Logo

Dimdima

Online Children's Magazine from India

Dimdima, Indian online Children's Magazine for Education, Learning, Fun, Knowledge and Sports.
  • dimdima
  • dimdima
  • dimdima
  • dimdima
  • dimdima
  • dimdima
  • dimdima
  • dimdima
  • dimdima
  
  • dimdima
  • dimdima
  • dimdima
  • dimdima
  • dimdima
  • dimdima
  • dimdima
  • dimdima
  • dimdima
Menu

‘Rani Ka Hookum’

‘Rani Ka Hookum’

In 1869, 75-year-old Ameer Khan was arrested in Calcutta on the suspicion of being a Wahabi a member of a sect hostile to the government. Captain Birch who took Ameer Khan into custody produced no warrant of arrest. He told the old man that he was only carrying out Rani ka Hookum (the queen's orders). Subsequently he was shifted to a jail outside Calcutta. Similary, another person, Hashmadad Khan was also detained outside Calcutta.
Ameer Khan and Hashmadad Khan challenged their detention. Their case was fought by the fiery Irish lawyer, Thomas Chisholm Anstey who moved a Habeas Corpus petition before Justice Norman at the Calcutta High Court demanding that his clients be brought to the court.
Advocate-General Graham told the court that Ameer Khan and Hashmadad Khan were taken prisoners under Regulation III of 1818 under which suspects could be detained indefinitely without trial.
Thomas Anstey sought to establish that Regulation III of 1818 was illegal as detention without trial deprived citizens of the rights conferred on them by the Magna Carta.
Citing the queen's proclamation of November 1858 Anstey asked: "Are the people of India the subjects of Her Majesty, the Queen? Are they equals of their British fellow subjects as the queen has stated…?"
Anstey concluded his argument with these prophetic words: "If then, your Lordship's decision be against us, I say it with grief, there will be no other remedy left to any man of spirit, whatever be his race, creed or colour except open rebellion."
Justice Norman, however, upheld the validity of Regulation III and held that the provisions of Habeas Corpus did not apply to those detained under Regulation III for security reasons.
However, Justice Norman upheld the rights of Indians to invoke the Habeas Corpus Act. He rejected the A.G.'s view that Indians did not have this right. Justice Norman went on to concur with Thomas Anstey that there could be no allegiance (loyalty to the crown) without protection of citizens' rights.


This landmark judgement came as a shot in the arm for those who were championing the cause of civil liberties in India.
Thomas Anstey was clearly much ahead of his time when he challenged the validity of Regulation III of 1818 which provided for detention of a citizen without trial, since such regulations violate the fundamental rights of the citizen.
The questions he raised then continue to be debated to this day.

The Gracious Proclamation of Queen Victoria

On 1st November 1858, Lord Canning read out Queen Victoria's proclamation in Allahabad. The proclamation, which came to be looked upon as the 'Magna Carta' for India spelled out the liberal principles by which India would be ruled under the Crown.
"We hold ourselves bound to the Natives of our India territories by the same obligations of duty which bind us to all our other subjects, and those obligations, by the blessing of Almighty God, we shall faithfully and conscientiously fill," the queen had declared.
The queen also promised, "…our subjects, of whatever race or creed be freely and impartially admitted to offices in our service…"
Were these promises kept?
Regarding admission of Indians to all offices, Viceroy Lord Lytton, in a confidential memo to the Secretary of State wrote: "Every Indian, once admitted to government employment is entitled to expect and claim appointment in the fair course of promotion to the highest posts in that Service. We all know that these claims and expectations never can or will be fulfilled…."
As the years rolled by Indians came to realize that the queen's pledges would never be redeemed unless they agitated for them. Individual liberty and equality would never be handed over to them on a platter; they had to fight for their rights.
The queen's proclamation, however, provided Indians with a shield against the charge of sedition for which one could be deported or hanged. Demands for equal opportunities, or for representation in legislative councils and even for Home Rule could now all be interpreted as demands for the implementation of the queen's pledge.

Our Logo

Dimdima is the Sanskrit word for ‘drumbeat’. In olden days, victory in battle was heralded by the beat of drums or any important news to be conveyed to the people used to be accompanied with drumbeats.

Dimdima.com

Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan
K. M Munshi Marg,
Chowpatty, Mumbai - 400 007
email : editor@dimdima.com

Dimdima Magazine

Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan
505, Sane Guruji Marg,
Tardeo, Mumbai - 400 034
email : promo@dimdima.com

About

Dimdima.com, the Children's Website of Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan launched in 2000 and came out with a Printed version of Dimdima Magazine in 2004. At present the Printed Version have more than 35,000 subscribers from India and Abroad.

Terms of Use | Site Map | Privacy Policy | Testimonials | Feedback | About Us | Link to Us | Links | Advertise with Us |
Copyright © 2021 dimdima.com. All Rights Reserved.