How Irfan Habib as as “eminent-elite” historian could attend the political meet conducted under the guise of “Convention for People’s Unity Against Communalism”?

How Irfan Habib as as “eminent-elite” historian could attend the political meet conducted under the guise of “Convention for People’s Unity Against Communalism”?

Fall of Comrades - Irfan Habib a witness 2013

Political and secular / communal nexus proved: The Weekly Organ of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), has duly acknowledged the services of the Comrade Irfan Habib and provided details as follows: “The fact that the Convention was inaugurated by one of India’s most renowned historians and accomplished scholar, Prof Irfan Habib, by itself sent the message that the unique evolution and growth of the `idea of India’ cannot be allowed to be thwarted by the communal forces, but the people only could not identify as to who are communal and secular[1]. It added that, “Eminent historian Professor Irfan Habib presided over the Convention. Addressing the Convention, he stressed the importance of coming together of all the leaders with influence on crores of people, on a single platform against communalism. He recalled how the communal forces killed Mahatma Gandhi for trying to see that communal amity is maintained and warned that these very forces are raising their head again”, so he becomes “leader of leaders” to address and advice[2]. That is ironically, the Comrades fell down on the stage in front of everybody!

Convention for People’s Unity Against Communalism.2

Secularism versus Communalism: So it is evident that again, the so-called debate of “Secularism-communalism” has started. Irfan Habib himself has been accused of behaving like “Communal Muslim” by none other than his old friend and Comrade M G S Narayanan. These two eminent, elite, renowned historians and accomplished scholars had fought with each other for many “historical issues” within and outside ICHR, IHC etc. In spite of their 100% pure secular brand standards, why they should have questioned the other about integrity, honesty, uprightness etc., in handing “historical affairs”. ICHR Controversy 2004 University today When they could not keep their things clean without any controversies, how they could join corrupt politicians and sit with them on the stage? None questioned how that one of the eminent, elite, renowned historians and accomplished scholars with their 100% pure secular brand standards should share with Mullayam Singh Yadav, and other politicians charged with many corruption cases?

MGS Narayanan ICHR sacked Dec 2003

Is it correct for Irfan Habib to inaugurate, attend and lecture at the Third-Front Conference: These elite, eminent and belligerent historians always cry that history should not be polluted on any account, no communalism, casteism, racism, sectarianism, medievalism,  parochialism and so on. They have been criticizing, condemning and even disparaging rightist, right wing, R S S, V H P, B J P and others as they spread communalism, communal virus, communal hatred and so on. During the IHC sessions they have been going on posing as secular, balanced, unbiased, historian doing good for the country.

Convention for People’s Unity Against Communalism-section of the audience

Historio-politicians and politico-historians should be made accountable: In the case of politicians, now people want that they should be sanitized, cleaned and disciplined with various Acts, Rules etc. Whenever, any politician comes under cloud, he is asked to keep him away from the politics and then come back, when, he is given clean chit. In the same way, why these blatantly political historians siding and hobnobbing with the politicians, acting agents and witnesses of communal organizations and Wakf Boards should not be asked to get out of the forums like ICHR, IHC etc., and then come, if they are cleared off of their acts of violation, contempt court proceedings, misappropriation charges etc[3].

convention-on-peoples-unity-against-communalism-from distance

Vedaprakash

02-11-2013


[1] People’s Democracy(Weekly Organ of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), Hugely Successful Convention against Communalism, Vol. XXXVII, No. 44, November 03, 2013
http://pd.cpim.org/2013/1103_pd/11032013_edit.html

[2] People’s Democracy, Clarion Call for Defeating Communal Forces, CONVENTION FOR PEOPLE’S UNITY AND AGAINST COMMUNALISM,(Weekly Organ of the Communist Party of India (Marxist)
Vol. XXXVII, No. 44, November 03, 2013, http://pd.cpim.org/2013/1103_pd/11032013_convention.html

[3] See Universitiestoday website for more details.

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

One Response to “How Irfan Habib as as “eminent-elite” historian could attend the political meet conducted under the guise of “Convention for People’s Unity Against Communalism”?”

  1. vedaprakash Says:

    http://www.indiancurrents.com/ic4/mukudan.htm

    Indian Currents, Vol. XVI, Issue 4, January 25,2004

    History: Right, Left, Wrong

    -By Mukundan C Menon

    “I was never a sympathizer of RSS,” is the key message that M G S Narayanan wants everyone to believe ever since his unceremonious ouster from chairmanship of Indian Council of Historical Research on December 10, 2003.

