Malda IHC conference, communal fire and blaspheme riots – were they incidental, coincidental or ancillary (2)?

Malda IHC conference, communal fire and blaspheme riots – were they incidental, coincidental or ancillary (2)?

Eminent historians, IHC, resoltion mughal tombs to be protected

Unblushing, spineless and biased historians stroking the fire of communalism (30-12-2015): Eminent historians like Irfan Habib, Aditya Mukherjee, Shireen Mousvi, and BP Sahu Indu Banga were present at the 76th nsession, when the resolutions were passed. The resolution recalled that the IHC had said since 1984 that the Babri Masjid was “entitled to protection both as a medieval monument built in 1528 and as an example of Sharqi architecture.” …..“However, it was allowed to be destroyed in 1992 — an act which provoked national condemnation,” the resolution said. “That destruction was planned to enable the ground to be cleared to build a modern temple.” When UPA was in power, they did not worry about the stones coming to Ayodhya, as the work has been going on for many years. Virtually, it is a small factory, where all the tourists can go inside and see the processes carried on without any restriction. About recent happenings of other things (in the name of tolerance etc.,), these historians were keeping quiet, why then suddenly in Malda, they started to give political discourse about the Babri Masjid? How can they forget that they have been condemned by the Allahabad High Court for misleading the Court?

Harbans Mukhia, Suvira Jaiswal, Indu Banga, Rajan Gurukkal, Romila, Shereen Ratnagar

The way the eminent historians deal court cases: Though Romila Thapar roared that they would file an appeal, she kept quiet and disappeared, perhaps, to save her honour. Whenever, Rama comes in the news, she used to come and say something against and disappear. But, she never goes to court, as she threatens. Irfan Habib chose to reply in his own way[1], but, none cared for. Thus, the recent war of words between eminent professional historians and Sangh Parivar outfits reached a new high on Tuesday (30-12-2015), with the Indian History Congress (IHC) passing a resolution against the arrival of engraved stones in Ayodhya, for a future Ram temple at the site where the Babri Masjid once stood[2]. In fact, there was no discussion and the resolutions were passed just like that[3]. On December 23, 2015, The Hindu cleverly carried an editorial to bat for the “eminent” historians, who have been the witnesses for the Muslims in the Babri case in the courts[4]. Not only that they were exposed by the High Court during the cross examination[5], about their spreading lies, planting biased articles in newspapers and deposing without visiting Ayodhya!

Gyanendra Pandey, Suraj Bhan, Indu Banga, D N Jha, K M Srimali, Satish Chandra

The eminent historians as witnesses of Muslims in the Babri Masjid case[6]: It is not known how they agreed to lend their names or ready to be witnesses in the Babari case to support Muslim cause. The eminent historians, historical experts and leftist manufacturers never bother about their secular credentials.  It is not known as to why these coteries should always support for the Masjid or Muslim cause. But, as the Muslim groups have been dominating the IHC sessions and sponsorship provided, they were obliged to act as witnesses. Ironically, the following have been the witnesses of the case in question:

Sl.No Witness no Name of the witness
1 Witness No. 63 R.S. Sharma
2 Witness No. 64 Suraj Bhan
3 Witness No. 65 D.N. Jha[7]
4 Witness No. 66 Romila Thapar
5 Witness No. 70 Irfan Habib
6 Witness No. 72 B.N. Pandey
7 Witness No. 95 K.M. Shrimali
8 Witness No. 99 Satish Chandra
9 Witness No. 102 Gyanendra Pandey

Unfortunately, in the 2012 Allahabad court judgment, when were exposed, they got wild. So they started criticizing the judgment to save their faces. Then, where is their loci standi in criticising the judgment and Court? As witnesses, definitely, they could have deposed before the judges presenting their “historical facts” as they only know how to interpret! The public perhaps, even today do not know that in secular India, these historians stood witnesses to the Muslims! Why none has appeared for Hindus or temple cause? When the cold-blooded terrorist and heinous killer like Kasab is given legal aid, why none appeared for the non-Muslim and non-mosque group? Where is secularism? Would they come out in the public what they told to the judges in the Court? However, the poor show showed in the court by them raises many questions.

