In an era where information is disseminated at lightning speed, the integrity of historical narratives can easily be compromised by the creation and proliferation of fake literature. Fabrication of Fatima Sheikh, is one such case where a fictional character was created and inserted silently into the historical discourse.
Let us explore how our history can be manipulated by such fabrications and analyse the broader implications of such fabrications on Indian cultural and historical understanding.
Fabrication of “Fatima Sheikh- The First Muslim Female Teacher in India”
Dilip Mandal, the new media advisor of the government, made a sensational claim on Thursday, 9th January, saying he created a fictional character named “Fatima Sheikh” in 2006. He admitted that this fabrication was part of a larger strategy to craft a political narrative. His confession is pivotal, as it not only highlighted the deliberate construction of a fake historical figure for ideological purposes, it also pointed towards a larger syndicate of historical manipulation in play for decades.
Understanding the Creation of Fake History- Academic Validation via Circular Referencing
It is a known fact that some historians have already been running a citation syndicate to provide a scholarly look at their propaganda creations. The same technique was also followed in Fatima’s case, wherein, a circular referencing method was used to validate her existence.
Let us first understand what circular referencing is and how it works.
Circular referencing in academic circles occurs when two or more scholarly works cite each other in a way that creates a loop, either directly or indirectly, without introducing new or external information. This can undermine the credibility and robustness of the argument being made, as it may just rely on a closed cycle of evidence, rather than an independent validation or broader perspectives.
Circular referencing creates a web of references to a myth which due to multiple repetitions becomes difficult to trace to its primary source.
Citation sources are of 3 types: Primary, Secondary, Tertiary
Suppose there was an incident – a car crash. A news reporter, who watched this crash live, wrote about it in a newspaper. This version of the news article is the primary source.
A person who reads this newspaper now writes a book citing this article as sa ource. This book becomes a secondary source. Another person now writes an article in some magazine citing this book as a source. This magazine article is now a tertiary source.
Leftist historians have produced a lot of such tertiary sources, which then becomes difficult to trace back to the primary sources.
This is exactly what happened in Fatima’s case.
When Dilip Mandal highlighted the folklore of “Fatima Sheikh-the first Muslim teacher in India”, as true history, many leftist authors lapped this story up. A paper was published in January 2021 (Terrains of Consciousness Multilogical Perspectives on Globalization, by Isabel Karremann, Zeno Ackermann, Simi Malhotra – National Islamic University, Nishat Zaidi – National Islamic University), citing Dilip Mandal’s article as a source.
Dilip Mandal Claimed-“I created Fatima”-But Did He?
While Dilip Mandal emphatically claimed that he is the creator of this character “Fatima Sheikh”, there is ample evidence that points otherwise.
Mandal claimed that prior to 2022, there were no references to Fatima Sheikh in Google searches—no articles, no books, and no mentions. He said -“She came into the social media narrative and just vanished.”
However, there is definitely a historical reference to the existence of a ‘Fatima’. ‘Savitribai Phule-Samagra Vangmay’, published in 1988 by the Maharashtra Rajya Sahitya Ani Sanskruti Mandal, included a letter written by Savitribai Phule to her husband, Jyotirao Phule which mentioned Fatima.
In this letter dated October 20, 1856, Savitribai wrote: “I will return to Pune immediately once I recover fully. Don’t worry. Fatima must have been burdened, but she will not complain.”
Although the letter did not mention Fatima’s surname, it indicates her presence in the Phules’ life. Her exact role in their life however, remains unknown.
So this letter itself debunks Dilip Mandal’s claim that no one named “Fatima” existed. She definitely existed but her role and importance are questionable.
Note that Jyotirao Phule’s article, published in the periodical ‘Dnyanoday’ in September 1853, discusses his school activities but makes no mention of Fatima. Therefore, we can safely assume that apart from this letter, there is no mention of Fatima in any of Phule’s work or any other contemporary historical literature.
Now, let’s see how this person, mentioned in a single line, in a single letter, was converted into a full-fledged larger-than-life historical character by various so-called historians and scholars.
In 1986, a book named “Krantijyoti Savitribai Phule” was published by Dr. M.G Mali. This book mentions a character named “Fatima Sheikh”. However, there was no real evidence to corroborate this claim of Fatima’s existence as a teacher.
Notably, this book’s reprint version of 2011 is being circulated. However, no original copy of the 1986 version exists in the public domain to ascertain whether this insertion was original or a later reprint interpolation.
5 years later, another book was published named “Women Writing in India: 600 B.C. to the Present” by Susie Tharu and K. Lalita. This book also mentioned a character named “Fatima Sheikh” as a colleague of Savitribai. But the source of this information was the same letter by Savitribai to Jyotirao Phule. That means Fatima being a teacher was an assumption made by the authors, with zero substantial evidence.
Thereafter, some Urdu textbooks prepared by the Maharashtra textbook bureau Balbharati also included a small section on Fatima. There was also a chapter on her life in Class 8 textbooks in Andhra Pradesh. But when these textbooks were printed remained unknown. Also, the source of the information on Fatima in these books remains questionable.
Apart from a few fleeting mentions of Fatima in some books, there was not much buzz around this character for the next 3 decades. She just remained as a forgotten character, in old books.
However, in 2019 Dilip Mandal, somehow found this character and decided to give her a new life. He wrote an article in The Print-“Why has Indian history forgotten Fatima Sheikh but remembers Savitribai Phule?”
After this article, Fatima suddenly became the “forgotten historical figure” whom everyone wanted to claim. Leftist scholars, Ambedkarite organizations, and Muslim organizations picked her up and eulogized her. Information regarding her started appearing in multiple books, all published post-2019. Dilip Mandal also did a podcast on Fatima Sheikh on the Print’s YouTube channel.
