Latest news with #SultanaBegum
New Indian Express
4 days ago
- Politics
- New Indian Express
'Would we suffer like this if Zafar had surrendered?': I-Day lament of last Mughal's descendants
As Prime Minister Narendra Modi delivers the 79th Independence Day address from Delhi's iconic Red Fort, a heavy historical irony looms in silence. Just over a thousand kilometers away, in a crumbling hut in the slums of Howrah, Sultana Begum—the 74-year-old great-granddaughter-in-law of Bahadur Shah Zafar, India's last Mughal emperor—struggles to afford medication and relies on a meagre ₹6,000 monthly pension to survive. The Red Fort, once the seat of Mughal power, is now a stage for the modern Indian state. Yet the descendants of the very monarch who made his final stand against British rule during the Revolt of 1857 now live a life of obscurity and deprivation. Sultana Begum's life is one of faded grandeur, reduced to poverty, marked by betrayal—both from the state and from those who claim to speak for justice, faith, and heritage. Sultana's late husband, Mirza Muhammad Bedar Bukht, was the great-grandson of Bahadur Shah Zafar. After the fall of Delhi in 1857 and the subsequent execution of Zafar's sons, the British exiled the emperor to Rangoon, where he died in captivity. Bedar, still a young man in colonial Burma, was smuggled back to India with the assistance of Piare Mian, his maternal grandfather and guardian hailing from Lucknow. It is widely believed that this operation took place under the protective vision of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose, who saw the surviving bloodline of Zafar not as a relic of monarchy, but as a symbolic embodiment of resistance. Netaji ensured Bedar's safety and shelter during a time when the British sought to erase every trace of the Mughal line. For decades, the family lived under assumed names, moving between cities and hiding in plain sight. Only after Independence in 1947 did Bedar reveal his true identity, expecting that the new Indian state would honour the memory of his forefather's sacrifice and legacy. That hope, like many others, would eventually erode.
Yahoo
23-05-2025
- Yahoo
Activists Know How to Stop Sexual Violence in the Garment Supply Chain. Will Brands Buy In?
Women across South and Southeast Asia are demanding an end to gender-based violence and harassment in the garment supply chain, which they say is riddled with ineffective efforts by brands that are little more than PR maneuvers meant to burnish their reputations while fostering the status quo. On Thursday, the Asia Floor Wage Alliance, Global Labor Justice and their trade union partners kicked off 'Violence Out of Fashion,' a campaign that is calling for meaningful change through binding, enforceable solutions—like the Dindigul Agreement to Eliminate Gender-Based Violence and Harassment and the more recent Central Java Agreement for Gender Justice—that safeguard freedom of association, bolster women's leadership and create union-led grievance mechanisms by centering worker voices that have long been consigned to the periphery. More from Sourcing Journal Are Amazon's Warehouses Facing an 'Injury Crisis'? Former Calik Employee Dies Following Altercation Bestseller Wants Higher Wages for Myanmar's Garment Workers. Activists Call Foul. 'We want to say, 'No more silence, no more fear,'' said Sultana Begum, president of the Green Bangla Garments Workers' Federation and a member of AFWA's women leadership committee. 'This campaign is a call for change, not just in words or on paper, but in action.' Begum has worked in Bangladesh's garment industry for more than a decade. She's been a union leader for over 25 years. In that time, she said, very little has changed, with women fending off sexual harassment and verbal and physical assault every day. They are often afraid to file complaints because doing so can lead to unemployment, which would mean starting all over again at a new factory, where there's no guarantee the same thing won't happen again. 'Sometimes it's a supervisor yelling and insulting women to work faster. Sometimes it's unwanted touching,' she said through a translator. 'Violence happens in many forms and it has become part of the production process for women workers. Many women come from their village at a young age to get a job in the RMG sector. They are overly trusting. It has happened so many times when an innocent young woman is forced into a relationship with her male supervisor.' Gender-based violence and harassment, or GBVH, isn't just a Bangladeshi problem. Or a Cambodian problem. Or an Indonesian problem. Instead, it's a 'daily reality' for millions of women in Asia making clothes for major fashion brands, said Ashley Saxby, AFWA's gender justice and Southeast Asia coordinator. The problem derives from a fundamental power imbalance in factories' gender makeup. An estimated 42 million women garment workers are employed in Asia alone, accounting for more than half of the workforce in many countries and as much as 80 percent in others, according to the International Labour Organization. Supervisors and managers on the factory floor, however, tend to be male. Because they're used to wielding bullying, harassment, intimidation and violence as 'tools of control' to speed up production and discipline workers, Saxby said, GBVH has become not a flaw, but a feature. 