Eminent historians, Arun Shourie

How eminent historians made their elite historians to lie before the Court: Let us see, what these eminent historians deposed before the court and offered their expertise during the cross-examination:

  1. Supriya Verma an, “expert” who challenged the excavations done by the ASI, had not read the radar survey report on ground penetration that led to the court order for excavation.
  2. Verma and Jaya Menon, another “expert,” were not present at the time of actual excavations but alleged that pillar bases at the excavated sites were planted.
  3. Suvira Jaiswal says: “Whatever knowledge I gained with respect to the disputed site is based on newspaper reports or what others told.”
  4. She also confessed that she “prepared a report on the Babri dispute after reading newspaper reports and on the basis of discussion with my medieval history expert in my department”.
  5. Jaiswal made an important clarification: “I am not giving (my) statement on oath regarding Babri Mosque without any probe and not on the basis of my knowledge; rather I am giving the statement on the basis of my opinion.”
  6. When opinion can be history why are they all screaming that “faith” cannot be an equally relevant criterion?
  7. Archaeologist Shereen Ratnagar admitted she did not have any “field” experience as far as Babri was concerned and had written an “introduction” to the book of another “expert” who deposed before the court, namely Prof D Mandal.
  8. Suraj Bhan was providing evidence based on medieval history but another expert of Muslim parties, namely Shireen Musavi, says that Bhan is an archaeologists and not a historian.

Is this the way that they should have confessed? Why then pretend as the expert of experts, scholar of scholars etc?

Allahabad High Court judment, eminent historians

“The Communist Party issues a red card, and I am its holder. It is true that I have no faith in religion.”:

  1. Prof Mandal retired from the Department of Ancient History and Archaeology, Allahabad University. He was appointed on an ad hoc basis as Lecturer in 1972 but prior to that he claimed to have worked as exploration assistant since 1960.
  2. Initially he appeared as an expert to depose that there was no archaeological evidence to show either the existence of any temple at the disputed site or that a temple was demolished before construction of the disputed structure.
  3. The statements made by him in cross-examination show the shallowness of his knowledge and provide a sample about all these “eminences”. A few of his quotes:
    1. “I never visited Ayodhya”.
    2. “I do not have any specific knowledge of the history of Babur’s reign.”
    3. “Whatsoever little knowledge I have about Babur is only that Babur was the ruler of the 16th century.
    4. Except for this I do not have any knowledge of Babur.
    5. I do not have knowledge of anything in 2nd Para of the editorial preface to my book (exhibit 63) in which Romila Thapar has written that Vishwa Hindu Parishad, BJP and Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, for the first time, raised the issue of the Babri Masjid being located on the place which was earlier Rama’s birth place.
    6. I also do not know whether or not it is correctly written on page 10 of the aforesaid preface that Ayodhya is a site of pilgrimage for adherents of Ramanand school.”
    7. “The Communist Party issues a red card, and I am its holder. It is true that I have no faith in religion.”

So when they were torn into pieces exposing their expertise, professionalism, peer-group review and appreciation etc., how they still hold their heads high and gather courage to pass such resolutions?

  • Can Romila Thapar forget this?
  • Can Supriya Verma, Jaya Menon, Suvira Jaiswal, Shereen Ratnagar, Mandal etc., deny their role in spreading falsehood?
  • Then, what position, they have to pass resolutions at IHC in this cowardly fashion, instead of going to court?

© Vedaprakash

14-01-2016

 

[1]https://ia700408.us.archive.org/32/items/HistoryJudgementOfAllahabadHighCourtInRamjanmabhumibabriMasjidCase/HistoryJudgementOfAllahabadHighCourtInRamjanmabhumibabriMasjidCase.pdf

[2] http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/historians-condemn-buildup-in-ayodhya/article8042477.ece

[3] When Prof Grover, ICHR chairman (former) was there, he used to question their audacity to propose such resolutions, leave alone getting passed in this way. Now, the enjoying members did not know any implication of such resolutions passed, might feel heat now or later, when they realize.

[4] http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/editorial/editorial-on-ayodhya-temple-ominous-signals-from-ayodhya/article8018720.ece?ref=relatedNews

[5] http://www.firstpost.com/india/babri-demolition-how-hc-verdict-discredited-eminent-historians-547549.html

[6] https://vedaprakash.wordpress.com/2010/10/16/ramajanmabhumi-babarimasjid-evidences-and-court-or-hisorians-as-witnesses-and-sunni-wakf-board-experts/

[7] http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/stories/20101022272113200.htm

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

2 Responses to “Malda IHC conference, communal fire and blaspheme riots – were they incidental, coincidental or ancillary (2)?”

  1. மக்கள் தாக்கப்படுவது: உணர்ச்சி, சுரணை மற்றும் சகிப்புத்தன்மை பற்றிய பாரபட்சம், அலட்சியம் மற்ற Says:

    […] [8] https://vedaprakash.wordpress.com/2016/01/14/malda-ihc-conference-communal-fire-and-blaspheme-riots-… […]

  2. மக்கள் தாக்கப்படுவது: உணர்ச்சி, சுரணை மற்றும் சகிப்புத்தன்மை பற்றிய பாரபட்சம், அலட்சியம் மற்ற Says:

    […] [8] https://vedaprakash.wordpress.com/2016/01/14/malda-ihc-conference-communal-fire-and-blaspheme-riots-… […]

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: