy day for the Parsis. As dog catchers brutally rounded up stray dogs in the Fort area, 200 Parsis (a large turnout for 200 years ago!) came out to protest and the police turned up. Two constables were attacked as the protest spiralled; soon shops, offices and businesses shut down. By the next day, other communities joined the Parsis to protest against the killing of strays and their numbers swelled to 5,000, taking the British by surprise. People from all of India's faiths coming together to speak up for stray dogs was truly unprecedented; the same can be said about what is being witnessed in Delhi and other cities in 2025 too, nearly two centuries later. It was in effect, the first 'bandh' in India—roads were blocked, businesses did not open, and East India Company garrisons, officials, even judges, were targeted by protesters. The British initially decided to crack down and troops were called out. The Riot Act was read out to the incensed crowd, and some Parsi leaders were even arrested. That just made the protesters even angrier. It must be said that better sense prevails during the pro-stray dog demonstrations in 2025 so far. But the Bombay protesters were in no mood to back down. The British found this all-faith unity for a cause ominous and thus pivoted to negotiate. Led by Sir Jamsetjee Jeejeebhoy, the Parsis demanded an end to killing, and if need be, aggressive strays being relocated outside the city. The British were forced to agree! Experience now shows that relocation (or incarceration) do not work whereas sterilisation and vaccination do, a humane solution is clearly the key. Only in India could there have been a 'riot"— or at least a protest—as far back as the 1800s for the wellbeing of stray dogs, with people of all communities coming together to stand up to the British. People realised the value of street dogs to urban life even back then and spoke up for inhabitants of their city who had no voice. Colonial times were rife with incidents of senseless acts and decrees in the name of perpetuating a western idea of 'order'. But why reprise that now? The only silver lining to the dark cloud looming after the SC order is the fact that there are still issues which unite India across caste, creed and class; that kindness towards animals is a nationwide emotion. And above all, the belief that this unique legacy of India will guide authorities to decide independently and humanely rather than follow what the west does. After all, India totally banned hunting in 1972 while 'developed' nations still officially cull/kill millions of wild animals. The author is a freelance writer. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect News18's views. Click here to add News18 as your preferred news source on Google. view comments Location : New Delhi, India, India First Published: August 17, 2025, 15:58 IST News opinion Opinion | Indians Have Fought To Save Stray Dogs Since 1832 Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Scroll.in
4 days ago
- Politics
- Scroll.in
How Jinnah survived an assassination attempt in Bombay
On a July day in 1943, Muhammad Ali Jinnah entered his secretary's room in his Malabar Hill bungalow to find a young man speaking with the secretary. The man was desperate for a meeting with the Muslim League leader. He hoped that if he could just speak to Jinnah, he might convince him to reach a compromise with the Congress and Mahatma Gandhi on the issue of India's partition. But instead of dialogue, there was violence. Aggravated by Jinnah's refusal to meet, the young man pulled a knife from his pocket and attempted to stab him in the throat. Jinnah managed to deflect the blade – just barely. He suffered a small puncture wound on his jaw and a gash across the back of his hand. His assailant, Rafiq Sabir Mozangvi, was quickly overpowered by the household staff and arrested by the Bombay Police. But one question lingered: who was this man, and had he travelled halfway across India to attack the leader of the Muslim League? Travels from Lahore The story begins weeks earlier in Lahore, when Mozangvi boarded a train to Delhi, driven by a burning political grievance. Although only 32, Mozangvi had lived many lives – working as an electrician, committing petty crime, serving short stints in prison, and shifting allegiances among the Indian National Congress, the Muslim League and the Ahrar Party. Eventually, he aligned with the Khaksar movement, a paramilitary group led by political theorist and Islamic scholar Allama Inayatullah Khan Mashriqi, who opposed the creation of Pakistan and believed Muslims could prosper in a united India. 'I decided to stay at Delhi for a day as I thought Mr. Jinnah might pass through there, but on making enquiries I was told that Mr. Jinnah was probably already in Bombay,' Mozaangvi told the Bombay Police in a statement. From Delhi, he took a train to Cawnpore, spending a few hours there, and then hopping on another train to Mughal Sarai. 