    However, at least in Kerala, that was the last thing in the murky series of ICHR-related events that anyone wished to swallow. For, everyone knows that MGS was opted for the coveted academic post two-and-half years ago by Union minister for human resources Murali Manohar Joshi, because he was acceptable to the RSS and Sangh Parivar. Undoubtedly, MGS was in the RSS good books for several years. He rightfully earned the RSS goodwill because of his vociferous criticism of, what the Sangh Parivar calls, “Left historians’ monopoly and authoritarian control of ICHR.” To the Sangh Parivar’s political kitty, no other historian from South India matched MGS and, that too, belonging to the Left-belt state of Kerala. It was also true that ever since Dr Joshi became HRD minister, the RSS was keen on having various academic institutions at the Centre to be headed by, at least, those who were not antagonistic towards Sangh Parivar, if not outright sympathizers of Hindutva.

    The RSS, MGS admitted, wanted him to hold the ICHR post after they found that its image suffered a serious jolt during the tenure of two former chairmen who were Sangh Parivar sympathizers. “The RSS, therefore, wanted an independent man to regain the lost glory of the institution.”

    However, the honeymoon came to an abrupt end on an unhappy note. MGS, who assumed ICHR charge on July 4, 2001, termed the marching order served on him as “an illegal and arbitrary one by the HRD ministry to promote its communal agenda through the Council”. Ironically, the historian was repeating history since, barring communal agenda, these words were mere repetition of what he earlier charged against Leftists like Irfan Habib in the same ICHR.

    In fact, MGS was the second RSS hand-picked ICHR chairperson only to be dropped later by the ministry during the past five years of Dr Joshi’s ministership. Narayan was appointed to replace K S Lal who got the post following the demise of well-known RSS sympathiser B R Grover on May 10, 2001. Subsequently, Lal

    fell out with the HRD ministry over the appointment of R C Aggarwal, former director of Archaeological Survey of India, as ICHR member-secretary. Lal was removed allegedly for his “administrative lapses”. (Lal then said that he was given a letter on July 02, 2001, intimating Narayanan’s appointment as new chairman, and lamented that none had the courtesy to inform him in advance about the change). History repeated, within

    two-and-half years, when Narayanan also faced the same piquant situation of removal when he resisted the posting of HRD’s nominees, first R D Sahay and later Prof. Kapil Kumar, as ICHR member-secretary, following Agarwal’s resignation a few months ago. Similarly, this period also witnessed former Jan Sangh MP from Delhi in late 1960s and former Foreign Service personnel M L Sondhi, becoming chairman of Indian Council for Social Science Research (ICSSR) only to be shunted out later. Considered as a favorite of Prime Minister Vajpayee, Sondhi not only moved the Court against his removal but also lashed out at the HRD bureaucracy and RSS loyalists for their interference in ICSSR affairs. Notably, MGS became ICHR chairman in 2001, amid controversy over its review committee chairman, A K Roy’s threats to resign following interference from outsiders close to the saffron lobby. Unlike Sondhi, Narayanan has no intention to move the court. “I treat this hostile act by the corrupt HRD ministry as an honour. I am proud of being able to stand for the cause of historical research with dignity. Since my term would have been over within seven months, why should I go for a protracted legal battle. More so, I cannot work under an antagonistic ministry.”

    Although the HRD ministry’s order of December 10 merely said that Narayanan’s nomination to the post has been withdrawn, the next day minister Joshi told reporters in Delhi that the removal was due to “financial irregularities” committed by him while in office. – a charge not faced by his predecessor K S Lal or M L Sondhi of ICSSR in the event of their controversial ouster. Refuting charges that opposition by Sangh Parivar academicians was the reason for Narayanan’s removal, the minister said that no reason other than financial irregularities led to his sacking : “The action was based on the report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General (CAG), which pointed out serious financial bungling by Narayanan. Since the ICHR is funded by the Centre, it should have followed the financial directives of the ministry.” As long as I am the HRD minister, I will see that the ministry rules are followed by all, he asserted. Rejecting the criticism on the ministry’s interference in the autonomic function of ICHR, the minister claimed that “autonomy is only for academic matters, which I always favoured, but I also want strict adherence to financial rules”.

    According to Dr Joshi, Narayanan was given three months’ time to improve his ways of continuous financial mismanagement, but he failed to rectify his misdeeds. The main charges related to audit objections on the “misuse of powers by the chairman and the one on an irregular expenditure of Rs 2,33,113 for the purchase of a computer at the chairman’s office-*****-residence in Kozhikode.

    The ICHR was also to clarify its position on the Rs 72,000 spent by Narayanan on mobile phone calls. Besides, the HRD sought ICHR explanation on why it had failed to recover the Rs 27.5 lakh granted to 41 scholars who eventually did not complete their research.

    MGS reacted to the minister’s charges, on the same day, by saying: “The CAG audit report is a cooked up one manipulated by Burman of HRD ministry and Sushil Kumar the ICHR director.” According to MGS, specific direction was earlier given to the CAG audit party not to meet him or the then member-secretary of ICHR to collect the relevant information. “When I brought this to the notice of CAG director-general, he sent another audit party. Subsequently, after we furnished the details, many of the charges contained in the earlier report were dropped in the succeeding report.” Bringing this to the minister’s attention, MGS wrote a letter on May 27, 2003, which said that the first audit party “refused to recognize the member-secretary as head of the department or discuss files and matters with him” and that “the report is full of factual inaccuracies”. The RSS lobby in Kerala even circulated this fabricated report to present me in bad light, he added. According to MGS, while these irregularities were pointed out in the CAG report in 2002, the latest CAG report dated October 20, 2003, did not contain any such reference. About the grants given to scholars, it is said that the ICHR sent a reply to the ministry informing that out of the 41 scholars, 13 have already submitted their manuscripts while the rest would submit soon.

    Interestingly, the ministry had no explanation as to why his removal notification was totally silent about such a serious charge as financial impropriety. According to MGS, the charges were difficult to sustain since these were dropped by the Director-General of audit, central revenues, after he responded to them. “No reason has been given in the notification implies that there is no reason”, he said. If at all I committed financial irregularities, why they failed to seek explanation from me? And, without giving me a chance to explain, how can they take action?”, MGS asks, for which no reply is forthcoming from the Ministry. Over the objections relating to his “home office” at Kozhikode, Narayanan explained that the ICHR administrative committee, which is the competent authority, had cleared its creation. Notably, while refuting all these charges and allegations, Narayanan accused the “Minister and his sycophants” of squandering public funds for promoting their communal schemes in the field of historical research.

    Terming the Minister and his sycophants with adopting obscurantist policies to ruin ICHR, MGS pointed out that there was no provision in ICHR rules to withdraw the nomination of chairman and, that too, without assigning any reason. “The Chairman’s post is purely honorary and not a salaried one. Hence, the rules applicable to the government servants are not applicable to the Chairman. However, the RSS felt that it selected a wrong man as I resisted their secretive moves in ICHR. This was the beginning of the mud-slinging campaign against me which culminated in my removal”, he claimed.

    According to MGS, the main reason for his removal was not at all the so-called financial irregularities, but the appointment of Prof. Kapil Kumar as ICHR Member-Secretary. “After R. C. Aggarwal resigned, the HRD Ministry wanted to appoint Kapil Kumar without bothering to take my consent as Chairperman. I refused to accept this on two counts: One, it is an affront on ICHR autonomy; and, two, Kapil Kumar is one who has been raising constant allegations against ICHR. Mediators on conciliatory moves told me that if I accepted the Ministry’s decision on Kapil Kumar’s appointment, all other issues could be solved. They even promised that Kapil Kumar would go made to go on leave after joining. All these were meant to save Minister Joshi’s face. However, I refused to budge or relent.”

    It may be recalled that chairperson Lal had equested the minister to invite applications by issuing an advertisement in August 2001 to fill the post of member-secretary. Opposing Aggarwal’s appointment, Lal also wrote to Joshi that the member-secretary need not necessarily be a person from Delhi. After his removal, Lal also said that the HRD Ministry interfered with ICHR regular functioning. Incidentally, Narayanan also held the post of ICHR member-secretary during 1990-92 under the chairmanship of the Leftist Professor Irfan Habib. And, Dr Aggarwal was the first non-historian to become the ICHR member-secretary.