'And brands may be far away from the factory floor, but they drive this violence through constant pressure on suppliers to produce faster and cheaper without any real oversight, and the ones who are paying the price are women workers,' she said. 'These brands know what is happening. They know because unions have been telling them for decades. But instead of real action, we get superficial programs about gender equality because protecting their image has mattered more than protecting the women in their factories. And real accountability would mean admitting that brand-led voluntary initiatives have failed to keep women safe.' The social media part of the campaign includes an Instagram page that is publishing illustrated accounts of workers' everyday indignities. There is a woman from Bangladesh who has been slapped, pushed and struck on the head for minor transgressions. A worker from Sri Lanka must endure inappropriate questions from her supervisor or risk increased targets if she provides an unsatisfactory response. Another from Indonesia is forced to hide in a bathroom whenever auditors come calling, only to see the 'cruelty of supervisors' resume after they leave. 'Every day they have to make a hard decision: to suffer abuse or feed their families; so, they remain silent,' Yang Sophorn, president of the Cambodian Alliance of Trade Unions and another member of AFWA's women leadership committee, said through a translator. Speaking out could also have broader consequences, since brands 'easily move their production from one country to another and if one supplier doesn't meet their standards, they will move to another place, leaving workers jobless,' she said. But the climate of secrecy and fear is its own problem, and one that can be incredibly isolating and dehumanizing, Sophorn said. It's also why any collective power must extend beyond borders. 'Suppliers need to make sure the brands keep placing orders, so that's why they discipline their workers with violence and use threats and intimidation to keep them silent,' she added. 'The system works by silencing workers to protect their profits, not by protecting workers' rights.' While the Dindigul and Central Java agreements have been held up as success stories, they're still vastly limited in scope because they've been backed by only a handful of brands at one or two factories: Gap Inc., H&M Group and Calvin Klein owner PVH Corp. with Eastman Exports' Natchi Apparel and Eastman Spinning Mills in the former and Fanatics (and, by extension, licensor Nike) with PT Batang Apparel Indonesia and PT Semarang Garment Indonesia in the latter. Labor activists say they must serve as blueprints for more extensive, systemic efforts. It's why AWFA and GLJ, together with unions in India and Indonesia, have developed the Safety Engagement for Women Workers—or SEWW—Commitment Framework, which they will be asking brands to adopt. Based on lessons from Dindigul and Central Java, it features components that workers 'know are effective and scalable in garment supply chains around the world,' said Sahiba Gill, GLJ's deputy legal director. These include strong workplace standards for GBVH and freedom of association that incorporate and build on international labor mores, women-worker monitors who are empowered to report harassment and violence on the shop floor, grievance mechanisms that include labor management dialogue as an option for remediating harm, an oversight committee involving civil society, brand and supplier signatories, and training for workers, managers and supervisors. The framework also hinges on commitments from brands to use their supply chain leverage to fight for women's safety by creating market incentives for supplier participation and enabling protected jobs for workers through order stability. 'The solution truly is here,' Gill said. 'Now we are willing to work with brands to end gender-based violence and harassment through the SEWW framework. With the launch of this 'Violence Out of Fashion' campaign, we will be calling attention to brands that are falling short on women's safety, because there is simply no more excuse for inaction. Brands will either sign on to the SEWW framework or enable violence against the women who make their products.' Ratna, who works at PT Semarang Garment Indonesia, said she wants to see agreements like the one Fanatics agreed to 'everywhere.' The Central Java agreement, she said through a translator, isn't 'just words on paper.' Rather, it monitors and prevents GBVH on production lines before it escalates. And if harassment happens, she said, factory management will be held accountable by its biggest buyer. 'Before we had the agreement, women were afraid to speak out,' Ratna said. 'After we have this program, our complaints are taken seriously and we have the support of our union. This agreement changed my workplace, and it showed that real safety is possible. Every woman worker deserves that protection. We need brands to stop pretending they care about our safety and start signing up to these agreements.'