'As I travelled all the way without a ticket, I found it necessary frequently to alight from the train and catch another train,' Mozaangvi said, 'and I eventually reached Bombay V.T. Station at sometime near 8 pm last night having travelled via Gwalior, Busaval, Bhopal, etc.' He wandered the bazaars at night, slept on the footpath, and bathed in a mosque – though he could not say exactly where, claiming his mind was 'obsessed with the object' of meeting Jinnah and discussing the 'political policy of the Muslim League'. He asked around for directions to Jinnah's house and was given a receipt by a Muslim League member bearing the printed address of Jinnah's bungalow on Mount Pleasant Road. Angry confrontation At the gates of the bungalow, Mozangvi told the security guard, a 'Pathan with a long moustache', that he wished to see Jinnah. He was escorted to Jinnah's secretary, AI Syed, who asked him to put his request in writing. As they spoke, Jinnah himself walked in and asked what the visitor wanted. From this point, accounts diverge. According to John Colville, the Commissioner of Police for Bombay, Mozangvi told 'Mr. Jinnah that he wanted to have an interview with him regarding the solution of the present political deadlock in the country and Mr. Jinnah's refusal to see Mr. Gandhi. Mr. Jinnah told him that he was very busy and had no time, and that Rafiq Sabir could make an appointment with his Secretary and could see him in a day or two.' This apparently enraged Mozangvi, who first punched Jinnah in the jaw and then tried to stab him. 'Mr. Jinnah warded off the blow and caught hold of the assailant's right hand with his left hand and in doing so sustained an incised wound on the back of his left hand one and half inches long skin deep,' Colville wrote in a letter to the Home Secretary. 'He also sustained a small punctured wound on the angle of the left jaw.' Jinnah's servants managed to subdue Mozangvi and summoned the police, who arrived promptly and arrested him. Mozangvi offered his own version of events. He claimed that when Jinnah entered the secretary's office, he pointed at him and said something in English. 'I stood up and saluted and explained to Mr. Jinnah that I had travelled a long way to see him and asked him to hear me,' Mozangvi said. 'Mr. Jinnah abruptly refused and pointed towards the door saying in English 'get out' or 'walk out.' I do not remember which expression he had used, but the purport of his words was that I should leave the place. I understand enough of the English language to know what was being said.' Mozangvi said he refused to leave and repeated his request for an interview. At that, Jinnah 'flew into a rage' and abused him, calling him a 'dog' and 'zalil (despicable)'. He claimed that Jinnah's servants tried to push him out of the room and struck him. 'I also used my fists in retaliation,' he said. 'Mr. Jinnah was standing nearby. During the struggle, I remembered a clasp knife that I had in my pocket and took it out in self-defence. I cannot say how Mr. Jinnah was injured.' During interrogation, Mozangvi insisted that his only purpose in meeting Jinnah was to urge him to speak with Gandhi. 'I have no real grudge against the Muslim League or against Mr. Jinnah personally, beyond my disapproval of certain points of policy followed by them.' He added that he believed Jinnah lacked sincerity in seeking a constructive dialogue with Gandhi. 'I disapprove of Mr. Jinnah's attitude in this matter and consider he is doing a disservice to Muhammedans and to India in general. On giving the matter considerable thought I came to the conclusion that Mr. Jinnah's true policy is one of self-aggrandisement and that he has no real desire to do anything towards ending the political deadlock in the country for the mutual benefit of all Indians.' Panic in Bombay The police report noted that Jinnah's injuries were not serious and were treated by Dr Massina on Pedder Road. Soon after, Jinnah addressed the press about the attack. 'Although it was a serious and well-planned attack, no serious injuries were inflicted on me,' he told Reuters. 'I do not want to say anything just now but I appeal to Muslims to remain calm and cool, and let us all thank Providence for this miraculous escape.' The news of the attempted assassination spread through Muslim neighborhoods in Bombay. Some shopkeepers shuttered their stores until Muslim League workers assured them there was no need to panic. 'All the newspapers, including the extreme Congress press, had condemned the attempt and congratulated Jinnah on his escape,' the Intelligence Bureau wrote in a confidential report. The Bombay Police contacted their counterparts in Lahore and requested that an officer be sent to interrogate Mozangvi to determine whether a broader conspiracy was at play, as the Muslim League alleged. 'I saw Mr. Jinnah shortly after the incident and in the course of conversation I questioned him as to whether in his opinion the action of the assailant was that of one man instigated by an idea which he developed in his own mind or whether it was an idea planted by someone else,' Commissioner Colvile wrote in a letter to the director of the Intelligence Bureau. 