The Rajasthan government has withdrawn its directive asking schools to observe 6 December as Shaurya Diwas, following strong criticism from the opposition and Muslim groups.
Conflicting statements from Education Minister Madan Dilawar and Board Director Sitaram Jat have raised questions about how the order was issued and who authorised it.
The withdrawn circular had instructed schools to hold patriotic cultural activities linked to the Ram Mandir movement, sparking concerns about political messaging and communal sensitivity in education.
The Rajasthan government retracted a controversial directive, on Sunday, November 20, 2025, that had instructed all schools in the State to observe December 6, the anniversary of the 1992 demolition of the Babri Masjid, as Shaurya Diwas. The order, which appeared late on Saturday night on an official WhatsApp group used for departmental communication, immediately drew widespread criticism from the opposition and various Muslim groups, prompting the administration to withdraw it the following morning. The brief statement announcing the reversal said only that the directive had been taken back “due to unavoidable circumstances”, offering no further explanation.
The episode quickly escalated into a political and administrative embarrassment, not least because of contradictory statements from senior officials. School Education Minister Madan Dilawar maintained that the primary reason for scrapping the planned observance was the ongoing examination schedule. He emphasised that schools across the State were conducting assessments on December 5 and 6 and therefore could not accommodate additional programmes or events on campus. According to him, the Shaurya Diwas activities would be postponed to avoid disrupting the academic calendar.
However, this justification was soon thrown into doubt by the Director of the Board of Secondary Education, Sitaram Jat, who publicly distanced himself from the directive. Speaking to PTI, he insisted that no such instructions had ever been issued by his office and said he had “no idea” how the order had begun circulating. His remarks raised questions about the origin and legitimacy of the WhatsApp message, fuelling speculation about internal miscommunication or unauthorised dissemination within the department.
The original order, attributed to the Secondary Education Directorate in Bikaner, had laid out an extensive programme aimed at “enhancing patriotism” among students. Schools, both government and private, were asked to organise cultural activities such as essay writing competitions on themes including Indian cultural pride, the Ram Mandir movement, historic traditions of valour and sacrifice, and the responsibilities of young people in nation-building. In addition, the directive proposed painting contests focused on the Ayodhya Ram Mandir and notable Indian warriors, as well as exhibitions relating to the construction of the Ram temple. These activities were to be held on December 6 in order to mark the day as one of “bravery”.
The proposal quickly became a flashpoint. The opposition Congress accused the government of promoting a divisive and historically contentious narrative through schools. State Congress president Govind Singh Dotasra argued that by framing the demolition of a religious structure as an act of bravery, the government risked inflaming communal tensions and undermining Rajasthan’s longstanding commitment to religious harmony. He warned that imposing such an interpretation on schoolchildren was not only inappropriate but deeply damaging to the social fabric.
Congress spokesperson Swarnim Chaturvedi echoed these concerns, describing the demolition of the Babri Masjid as “a crime” and accusing the ruling BJP government of attempting to rewrite historical events to fit its ideological agenda. He criticised the government for burdening young students with politically motivated messaging instead of focusing on their education and well-being.
Muslim organisations also voiced strong objections. Mohammed Nazimuddin, general secretary of the Rajasthan Muslim Forum, questioned how a secular government could compel students to commemorate the destruction of a mosque. He argued that promoting such symbolism in schools would alienate minority communities and betray the constitutional ideals of equality and religious neutrality.
The government’s hasty withdrawal of the directive has left several unresolved questions. It remains unclear who authorised the order, why it was circulated without vetting, and whether any internal inquiry will be undertaken to determine responsibility. The contradictory statements from senior officials have further fuelled confusion, giving the impression of significant disarray within the education department.
For now, schools are expected to continue with their scheduled examinations, while the administration faces mounting pressure to clarify how the controversial order was issued and ensure that similar incidents do not recur. The controversy has already sparked a broader debate about the politicisation of school curricula and the role of educational institutions in shaping historical memory in an increasingly polarised climate.