    The wrangle over the prerogative of appointing the ICHR member-secretary has been going on for several months between MGS and the HRD ministry. After Agarwal quit, the ministry appointed R D Sahay without consulting the chairman which was subsequently withdrawn following MGS resisted it. Later, the Ministry asked MGS to issue appointment letter to Prof. Kumar. This was done by invoking Section 16 of ICHR’s memorandum of association which empowered the government to interfere in ICHR affairs. Two days before his removal, MGS shot back a letter to the HRD ministry pointing out that both parts of Section 16 do not give the ministry the power to make the appointment. The first part, he wrote, is applicable to ‘broad policies and programmes’ and does not cover specific administrative questions or appointments, while the second part says that “it is applicable when a difficulty arises in the functioning of the Council because of any lacunae in the MoA or in the rules, or in the failure of any provisions to operate.’’

    In November first week, Prof Kapil Kumar also directly interfered in the issue over Narayanan’s denying him access to the office on the ground of autonomy following his appointment as ad hoc Member Secretary of ICHR. In a letter to all the Council Member, Prof. Kumar accused Narayanan of compromising the ICHR autonomy as he kept the body in dark over the sequence of events beginning with the decision of R. C. Agarwal to resign from ICHR Member-Secretary post. Signing as ICHR Member-Secretary, Prof. Kumar’s 17-page long letter, along with several letters and documents about his appointment, challenged the procedure adopted by Narayanan in short-listing the panel of names for permanent Member-Secretary. According to MGS, it was difficult for him to work as Chairman with Prof. Kumar as Member-Secretary who made such “wild and baseless allegations” against him, including in Council meeting. However, Prof. Kumar insisted that all these allegations raised by him were rooted in facts.

    Even before Prof Kumar, one of Narayanan’s early bet-noire was ICHR member Makkhan Lal who became Sangh Parivar favorite when he opposed passing of a resolution condemning Babri Masjid demolition at the 1994 World Archaeology Congress. Later, then Delhi Chief Minister Sahib SinghVerma appointed him as Director of the newly established Delhi Institute of Heritage Research and Management. Trouble between Makkan Lal and MGS came into open at the ICHR’s general council meeting in Bangalore in September 2002 when Makkhan Lal alleged that Ms. Ranjana Aggarwal, wife of then ICHR Member-Secretary Dr. R.C. Aggarwal, had been awarded a Junior Research Fellowship by a committee that included her husband. Makkan Lal’s dissent to the council said that Narayanan, as ICHR Chairperson, chose “to brush aside this highly immoral and illegal act of Dr. R.C. Aggarwal” and charged Narayanan with misleading Parliament and the HRD Ministry by giving an incorrect and vague reply on the matter. Makkan Lal’s dissent note alleged that the minutes of the Bangalore meeting failed to record the fact that some members had demanded the resignation of the Member-Secretary.

    Prof. Kapil Kumar stepped in later by taking up the issue of Ms. Ranjana Aggarawal’s research fellowship. Demanding Dr. Aggarwal’s resignation, Kapil Kumar said on March 26, 2003, that the list of experts for selecting Junior Research Fellows should have been circulated among the council members, especially because the Member Secretary had appointed them. Narayanan’s inquiry report, according to Kapil Kumar, did not divulge the names of these experts. Notably, except Makkhan Lal and Kapil Kumar, none from within the 26-member ICHR raised the issue related to Ms. Ranjana Aggarwal’s fellowship. Incidentally, Ms.Ranjana Aggarwal’s case was not the first time when a wife of an ICHR employee selected for fellowship.

    In the inquiry report over Ms. Ranjana Aggarwal’s fellowship controversy, Narayanan wrote : “The Member Secretary did not attempt any manipulation or try to influence the council members in any way… he had not mentioned to me that his wife had applied. Perhaps he could have done that, announced it before the committee and withdrawn temporarily from the meeting. It was a mistake on his part, but it is possible that he did not see

    the item when it was taken up as he was engrossed in other files. At any rate, I do not notice anything irregular in the manner in which this application was handled or sanctioned.” Later, Narayanan advised the Member-Secretary to persuade his wife not to accept the fellowship “because one member had cast aspersions on the Member-Secretary and the ICHR”. Terming the incident unfortunate, the Chairman said Ms. Ranjana Aggarwal zas “not at fault, but it was only the prejudice on the part of a member/a certain reporter that led to the loud allegations.” Narayanan also felt that “if the member honestly felt there was an anomaly, he could have quietly taken it up with me by giving it in writing and asking for investigation and reply.” On the whole, Narayanan’s actual compulsion as Chairperson to advise Aggarwals not to accept the fellowship by succumbing to Makkhan Lal’s pressures was not clear to many especially since vast majority of the ICHR members did not join the issue by supporting Makkhan-Kapil duo.

    According to informed sources, Makkhan Lal only used the issue of Aggarawals to settle an old score with Narayanan. That relates to Makkhan Lal’s controversial history textbook for Class XI, “Ancient India”, brought out by National Council for Educational Research and Training’s (NCERT) in which, according to historian Vishwa Mohan Jha, several passages were lifted from various sources without giving due acknowledgment. Narayanan joined the issue in October 2002 by referring to several errors and lacunae in it. In particular, Narayanan took exception that South Indian history had been given the “short shrift”. Although the Ramayana and the Mahabharata were mentioned, Tamil epics such as Silappadikaram and Manimekalai did not figure. Pointing out the typical style of North Indian historians, Narayanan said that “Chola emperors have been misplaced in different periods of history.”Quoting Narayanan, The Hindu (October 22, 2002) reported: “The history of textbook writing shows that the idea of state-sponsored publications originated and flourished under totalitarian regimes – the Nazis, Fascists and Communists.”

    Within a month, a fuming Makkhan Lal brought out a booklet titled “The NCERT Social Science Books: False Propaganda, Political Agenda and the Eminent Historians”, in which he criticized historian Nayanjot Lahiri and Narayanan. While Lahiri was lambasted for being “biased” and “ignorant”, Narayanan was criticized for pointing out lacunae in public. Under Narayanan, Makkhan Lal charged, the ICHR “functioned on the basis of personal equations and not on professional considerations.”

    Prior to Narayanan’s removal, the ICHR was facing shortage of funds “deliberately denied” by the Government despite repeated reminders. As a result, its scholars were not receiving study grant for the past six months while two international and several university-level seminars already planned by the council were postponed. The HRD ministry, it was alleged, did not disburse the full amount due to the ICHR because of the tussle over the appointment of Prof. Kapil Kumar as ICHR member-secretary. As the ICHR was denied funds in second and third quarter of 2003, five days before his removal Narayanan wrote to the HRD on December 5: “We request you to release the grants and restore the autonomy of the council, which you have been trying to destroy.”

    The HRD, however, blamed ICHR for not providing the information needed for release of funds. About Rs 7.5 crore has been allocated to the ICHR during the first quarter in this fiscal (upto July) for planned and non-planned expenditure. According to Kapil Kumar, who was since appointed as ICHR Member-Secretary by the HRD — a post that carries important financial and administrative powers — “the ministry wanted details of the expenditure incurred by the ICHR till October 31, 2003. It also sought a statement of the expenditure for the last three years. Chairman Narayanan has not furnished these details despite repeated reminders.”

    Another thaw between Narayanan and Kapil Kumar was the latter’s role in the three-member committee constituted by the ICHR to scrutinise the two manuscripts prepared by historians K N Panikkar and Sumit Sarkar in the controversial ‘Towards Freedom’ project. As against the Sangh Parivar camps desire to keep the entire project in cold storage, Narayanan, despite his strong opposition to Leftists, especially Left historians, favored its publication. According to insiders, the differences between MGS and Sangh Parivar in ICHR had compelled him to shift from earlier anti-Leftist stand to adopt a seemingly neutral position. “There cannot be history without differences”, was the new line adopted by Narayanan towards fellow historians. ICHR publishing some of the 22 volumes on “Labour Movements in India – 1928-1930”, edited by Marxist Sociologist A.R. Desai and Sunil Dighe, and invitations extended to historians belonging to all schools of thoughts for the ICHR seminar at Bangalore in February 2003 on “Dialogue with the Past – Trends in History writing in India”, were cited as examples of this seeming shift in Narayanan’s attitude, much to the chagrin of Sangh Parivar lobby within both ICHR and HRD.