'Mr. Jinnah's opinion was that the idea had been planted there by Allama [Inayatullah Khan] Mashriqi, the Khaksar leader.' When Colville expressed his doubts, Jinnah replied that Mashriqi 'was a very indiscreet gentleman and also extremely pig-headed and obstinate'. The commissioner offered an alternative explanation. 'I suggested that a leader might convey to several of his trusted followers that Mr. Jinnah was an obstacle to Self-Government, and that if he were removed, their goal might be within reach. This small group might then have incited the assailant to commit this dastardly act,' Colville wrote. 'Mr. Jinnah doubted this and said that in his opinion Allama Mashriqi was so indiscreet and individualistic that it was not at all unlikely that he personally would have expressed such views to the assailant – and that the assailant, having absorbed the idea, decided to act on it.' The Criminal Investigation Department had a file on Mozangvi, revealing that he had lived in various parts of India, including Aligarh, where he ran a tea shop, and Calcutta, where he was wanted for theft in May 1943. He remained untraceable after the theft until he resurfaced in Bombay two months later. The file also revealed that Mozangvi had embezzled Khaksar funds in Cawnpore. The police found no direct evidence linking the assassination attempt to Mashriqi. Threat to life In November 1943, Mozangvi was sentenced to five years' imprisonment by the Bombay High Court. The court found no links between the attack and the Khaksar movement. Police records from 1943 reveal that there was another plot by members of the Khaksar movement to assassinate Jinnah that year. 'It was reported that one Abdul Rahim Dagh, a resident of Ambala district and Nazim Bab-i-Ali of the Delhi Khaksars, had called on Sadiq, alias Munir to Delhi, and detailed him to proceed to Bombay to murder Mr. Jinnah,' GAJ Boon, assistant director of the Intelligence Bureau, wrote in a December 1943 report. When members of the movement in Delhi heard about the plot, they immediately informed Mashriqi. 'It was reported that Allama Mashriqi ordered that the plan must be frustrated at all costs,' Boon noted. The bureau remained vigilant, monitoring individual Khaksar members who might attempt to assassinate Jinnah. 'While, therefore, there is no evidence at present that the Khaksars are planning to assassinate Mr. Jinnah, it remains true that the Khaksars are not particularly pleased with him and the possibility of an individual attempt to harm him physically cannot, in the circumstances, be entirely discounted,' Boon added. 'Fortunately Rafiq Sabir has received heavy punishment for his attack on Mr. Jinnah and this may deter others from repeating the performance.' Mashriqi, who opposed the partition of India until the end, would go on to become a citizen of Pakistan after its formation. He remained politically active until his death in 1963.
India.com
28-04-2025
- Entertainment
- India.com
This actor once made fun of Dharmendra, called him a wrestler, the Sholay star broke his arrogance by showing him..., the actor was...
This actor once made fun of Dharmendra, called him a wrestler, He-Man broke his arrogance by showing him..., the actor was... The late Bollywood star Raaj Kumar exuded an enigmatic charm that gave him a commanding presence on-screen. Before venturing into films, he had served as a sub-inspector with the Bombay Police, and brought that no-nonsense cop persona with him on the silver screen. Apart from work, he was also famous in the industry for his arrogance, making it difficult for his co-stars to get along with him during the shoots. As much as he was respected for his craft, people feared him due to his behaviour. However, there was one actor who refused to hold it back and gave him the taste of his own medicine. The veteran actor was Dharmendra. During the making of the 1965 movie Kaajal , Raaj Kumar made a remark on Dharmendra's muscular appearance that didn't settle well with the actor. According to reports, he asked filmmaker Ram Maheshwari whether his requirement were actors or wrestlers for the movie. Dharmendra was furious after hearing this, but he chose not to react. However, Raaj Kumar later mocked Dharmendra, calling him monkey, and laughing at his joke. This time, the Sholay actor lost his temper and even held Raaj Kumar by his collar. The matter could have escalated further if the crew members not intervened and distanced the two. After the heated argument with Dharmendra, Raaj Kumar reportedly walked out of the sets and declined to shoot further. The film got completely eventually after convincing both the actors to make peace and work together. Kaajal was a box office hit and starred Meena Kumari, Padmini, Mumtaz and Helen in key roles. According to reports, Dharmendra and Raaj Kumar got into a nasty fight for the second time at a private party. Rumours claim that Raaj Kumar made some offending comments on Dharmendra's son Sunny Deol at his presence. Raaj Kumar died in 1996 due to throat cancer. His son Puru Rajkumar also starred in a few films.