Some of the books and research articles written using this narrative are as follows:
Her Name Was Freedom 35 Fearless Women Who Fought for India’s Independence
Unequal Why India Lags Behind Its Neighbours
India and Identity – Some Reflections
Moral and Political Discourses in Philosophy of Education
Her birthday was celebrated every year with a lot of fanfare. All Ambedkarite and Muslim organizations started putting her on the same pedestal as Savitribai Phule.
Her popularity increased and even the major media outlets started remembering her every year. Even a Google Doodle was based on her.
Popular Media handles remember her on January 9 every year
The spread of this fabricated story has not been confined to mere online discussions. Prominent media outlets like Feminism India, Times Now, Indian Express, and Zee News have all contributed to the remembrance of this fictional character. Furthermore, educational platforms and IAS preparation websites have included this narrative in their study materials, thereby teaching a version of history that is potentially misleading to students and aspirants.
BBC Hindi published a documentary on her in 2020. The Print hosted a discussion on her. Similarly, Vikas Divyakirti owned Drishti IAS, StudyIQIAS, BBC Marathi, BBC Gujarati etc have created documentaries on her.
History of Fatima Sheikh is part of UPSC syllabus and is being taught to students. Atrocity literature appeals to the emotion at IAS preparation websites and Teacher Plus, a site for teachers.
These include:
- Drishti IAS
- Sriram IAS
- IAS baba
- Next IAS
- Vajirao IAS
- Optimize IAS
- Civils Daily
- UPSC Exam Notes
- GK Today
- Teacher Plus
Now, even books were being written about her and documentaries were being made by various media outlets.
Details like Fatima Sheikh’s birthday, profession, and her relationship with the Phule family were all invented to give depth to this character, despite there being no historical records to validate such specifics. Articles and books were subsequently written about Fatima, expanding on her invented background, family life, and even a love interest. This fabrication even extended to the creation of a Wikipedia page, showcasing how easily historical fraud can be embedded in the digital information ecosystems.
A lot of fake eulogies, fictional stories, fraud accolades, false praises, hoax tributes, forged references, phoney compliments, and synthetic acclamation about a simulated character were created out of thin air.
Thus, a fictional character, with no historical evidence, became a eulogized and well-established historical figure, a pioneer in the field of education.
However, this complete fabrication of a historical figure was not unnoticed. Some of the Dalit-Muslim research scholars expressed doubts about it.
Hari Narke, a renowned academician who is known for his work on Jyotirao Phule and B R Ambedkar raised questions regarding the identity and existence of Fatima Sheikh. He had asked people who were celebrating Fatima Sheikh’s birth anniversary to provide credible evidence justifying the same.
Other Dalit scholars like Arvind Kumar and Suraj Yenge (amongst others) raise questions about Fatima’s existence as well.
Even an attempt to correct the Wikipedia page by a contributor named Starlordnikhil, was thwarted. Four years ago, Starlordnikhil attempted to correct the Wikipedia article on Fatima Sheikh, but his edits were deleted and he was blocked from Wikipedia platform without any explanation.
That shows that concerns were being raised on Fatima’s existence but all these concerns were disregarded and Fatima’s eulogization continued.
Effect Of Dilip Mandal’s Disclosure
After Dilip Mandal’s confession went viral, an online debate started on how easily history can be manipulated for political ambitions. The news was covered by all major media outlets and raised a huge outcry amongst the public.
Confession:
— Dilip Mandal (@Profdilipmandal) January 9, 2025
I had created a myth or a fabricated character and named her Fatima Sheikh.
Please forgive me. The truth is that “Fatima Sheikh” never existed; she is not a historical figure. Not a real person.
It is my mistake that, during a particular phase, I created this name… pic.twitter.com/8pHjiQXTfG
The article written by Mandal was taken down by The Print after this disclosure.
The Wikipedia article on Fatima again was in the limelight and after major public concerns, finally editors removed the picture, date of birth and date of death from Fatima Sheikh’s introduction. However, Wikipedia rejected a proposal to delete the article, as some editors claimed that there are evidence of Fatima being a real person.
Conclusion
Though Dilip Mandal’s assertion of him being the creator of Fatima Sheikh can be contested, it is evident that works of Phule’s do not have any mention of Fatima Sheikh associated with him and Savitribai. The creation of this character is now considered as an attempt at Muslim appeasement or to foster a narrative of historical Dalit-Muslim unity.
Also, the entire timeline and sequence of building up a fictional character, all from a single line in a single letter, and then inserting her in history with complete validation shows how easily history can be manipulated.
Implications
This entire saga sheds light on a troubling aspect of historical narrative manipulation. The creation of Fatima Sheikh as a historical figure serves as a case study of how fictional narratives can be weaponized for political or ideological gains, leading to a distorted perception of history. This not only affects the credibility of historical studies but also manipulates public sentiments, potentially fostering division or unity based on fabricated grounds.
Also, an important point to note is that although Mandal accepted Fatima being a fake character, he is still mum on other questionable stories and characters from atrocity literature (e.g. Nangeli or Jhadu-Matki story).
The broader implications of such fake atrocity literature, as termed, are significant. It challenges us to question the sources of our historical knowledge and the motivations behind the narratives we accept as truth. It forces us to ask – how much of our history has been twisted or outright fabricated by ideological opportunists to serve their selfish goals.
As we move forward, it becomes crucial for educators, media, and individuals to engage in critical analysis of historical figures and events, ensuring that the history we learn and teach is rooted in factual evidence rather than constructed myths.
