Urdu absent from office memos appointing the Women’s College principal and the new proctor; same situation persists for the second time despite media coverage of the issue
Report: Shozab Muneer
The question of the official status of the Urdu language and its inclusion in administrative affairs at Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) has once again come to the fore. At an institution with a historic identity associated with the promotion and patronage of Urdu language and literature, the absence of Urdu from the office memos relating to two important appointments in succession has raised serious questions. Is this merely a coincidence, or does it reflect the administration’s priorities? The question is becoming increasingly significant. Urdu was missing from the memo concerning the appointment of the Women’s College principal. The media highlighted the issue and drew the university administration’s attention to it. However, Urdu has now also been omitted from the office memo concerning the appointment of the new proctor. In these circumstances, it is reasonable to ask whether Urdu is gradually being pushed to the margins of the university’s administrative system.
At this historic institution, which is associated with the educational movement launched by Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, the importance of Urdu is not confined to its status as a language. It is also an integral part of the university’s academic, literary and cultural traditions. Despite this, the absence of Urdu from official documents cannot easily be dismissed as a minor clerical error, particularly when the same situation recurs in another important appointment memo even after the first case was highlighted and discussed in the media. This repeated pattern has raised questions about the administration’s seriousness and its approach towards languages.
According to the available details, an office memo concerning the appointment of the Women’s College principal was issued on September 15, 2026, bearing the signature of Joint Registrar M. Sarwar Athar. The memo included English and Hindi, but Urdu was not given a place. Before the discussion surrounding this issue had concluded, approximately 25 days later, on October 9, 2026, Urdu was again found missing from the office memo issued by Joint Registrar Arifuddin regarding the appointment of the new proctor. The omission of the same language from official announcements relating to two separate and important appointments strengthens the perception that Urdu is not receiving the importance it deserves within the administrative system, in view of its historical and academic significance.
The fundamental question is: if the university’s official announcements can be issued in Hindi and English, what prevents Urdu from being included alongside them? Does issuing memos in Urdu require additional resources or any extraordinary arrangements, or is the real issue one of administrative priorities? At an institution where the academic and cultural traditions of Urdu are frequently acknowledged, why is it necessary to repeatedly draw attention to the need to include the language in official documents? The administration must provide clear answers to these questions, as its continued silence is making the issue more complicated.
AMU’s identity is linked not only to its educational activities but also to Urdu language and literature, intellectual discourse and cultural traditions. Here, Urdu is not merely a means of expression; it is also an important part of the institution’s history and intellectual heritage. In this context, the continued absence of Urdu from important announcements issued by administrative offices is a matter of concern. If an institution with deep historical ties to Urdu fails to give the language an appropriate place within its own administrative system, it is natural to question the practical significance of its claims regarding the preservation and promotion of the language.
It is now the responsibility of the university administration to clarify the situation. Was the omission of Urdu from both office memos merely a clerical error, or was it the result of an administrative policy or decision? If the omissions were unintentional, they should be acknowledged and corrected immediately. Clear instructions should also be issued to prevent such situations from recurring in the future. However, if including Urdu in official documents is not among the administration’s priorities, it should openly clarify its policy on the matter. Ignoring the issue without offering an explanation could raise further questions rather than resolve them.
The seriousness of the matter has increased because the absence of Urdu is no longer confined to a single office memo. After the same situation emerged in official documents relating to two different appointments, it has become difficult to dismiss the matter as mere coincidence. However, it would not be appropriate to reach a definitive conclusion before the administration presents its position. Nevertheless, the question remains: why was Urdu not included in the second important appointment memo even after the issue had already been highlighted? If the university fails to offer an explanation, concerns that Urdu is being quietly pushed out of the administrative sphere could grow stronger.
The time has come for the AMU administration to respond with an explanation and concrete action rather than maintain silence. It must clarify why Urdu is absent from official administrative announcements and what steps will be taken to address the problem. Giving Urdu an appropriate place and ensuring that no language is unnecessarily overlooked in important memos in the future are responsibilities of the administration. For those associated with Urdu, this is not merely a matter of emotional attachment; it concerns the linguistic responsibilities of a historic educational institution. It remains to be seen whether the university will acknowledge and correct the issue as an administrative oversight or whether its continued silence will further intensify questions about the status of Urdu.