Time of India
05-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Meet Sultana Begum, who claims to be great-granddaughter-in-law of the Mughals and owner of Red Fort-- Here's what SC says
In what sounds like a royal drama straight out of a historical soap opera, a woman recently approached the Supreme Court (SC) of India claiming that she is the great-granddaughter-in-law of the Mughals and so the rightful 'heir' of the Red Fort. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Yes, you read that right! Meet , who says she's the great-granddaughter-in-law of Mughal emperor , and here's how the SC responded to her claims. On Monday, a bench led by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar dismissed her petition regarding Red Fort's ownership, calling it 'misconceived' and 'meritless', as per reports. Sultana's lawyer passionately argued that she's related to India's 'first freedom fighter,' hoping that would sway the court. But Chief Justice Khanna remarked, 'If we accept this, why stop at Red Fort? Why not Agra or Fatehpur Sikri too?' Sultana Begum's royal dreams crushed This isn't the first time that Sultana Begum attempted to reclaim the Red fort. The Delhi High Court (HC) had already rejected her petition earlier — not once but twice! First in 2021 and again in 2023, when they pointed out that she waited over 150 years to file the claim. Her excuse? Poor health and personal tragedy with the untimely death of her daughter. However, the court said wasn't convinced and did not buy her reasons. Why Sultana Begum claimed the Red Fort? Sultana Begum insists that after the 1857 revolt, when the British took control and exiled the last Mughal Emperor- Bahadur Shah Zafar, the Red Fort was wrongfully snatched from her family. She further claims that after India's independence from the British Rule in 1947, the Red Fort was illegally taken by the Government of India. And so, she considering herself as the rightful Mughal 'heir', Sultana Begum urged the court to either return the Red Fort to her or give her suitable compensation for it. But with the Supreme Court dismissing Sultana Begum's plea to own the Red Fort, and calling it baseless, it seems her royal dreams have come to an end. No Red Fort. No compensation. Just a royal no. What are your views on Sultana Begum's claims? Tell us in the comments section below. The Last Mughal Family Member Left to Struggle – Heartbreaking Story of Sultana Begum
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
05-05-2025
- Politics
- First Post
A Mughal heiress laid claim to Red Fort. Here's why Supreme Court rejected it
The Supreme Court has rejected the plea of a woman, claiming to have Mughal lineage, who had demanded she be handed over the iconic Red Fort in Delhi or be given compensation for the same. The apex court called the claim 'misconceived and meritless'. We look at the case read more Sultana Begum claims to be the widow of the great-grandson of the last Mughal emperor Bahadur Shah Zafar-II. AFP The Supreme Court has dismissed a 'Mughal heir's' claim on the Red Fort. A woman who claimed to have Mughal lineage had moved the apex court demanding that she be handed over the iconic Indian monument or be given compensation for the same. The Supreme Court bench called the claim 'misconceived and meritless.' But what do we know? What did the apex court say? Let's take a closer look: What do we know? As per India Today, the case was filed by one Sultana Begum. Begum lives near Howrah in Kolkata. The 60-year-old stays in a cramped and tiny two-room hut. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Begum first filed a case in the Delhi High Court in 2021. As per NDTV, Begum claimed that in 1960 the government had confirmed that her late husband Bedar Bakht was the descendant and heir of Bahadur Shah Zafar II. The government also began paying Bakht a pension which transferred to her upon his demise in 1980, she claimed. Begum contended the pension was too small to meet her requirements. She had said she is willing to give up her claim for financial recompense. Begum claimed the government had illegally taken the Red Fort from her family. She said the government's refusal to properly compensate her violated her fundamental rights. The Supreme Court has rejected a woman's claim to the Red Fort. PTI However, Begum's plea was rejected by the Delhi High Court. The single-judge bench in December 2021 had said there is no justification for the inordinate delay in approaching the court after over 150 years. Begum appealed that verdict, but it was rejected once more. As per India Today, the high court in its decision noted a delay of 900 days in approaching it after the initial verdict. However, Begum argued that her ill-health prevented her from filing the appeal. Begum also cited the death of her daughter as a reason. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'We find the said explanation inadequate, considering that the delay is of more than two-and-a-half years. The petition was also dismissed (by the single judge) for being inordinately delayed by several decades. The application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed. It is barred by limitation,' the high court had said. What did the apex court say? A Bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar termed the plea as 'misconceived' and 'meritless' at the outset and refused to entertain the petition filed against the Delhi High Court order. As per NDTV, Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna asked, 'Why only Red Fort? Why not Fatehpur Sikri (the capital of the Mughal empire during Akbar's reign in the late 16th century), Taj Mahal (famously commissioned by Shah Jahan in the 17th)?' The apex court called the claim 'misconceived and meritless'. PTI 'The petitioner is the family member of the first freedom fighter of the country,' the counsel argued. The Bench did not allow the counsel for petitioner Sultana Begum to withdraw the plea. 'The writ petition filed initially was misconceived and meritless. It cannot be entertained,' the CJI added. As per News18, the lawyer for Begum pointed out that the plea had been dismissed on grounds of delay and not on the merits. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD However, the apex court rejected the argument. 'No, dismissed," the bench stated.
News18
05-05-2025
- Politics
- News18
'Why Not Fatehpur Sikri, Taj Mahal?' Supreme Court Junks Mughal Heir's Claim On Red Fort
Last Updated: A bench of Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice PV Sanjay Kumar said the plea filed by Sultana Begum was completely misconceived. The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a plea filed by a woman claiming to be the descendant of last Mughal emperor Bahadur Shah Zafar and seeking possession of Red Fort on account of being the legal 'heir'. A bench of Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar said the plea filed by Sultana Begum, widow of great-grandson of Mughal emperor Bahadur Shah Zafar-II, was 'misconceived" and 'meritless" at the outset and refused to entertain the petition filed against the Delhi High Court order. The CJI-led bench termed the plea as meritless and sarcastically asked the petitioner that if the petition is to be considered then 'Why only Red fort? Why not Fatehpur Sikri? Why leave them also. Writ is completely misconceived." The bench did not allow the counsel for petitioner to withdraw the plea. The counsel for the petitioner said that the Delhi High Court had dismissed the plea on ground of delay and not on merits, and asked the top court to grant the same concession. However, the top court rejected her request. 'No, dismissed," the bench ordered. Sultana Begum, who lives in West Bengal's Howrah had filed a petition claiming that the family was deprived of their property by the Britishers after the first war of Independence in 1857, following which the emperor was exiled from the country and possession of the Red Fort was forcefully taken away from the Mughals. It further claimed that Begum was the owner of the Red Fort as she is a direct descendant of the original owners, i.e., the Mughal emperors. Th plea claimed that she inherited it from her ancestor Bahadur Shah Zafar-II, who died on November 11, 1862 at the age of 82, and the government of India was an illegal occupant of the property. The petition sought a direction to the Centre to hand over the Red Fort to the petitioner or give adequate compensation. A division bench of the Delhi High Court, on December 13, last year, had dismissed the appeal by Begum against the December 2021 decision of a HC single judge, noting the challenge was filed after a delay of over two-and-a-half years, which could not be condoned. Begum said she could not file the appeal owing to her bad health and passing away of her daughter. 'We find the said explanation inadequate, considering that the delay is of more than two-and-a-half years. The petition was also dismissed (by the single judge) for being inordinately delayed by several decades. The application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed. It is barred by limitation," the high court had said. On December 20, 2021, the single judge dismissed Begum's petition seeking possession of the Red Fort taken illegally by the British East India Company, saying there was no justification for the inordinate delay in approaching the court after over 150 years. (With inputs from agencies) First Published: May 05, 2025, 12:35 IST