    The question remains how far Narayanan had moved away from his anti-Leftist stand? In May 1999, while inaugurating a two-day seminar on “Kerala and Freedom Struggle” organized by the Sangh Parivar’s Bharatiya Vichara Kendram at Kochi, in which Minister Dr. Joshi was the Chief Guest, MGS Narayanan said : “Only an independent and impartial approach to history can remedy the ills in history-writing by some unacademic ‘self-acclaimed historians’. Small-time intellectuals under the guise of historians have tailored history to suit the political class, thus leaving a major chunk of facts in the dark. As such Kerala’s contribution to freedom struggle remained hidden under a veil of dogmatism. Freedom fighters of Kerala including Pazhassi Raja were misrepresented and the truth remained in oblivion owing to the polemics carried out by EMS Namboodiri and other Marxist leaders for political gain”. (Incidentally, under Narayanan’s influence and guidance, the RSS started celebrating Pazhassi Raja memorial day).

    In the ICHR newsletter of January-June 2002, Narayanan sustained his anti-Leftist attack : “We are aware of the fact that certain historians professing to project the Marxist ideology have been in the habit of claiming infallibility and monopoly of wisdom, branding all other historians as reactionary and communal and treating them as untouchables. This intellectual fascism has to be discouraged. What they were enjoying for some time was not a monopoly of wisdom but a monopoly of power in several government bodies and universities. This has come to an end happily. Historical research must now gather new momentum in this country so that our people are eventually liberated from the hegemony of Eurocentric history and enabled to develop their own independent Indian perspective.”

    However, a lesser strident tone on Marxist interpretations of history came from him as was evident from the Chairman’s column in June-December 2002 issue : “That we can have a virgin fact, uncontaminated by the mental image carried by the narrator, in this case the historian, seems to be a great illusion.” According to him, although the Marxist approach cannot be treated as sacrosanct, “it is only one among the different possibilities of looking at the world”.

    A week after his removal, Narayanan returned to his anti-communist diatribe. Delivering the first Bodheswaran memorial lecture at Thiruvananthapuram on December 17 on “The Constitution of Modern Malayalee Self,” he blamed the Communist movement for keeping the Malayalees locked in a feudal mindset: “The Communist movement, still guided by Stalinist dogmas, had only succeeded in recreating feudal power relations in society in the name of leading people to a socialist paradise. Although landlordism and feudalism were eliminated, an industrial society that should have naturally been followed was not allowed to come about. This is due to the false Communist ‘vedanta’ that viewed investment as an anathema. Agriculture was destroyed, while industry was not allowed…”

    However, in post-removal interview given to “Jeevan” TV in December last week, Narayanan said that the Left historians have more intellectual capability than Rightists. “That is what I want to inculcate in them (through ICHR)”, he admitted candidly.

    Left circles, however, stoutly deny the Sangh Parivar allegation that they were controlling ICHR. According to Sumit Sarkar of Delhi University, out of the hitherto ICHR chairpersons, only Irfan Habib and R S Sharma were known Marxists (others being A R Kulkarni, Nihar Ranjan Ray, Lokesh Chandra, Ravindra Kumar, S Sattar, B R Grover, K S Lal and T R Sareen).

    “Lokesh Chandra, in fact, is the son of Jana Sangh leader Raghuvir and is himself a BJP member while Grover himself was member-secretary of the ICHR in the 80s. How can Joshi claim that Left historians had been propelled by Congress governments into the ICHR,” Sarkar asked. Leftists also point out that there were very few Marxists who served as ICHR Council Members, compare to the long list of non-Marxist members like K A Nizami, Amales Tripathi, H D Sankalia, B Sheikh Ali, S Sattar, K V Ramesh, A R Kulkarni, Y S Subbarayalu, B N Mukherji, S C Misra, A Q Rafiqi, J S Grewal, M G S Narayanan, B N Goswami, Sushil Chowdhary, Rajat Ray, Lallanji Gopal, G C Pande, Amales Tripathi, and others. Denying the Sangh Parivar contention of Marxist hegemony of ICHR and Leftist patronage, they pointed out that hardly half-a-dozen, of the total around 90 books translated by ICHR into12 languages, belong to Marxist authors. Where is the question of so-called Leftist authoritarian control over ICHR, they asked.

    for CHRO
    Mukundan C. Menon
    Secretary General

    CHRO
    3, Rams’ Cottage
    Ambalathumukku
    Pettah
    Thiruvananthapuram-695 024
    (Ph.: 0471-2476262)
    http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/PUCL/conversations/topics/897

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: