Archive for the ‘D. N. Jha’ Category

Gandhi Congress conducted Cow-slaughter in public in God’s own country Kerala with highest litracy and Beef-fest also and Communists happy to eat! (2)

May 29, 2017

Gandhi Congress conducted Cow-slaughter in public in God’s own country Kerala with highest litracy and Beef-fest also and Communists happy to eat! (2)

Meat export- India

Why CPIM also repeat the tune of Rahul saying that “It is a thoughtless act”:  “It is a thoughtless act and it will only help Sangh Parivar outfits. It is sad that Youth Congress activists stooped so low for publicity,” CPI (M) Member of Parliament MB Rajesh said. Thus, whatever ideology, they speak before the media, they have been concious of what the act could lead to. Beef is a staple in Kerala and the new rules have caused widespread anger. Though Kerala is one of the few states where cow slaughter is not banned, animal lovers said “such brazen acts” glorify cruelty towards animals and demanded action against Youth Congress activists. The BJP, which is trying to gain a toehold in the state and won its first seat in the last year’s assembly election, also criticised the slaughtering of the animal at a busy market in the heart of Kannur while the Congress asked its cadres to use restrain during protests. BJP state president Kummanam Rajasekharan tweeted the video of the slaughter, saying it was the “cruelty at its peak”. Youth Congress activists defended their move, saying it was a natural form of protest. “The Centre is denying food to the people, it is the biggest cruelty,” Youth Congress leader Rejil Makutty said. Police registered a case against Youth Congress activists who slaughtered a cow in public and cooked its meat. They were booked under IPC Section 428 and section (ii) of the PCA Act 1960.

28-05-2017 beef-fest Kannur Cong and DYFI- cutting cow

Country’s Rs 1 lakh-crore meat industry or BJP’s alleged Hindutva agenda: The Centre’s decision, which will hurt millions of poor farmers and squeeze supplies to the country’s Rs 1 lakh-crore meat industry, is being seen as a move to push the BJP’s alleged Hindutva agenda. Cows are considered holy by many Hindus, and have gained in importance since Prime Minister Narendra Modi stormed to power in 2014 with several BJP-ruled states enacting strict laws to punish cow slaughter. As protest mounted in the state, chief minister Pinarayi Vijayan shot off a letter to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, saying the Centre couldn’t draw up a menu and change the food habits of people. “Today it is saying you can’t eat beef, tomorrow it can say no to fish also. We will not allow this to happen in our state,” the CM said, adding the decision would leave many people jobless. The state government is talking to legal experts to challenge the notification. Many of the ruling CPI (M) leaders come from Kannur, where the Left party is involved in a bloody turf war with the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh, the ideological parent of the BJP. In Kerala at least 500,000 people are directly or indirectly involved in cattle trade, slaughterhouses and allied areas. According to the state animal husbandry department data, 117,000 adult cattle and 70,000 young cattle were slaughtered in Kerala in 2016 where beef accounts for 60% of the total meat consumed. Since most of the cattle come from the neighbouring Tamil Nadu and Karnataka, Kerala meat traders fear that the new notification will embolden Hindu fringe outfits and hit supply leading to a shortage of meat in the state. Cow slaughter and smuggling are banned in most parts of the country but there are no curbs on buffalo meat, which is eaten widely as a cheap source of protein. But the new norms will also hit buffalo meat, which goes by different names globally and is also referred to as beef in India, a reason enough for the so-called cow protectors to assault people or even force shut down of eateries.

28-05-2017 beef-fest Kannur Cong and DYFI- cutting

Muslims would be the worst affected, because of the restriction: The government has banned the sale of cows and buffaloes for slaughter through animal markets, rules that will hurt millions of poor farmers and squeeze supplies to the country’s meat industry, thus the media too started propaganda[1]. However, it has been cautious enough to tell the fact, “The new rules do not amount to a blanket ban on cattle trade or their slaughter, and license breeding remains legal”[2]. But the move will crimp supplies to the country’s Rs 1-lakh crore meat and allied industries which sources about 90% of their requirements from animal markets. The worst hit, however, will be the mostly Muslim meat and leather traders who face mounting violence by increasingly assertive cow vigilante groups. Farmers will also be hit because they will be deprived of a traditional source of income from selling non-milch and ageing cattle.

28-05-2017 beef-fest Kannur- Indian Express- photo

The new procedure introduced fir the sale of cattle for slaughter: The central regulation for cattle business notified this week allows only farmland owners to trade at animal markets. The notification covers bulls, bullocks, cows, buffaloes, steers, heifers and calves, as well as the camel trade. To be implemented in the next three months, the move introduces lots of paperwork for cow traders who are mostly poor and illiterate. For instance, before the trade, both seller and buyer will have to produce identity and farmland ownership documents. After buying a cow, a trader must make five copies of proof of sale and submit them at the local revenue office, the local veterinary doctor in the district of the purchaser, animal market committee, apart from one each for seller and buyer. “Take an undertaking that the animals are bought for agriculture purposes and not for slaughter,” reads a directive to committees overseeing animal markets in the rule notified under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PCA) Act of 1960 that gives the Centre powers over animal welfare. The new rules were approved by former environment minister Anil Madhav Dave before his death last week, ministry sources told HT. The ministry drafted the rules on Supreme Court directions aimed at improving condition of animals in these markets. Considered holy by many Hindus, cows are a sensitive political topic and have gained in importance since Prime Minister Narendra Modi stormed to power in 2014 as several BJP-ruled states enacted strict laws to punish cow slaughter. But many say the expanding protection for bovines is a proxy war against Dalits and Muslims – as exemplified by the lynching of dairy farmer Pehlu Khan in Rajasthan in April or the flogging of Dalit men in Gujarat’s Una last year. Slaughter of milch cows is banned in all states except in Kerala and in parts of north-east India.

28-05-2017 beef-fest Kannur- Metrovartha- photo

Kerala officially opposing the new law on “cattle business”: The Union government’s new notification banning the sale of cows and buffaloes for slaughter is a “fascist and anti-federal move” and the Centre can’t prepare a menu for the people of the country, Kerala’s Left government said on 27-05-2017, Friday[3]. “We will not allow the (central) government to enforce fascist policies of the RSS and other fringe outfits. Let it issue many such notifications, we will not follow them,” said Kerala’s agriculture minister VS Sunil Kumar. The Kerala Chief Minister’s Office also criticised the slaughter ban[4], saying “Cattle slaughter becomes illegal at a time when manslaughter happens in the name of cow”. In a series of tweets, it said, the new regulation “will rob lakhs of jobs, cripple leather industry”. It called the notification an “attack on our poor, dalits & farmers”. The CMO said food consumption of millions of people will be affected by the “clear attack on our plurality, the essence of India”. The Congress also criticised the Union government’s latest notification.

28-05-2017 beef-fest Kannur- HT photo

The introduction of law coincided with Ramzan and therefore against Islam: “It is against the Constitution of the country and infringes upon the right of citizens,” said MM Hassan, acting president of the state Congress. He said the timing of the notification makes it more intriguing, as the Muslim holy month of Ramzan was scheduled to begin on Friday. In Kerala, around 60% of the total meat consumed is beef. Not just Muslims and Christians, many Hindus are also fond of dishes made of the red meat. A raid by Delhi Police at the Kerala House kitchen in the national capital a couple of years ago had triggered outrage in the state. Many student organisations had conducted ‘beef festivals’ in protest against the police action. People in many states in the north-east also eat beef. “It is a very bad decision. We don’t agree to it and won’t implement it,” said Mizoram’s animal husbandry minister C Ngunlianchunga. Mhao, the owner of Taochi Enterprise, one of the biggest meat suppliers in the north-east, said: “I don’t think the rule will be applicable to the north-east. It will be chaotic and a body blow to business. Why are they digging into our plates?” The environment ministry this week notified a regulation under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 prohibiting sale of cattle through animal markets across the country. Regulating animal trade is a state business but animal welfare is a central subject, thereby providing the window for the ministry to notify the rule.

© Vedaprakash

29-05-2017

28-05-2017 beef-selling Congress - Tajinder Singh photo

[1] Hindustan Times, Centre bans sale of cows for slaughter at animal markets, restricts cattle trade, Chetan Chauhan, New Delhi, Updated: May 26, 2017 22:32 IST.

[2] http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/centre-bans-cow-slaughter-across-india-cows-can-be-sold-only-to-farmers/story-8sFXJxiNmZ8eD6NXDgbvnL.html

[3] Hindustan Times, Centre’s notification banning cow sale for slaughter a fascist move: Kerala, Ramesh Babu, Thiruvananthapuram, Updated: May 27, 2017 19:54 IST.

[4] http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/centre-s-notification-banning-cow-sale-for-slaughter-a-fascist-move-kerala/story-rLcy0LV3hh44H7TxwU0ZYJ.html

Advertisements

Gandhi Congress conducted Cow-slaughter in public in God’s own country Kerala with highest litracy and Beef-fest also! (1)

May 29, 2017

Gandhi Congress conducted Cow-slaughter in public in God’s own country Kerala with highest litracy and Beef-fest also! (1)

Democratic Youth Federation of India - cow-killing and beef eating Communists

DYFI national president Mohammed Riyaz, led the protest: Police in Kannur in north Kerala on 28-05-2017 (Sunday) booked 16 Youth Congress activists who slaughtered a cow in public and cooked its meat and distributed it[1]. The brazen act was committed in front of a huge crowd in Kannur Saturday during the ‘Beef Fest’ held by the Left and Congress parties in Kerala to protest against the Center’s ban[2]. “We will eat beef to show our protest against the central government. We want to tell this to Prime Minister Narendra Modi,” said DYFI national president Mohammed Riyaz, who led the protest[3].  Deccan Chronicle captioned apprpopriately[4], “Youth Congress conducts public cow slaughter in Kerala”, yet Congress has to reckon for the consequences[5]. Actually, how and why one gets an idea of “beaf-fest”, beef-the cow meat eating carnival is thought of and organized immediately? Why the choice of beef and not any other meat or flesh? Thus, the radical elements wanted to show off that it has been a communal protest and not secular or otherwise. An embarrassed Congress sought to distance itself, saying the party will not support anyone who has violated the law, but a Youth Congress activist who led the protest said he had no regrets[6]. They were charged under IPC Section 428 and section (ii) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960[7]. Several youth groups of the ruling CPI (M)-led LDF and Congress-headed UDF opposition have organised these festivals to protest against the Centre’s recent decision to ban sale and purchase of cattle from animal markets for slaughter, a move criticised by several states. But Saturday (28-05-2017)’s slaughter seems to have backfired.

28-05-2017 beef-fest Kannur CPM minister participated

The CPI(M)-led DYFI and SFI were in the forefront of the protests: “The Hindu” reported as follows: “With every political party barring the BJP coming out against the Central notification banning sale of cattle for slaughter in animal markets, protests erupted in several parts of Kerala on Saturday, many of these places witnessing ‘beef festivals’ organised by student and youth activists. The CPI (M)-led DYFI and SFI were in the forefront of the protests, but the Opposition Congress-led United Democratic Front (UDF) was also in the fray, holding marches, burning effigies and organising public kitchens where beef was cooked and served to activists and passersby[8]. Among those who came out against the Central directive was Congress Working Committee (CWC) member A.K. Antony, who, while addressing a meeting to mark the 53rd death anniversary of Jawaharlal Nehru, called upon party workers not to attach any importance to the Central notification and ‘tear it and throw it into the dustbin’[9].

28-05-2017 beef-fest Kannur-Bindu Krishna - Bhagwati Kuzh-beef

  • In Thiruvananthapuram, the agitation was led by the DYFI and SFI. Addressing activists, DYFI national president Mohamed Riyaz said, “We will cook beef and eat beef and also protest against the Central government. That is what we want to tell Narendra Modiji.”
  • In Kochi, the DYFI-SFI activists were joined by Tourism and Cooperation Minister Kadakampally Surendran and CPI (M) district secretary and former Rajya Sabha member P. Rajeev, who partook in the beef festival, the former accusing the Central government of cutting at the very root of people’s right to eat what they wanted. Youth Congress activists also took out a march against the Central measure.
  • At Kannur, Youth congress activists publicly butchered a cow to protest against the central notification while in Thodupuzha in Idukki district, protesters took out a march with the head of a buffalo[10].
  • In Kollam, Congress activists led by District Congress Committee (DCC) president Bindu Krishna cooked beef in front of the DCC office. The Centre, she said, had no right to interfere with the livelihood of lakhs of people. “This is nothing but a intrusion into the fundamental rights of the citizens of this country,” she said[11]. Ironically, this lady also participates in Bhagawati Amman festival to boil Pongal! So the Kerala secularism works differently. She may talk about Gandhi giving discourse about non-violence and also cook and eat beef.

The Hindu also added a photograph with the details: Minister for Tourism Kadakampally Surendran (right) and CPI(M) Ernakulam district secretaray P Rajeev participatin in a beef festival organised by SFI in front of Ernakulam Town Hall on Saturday to protest the Centre’s ban on sale and slaughter of cattle. Photo: Thulasi Kakkat   | Photo Credit: Thulasi Kakkat.

28-05-2017 beef-fest Kannur- 2

How long the antics, gimmicks and tricks could go on by the radicals and ideologists?: “Beef-fests are held to protest ban on sale of cattle for slaughtering cow in Kerala market” says news report[12]. The sale of cattle, cow-slaughter, sale of meat are different aspects, but, they try to confuse all without reading the Act properly[13]. In Tamilnadu, the DK used to perform “Unnum vradham” (eating penance) in front of or against the persons, who are engaded in “Unna vradham” (fasting)! Here, in Kerala, “the Go’s own country” and with 100% literacy, beef-eating festivals are held live not against any “non-beef eating festivals”, as if all meats are eaten, but, beef is not eaten. None would engage in prostitution, if prostitution is banned or restricted or regulated. I do not find anyone who protests against “closure of wineshops” drink! Therefore, if the CPIM and Mohammedan groups start doing antics of cooking beef on the roads, they can do all on the roads as a part of their demo. Perhaps, they want to repeat what the British tried to do that resulted in 1857. In other worrds, they are trying to create tension between the groups and start run rioting. With the ideological expertise and the subversive activities, they are capable of doing that.

Rahul condemn beef eating

Congress caught into dilemma of Cow-slaughter politics: Congress leader Mahathma Gandhi had been against Cow-slaughter and promoter of “Ramrajya”. However, Sonia Congress has become “secular” with the Mohammedan and Christian support. Sonia herself is seen as “Christian” and foreign by many Indians, though, rarely such views are publicized. Sharad Pawar, Jayallita and others openly named her as “Sonia Maino”. Recently, in UP, Congress badly lost its political power, with the rise of BJP with more than absolute majority. Thus, definitely, Congress cannot pay heavy price in this issue. Congress vice president Rahul Gandhi on Sunday condemned the public slaughter of a calf in Kerala by Youth Congress workers and said the party did not support it[14]. “What happened in Kerala yesterday is thoughtless, barbaric and completely unacceptable to me and the Congress Party. I strongly condemn the incident,” Rahul said in a tweet[15]. Kamudi another local daily dubbed Rahul saying that youth congress members are brainless[16]. Whether they would be thoughtless or brainless[17], they had obviously colluded with the other radical elements of Kannur. Evidently, he was advised to do so, as otherwise, the Congress could loose whatever support it has in the “cow belt”, as now, it has lost ground there. Thus, in a face saving manner, the comdemnation has come from him, instead of Sonia Gandhi, the President![18]

© Vedaprakash

29-05-2017

28-05-2017 beef-fest Kannur- Rahul comndemns thru twitter

[1] Hidusthan Times, Police book Youth Congress workers for slaughtering cow in Kerala market, Hindustan Times, Ramesh Babu, Thiruvananthapuram, Updated: May 29, 2017 00:26 IST.

[2] Onmanorama, Kannur Youth Cong workers slaughter cattle in public, police file case, by PTI, Sunday 28 May 2017 10:58 PM IST.

[3] TIMESOFINDIA.COM, Rahul Gandhi ‘strongly condemns’ cow slaughter in Kerala by party workers, Updated: May 28, 2017, 10.44 PM IST

[4] Deccan Herald, Youth Congress conducts public cow slaughter in Kerala; BJP condemns, Krishnakumar, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, DH News Service, May 28 2017, 14:54 IST

[5] http://www.deccanherald.com/content/614052/youth-congress-conducts-public-cow.html

[6] http://english.manoramaonline.com/news/kerala/2017/05/28/kannur-youth-congress-workers-slaughter-cattle-public.html

[7]  http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/youth-congress-workers-slaughter-cow-in-kerala-market-animal-activists-cry-foul/story-MW0w6xgd17R15CEBrjMAoN.html

[8] The Hindu, Kerala sees ‘beef fests’ in protest against ban on sale of cattle for slaughter, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, MAY 27, 2017 16:35 IS; UPDATED: MAY 27, 2017 21:48 IST

[9] http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/kerala/beef-fests-across-kerala-to-protest-ban-on-sale-of-cattle-for-slaughter/article18590014.ece

[10] MetroVaartha, ‘Beef fests’ held in Kerala, CM appeals to PM to repeal new cattle law, Saturday, May 27, 2017,15:52 ISTBY ANJU

[11] http://metrovaartha.com/en/2017/05/27/beef-fests-held-to-protest-ban-on-sale-of-cattle-for-slaughter/

[12] Economics Times, Beef fests held to protest ban on sale of cattle for slaughter, by PTI, May 28, 2011, 01.11 AM.

[13] http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/beef-fests-held-to-protest-ban-on-sale-of-cattle-for-slaughter/articleshow/58875898.cms

[14] TimesNowTv, Kerala Congress Youth activist butchers calf to protest cattle slaughter ban, May 28, 2017 | 21:34 IST | SOURCE : Times Now, Agencies

[15] http://www.timesnow.tv/india/video/kerala-congress-youth-worker-arrest-calf-slaughter-centre-ban/61882

[16] kaumudiglobal.com, Rahul Gandhi dubs Youth Congress members brain-less, Posted on: 22:10:52 May 28, 2017 Last edited on:22:10:52 May 28, 2017

[17] http://kaumudiglobal.com/innerpage1.php?newsid=92024

[18] http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/rahul-gandhi-strongly-condems-cow-slaughter-in-kerala-by-party-workers/articleshow/58884172.cms

The 10th National Conference of ABISY was held at Mysore from December 24th to 26th 2015 on “Women in Indian culture: From ancient to Modern” (3)

December 29, 2015

The 10th National Conference of ABISY was held at Mysore from December 24th to 26th 2015 on “Women in Indian culture: From ancient to Modern” (3).

RSS briefed about the conference earlier - Indian Express, Aug 17, 2015

ABISY, RSS and women: In August itself, the RSS briefed about the conference[1] as could be noted from the Indian express. From December 24 to 26, Akhil Bharatiya Itihas Sankalan Yojana (ABISY) will hold a three-day conference in Mysore, where around 1,000 delegates will discuss “Women in Indian culture: through the ages”. “We will discuss their strength and their importance in various phases of Indian history. Women in Rig Vedic times enjoyed a high status in society but due to several reasons their status began to decline,” said Balmukund, an RSS pracharak working with ABISY. Sources say an RSS meeting in Nainital discussed the gender ratio in RSS affiliates (see chart). “Representation of women is gradually increasing in our organisations. At the Ahmedabad conclave, we will discuss several aspects of women empowerment and their role in our organisations,” said Mahila Samanway chief Geeta Tayi Gunde, who coordinates among the affiliates on women’s issues. Though RSS shakhas don’t allow women, a separate organisation called Rashtra Sevika Samiti holds women’s shakhas on the lines of RSS shakhas[2]. But, RSS has been having dialogue with Christians and Muslims. However, they are not able to counter negative reorting of media, whenever, it is mentioned that they are against so-and-so and so on[3].

Aggressive left historiansThe aggressive domination of the Leftist and Muslim historians: The excessive, extreme and unnecessary domination of the leftists and Muslim groups over the proceedings of IHC has been resented, questioned and examined by neutral historians, archaeologists and other connected experts many times. The way they have been projecting the medieval and modern periods and suppressing the ancient period and also the interpretation of national, social, religious and political issues, problems and controversies in a biased manner much against the interests of common Indians[4]. The IHC coetrie have been authoritatively imposing such one-sided view for the last 60 years, as could be noted not only from the yearly proceedings volumes, but also their interviews, views and comments registered in the media on various occassions. Ironically the charges of so-called elite, eminent and emeritus hisorians have been proved baseless even at the level of Supreme Court, when their own engaged experts filed petitions alleging the saaffronization of educational curriculum, academic and social institutions, the Hon’ble Court ruled out dismissing them. Romila Thapar agitated and openly questioned the judgment dubbing as “Hindutwa judgment” and declared that they would be appealing against the judgment, but noting happened. So in a democaratic country, all views have to be accommodated, naturally, the so-called rightist, nationalist and hindutwa views also be provided space equally. As the dominant leftist and Muslim coetrie does not relish this, the ideological struggle has now been turned into political one and for which they are responsible. This was revealed even during the IHC-2014 jeld at JNU taking the issue of “glorification of Nehruvian era”[5].

marxist-historian-work-together-ideologicallyABISY, RSS and IHC: RSS and IHC were having ideological struggle over Indin history, historiography and methodoloy for the last three decades. While the IHC dominant groups have been moving ahead with the current topics, recent issues and contemporary problems, the rightist, nationalist and patriotic counterparts have not even realized their exisence. Most of them have been almost The IHC ideological bandwagon and aggressive coetrie many times do not recongize peer group experts, only because of the reason that they might be against their ideology. Thus, many prominent, professional and secialized historians, archaeologists, epigraphists, numismaticians and others were / are never invited or allowed to attend the conference by their own “rogue mannerism” but showing off as “expertized professionalism”.  Though RSS has been trying to counter them through ABISY and BISS, their heads, zonal heads and members have been –

  1. Not matching with the professionalism of the leftist and Muslim ideologists.
  2. The vigour started in 1980s died down with changed persons heading[6].
  3. Instead of “offensive”, “defensive” position is taken in the match, however, there have been some individual fighters, but they are ignored by the rightists.
  4. In spite of the judicial victory[7], they could not continue the academic struggle with proficiency, professionalism and practice[8].
  5. inexperienced in preseting papers, if at all, they come forward to present.
  6. read and understand Indian history any perspective.
  7. Ameteurish, unprofessional and incompetent in dealing with their ideological opponents.
  8. Dormant because of excessive patriotism and refused to look at other ideologists in right perspective.
  9. Ignore, sideline and even disregard the exerienced who come to join, work with and get along the ABISY and BISS.
  10. Active only when BJP or NDA is in power and latent during other periods.

Unless, the rightists do not revaluate, reassess and reorganize themselves, they cannot win the battle.

Nehruvian era, IHC, ICHR and RSS (2014): Even as Madan Mohan Malaviya and Shyamaprasad Mookerjee continue to make news headlines, Jawaharlal Nehru dominated a day in New Delhi where historians praised his role, at an event that was sponsored among others by the state governments of Kerala, Karnataka and Assam, all Congress-led administrations. The three-day long Platinum Jubilee edition of the Indian History Congress (IHC), which concluded in JNU last year, also counts the Union government bodies ICHR andUGC among its main sponsors. The IHC Association, which organizes the meet, had set a broad direction for the annual event with the theme ‘Humanism, Tolerance and Reason: Defining the Contours of History’. But two panels under the auspices of the left-leaning JNU and Aligarh Historians’ Society (AHS) expressly focused on discussions and paper presentations concerning the Nehruvian Era and its current relevance, and the past and present forms of inequality in India, respectively[9]. But Dr Rakesh Batabyal, Local Secretary of the IHC, said there was nothing much political to read into the event. “We had written to all state governments for sponsorship and received from these three. Also, the HRD Ministry through UGC and ICHR has also sponsored the event, so there is nothing political about it,” he said. Batabyal pointed out that ICHR head Y. Sudharshan Rao – an appointee of the BJP-led Central government[10] – had also been invited and he attended the event. “The reason for focusing on Nehru was on account of the commemoration of the ex-PM’s Golden death anniversary. Also, we have voices from the economic right to left, it was an open field, he added. He also conceded, though, that finding historians from cultural right was difficult, and thus no presence could be seen,” he said. On its part, the RSS-affiliated history research organization was not too impressed with the event. “We used to go for the event in the past, but now none of our office bearers goes. The IHCA is a communist-leaning organization,” Mukul Pandey (sic), General Secretary of the ABISY, told ET[11].

© Vedaprakash

29-12-2015

[1] New Indian Express, Gender balance: RSS working to get more women in its ranks, Written by Shyamlal Yadav | New Delhi | Updated: August 17, 2015 2:27 pm.

[2] http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/gender-balance-across-organs-rss-looks-to-get-more-women-in-its-ranks/

[3] The ABISY is working on several projects to rewrite history. Last year the outfit organised a function at National Museum to pay homage to the “last Hindu emperor of Delhi Hemu Vikramaditya”. From December 24 to 26, ABISY will hold a three-day conference in Mysore, where around 1,000 delegates will discuss “Women in Indian Culture: Through the Ages.” – See more at: http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/tatya-tope-rss-linked-outfit-backs-descendants-theory-on-his-death/#sthash.KZjgannq.dpuf

[4] The Proceeding volumes sprak the truth and the papers chosen to include expose their bias, prejudice and hatred against others. Many times, very good researched papers, eventhough recommended by the sectional presidents after much appreciated discussion, were not included brcause of such professional, ideological and regional bias.

[5] The Economic Times, Historians praise Jawaharlal Nehru at annual Indian History Congress Association meet,AKSHAY DESHMANE, ET Bureau Dec 30, 2014, 09.33PM IST.

[6] During the New Delhi session, many of the faithfuls simply sent the life membership money with the note, “As per the directions of Mananiya Moropant Pingely, I hereby send the fees”. Alerted and bewildered by them, the ruling IHC bandwagon simply rejected their membership. However, both had been proved wrong, as the Delhi High Court decided differently, when they went to court.

[7] The so-called “Hindutwa” judgment consequent to the NCERT issue and coupled with “saffronization of academic curriculum”, the rightwing ideologists did not pursue the issue professionally.

[8] Note below what Balamkund says about it! . On its part, the RSS-affiliated history research organization was not too impressed with the event. “We used to go for the event in the past, but now none of our office bearers goes. The IHCA is a communist-leaning organization,” Mukul Pandey (sic), General Secretary of the ABISY, told ET.

[9] IHC dominat ideologists manipulate the session by bringing some unassuming paper presenters to force their views on others. This they have been doing in the case of RJM controversy also, making one fellow to present a paper “Ayodhya was in Afganistan”!

[10] This way of reporting has also been biased, because during the non-BJP regimes, the members were only the “appointees” of Communist, Muslim and Congress parties. In fact, the media should be balanced enough to address the issues properly without any pre-conceived notions.

[11] http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2014-12-30/news/57528747_1_ichr-jnu-event

What Irfan Habib was doing at the “Convention for People’s Unity Against Communalism”?

October 31, 2013

What Irfan Habib was doing at the “Convention for People’s Unity Against Communalism”?

How and why anti-Modi, anti-BJP propaganda should be anti-Hindu?

How and why anti-Modi, anti-BJP propaganda should be anti-Hindu?

Comrade historian joins the “Third Front”: Inaugurating the convention, noted historian Irfan Habib, an Indian Marxist historian of ancient and medieval India, talked of how during the Partition there were enough instances of Hindu-Muslim amity. But he acknowledged the secular character of the country was hit by events like the 1984 anti-Sikh riots and the 2002 violence in Gujarat where Muslims were at the receiving end of Hindus[1]. So, as usual, he just takes the balancing of “communalization” or “secularization” of the 1984 and 2002 events, but make others to forget the riots of other years. However, Indians know very well that Irfan Habib never cared for 1984 or the secular historians dominating the forums like Indian History Congress (IHC), Indian Council of Historical Research (ICHR), Forum for Secular Historians etc., and passing resolutions favouring “secular”, “non-communal”, “anti-communal” forces!

Habib speaks at AMU 2010

Irfan Habib excused on health grounds, but inaugurated the Conference: Though, non-Congress secular political players have shown keen interest to join the left sponsored conclave, noted intellectuals with secular credentials are giving it a miss with alibis of health reasons or foreign trip preventing them to attend, though the convention  enlisted as non-political participants of different calibres . Irfan Habib  excused himself on the health ground[2], but he inaugurated the conference. From this, Indians have to understand their true colours of opportunism, treacherous gangsterism, ideological duplicity etc. For appearing in Courts, the accused, appellants, respondents of various categories take shelter under “health grounds” to evade judicial proceedings. In the same way, “eminent, elite” historians also follow such judious-dodgers, but as Prakash Karat had obviously requested, indeed, he appeared and inaugurated!

Habib speaks at Sahmat 2004

Anti-communal or anti-Modi or anti-BJP or anti-Hindu: Indian voters have to identify consciously, who have wanted to associate and parade as “secularists” in India against the interests of Indians under the guise of “secularism”, “communalism” and so on.

They include –

  • Shyam Benegal, theatre personality
  • Raj Babbar, actor and Congress spokes person
  • Mallika Sarabhai activist and classical dancer who was among those petitioning the Supreme Court on the 2002 Gujarat riots,
  • Prof U R Ananda Murthy, Kannada literature.
  • Irfan Habib, Left historian

Politically, parties could be anti-Modi, anti-BJP etc., but how they could be anti-Hindu? How all the anti-Hindu forces, radical elements, fundamental ideologies and others gang themselves to drive the bandwagon of perfidious secularism? They should note how different categories of them come together. To give one example, in 2010 note the persons who came together: Justice P.B. Sawant, Justice Hosbet Suresh, Justice SHA Raza, Justice Rajinder Sachar, economist Professor Prabhat Patnaik, historians Professor Irfan Habib and Professor Shireen Moosvi, etc attended the three-day symposium “Faith and Fact: Democracy after the Ayodhya Verdict” and gave sermons as usual[3]. About NCERT text books, again they come together[4]. They do not care for Supreme court judgments, though very often, they sermon that judiciary should be respected and so on! Therefore, “secular Indians” cannot keep silence about these personalities playing double game with Indian citizens. They have to identify them and unveil them.

Moosvi, Habib, Patnaik-sahmat-communalism combat-social scientist

“The Hindu” does not know Irfan Habib: “The Hindu”, as usual, characteristically reported[5] under the caption “Congress wary of Delhi meet helping BJP”, without mentioning that the comrade Irfan Habib inaugurated the conference. Ironically, though it elaborates about “attack on Congress”, it suppresses many facts including one that Congress was very happy to support and even sponsor it indirectly as Arnav Goswami was suggesting in the evening[6]. “The Hindu”, though poses as “secularist”, now perhaps, everybody has understood that it has been “anti-Hindu”, carrying on its propaganda. Even in the case of RJM issue, how it suppressed the writings of Dr R Nagaswamy, K. V. Raman and other historians is well-known.

Irfan Habib twitter

Text of the resolution adopted at the Convention for People’s Unity & Against Communalism[7]: In the case of “Ramjanmabhumi-Babri Masjid” issue, “The Hindu” generously accommodated the communist, Marxist, secularist, anti-communalist, atheist, radical and other categories of histories to spit venom in its columns including the subsidiary “Frontline”! Thus, without “Irfan Habib”, it has faithfully given the following as the text of the resolution of the Conference:

“India is a country with various religions, languages, castes and cultures. But there is an underlying unity in the diversity. A unity, which is based on the unity of the people, which makes us all Indians.This unity of the people and the country is under threat from the communal forces. While the people of India, Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs and Christians and many others fought together for independence, the communal ideology and communal organisations stayed away and instead sought to divide the people. The people rejected the communal ideology and India became a secular democratic republic.At present, the communal forces are once again seeking to raise communal issues and create communal tensions. In the light of the forthcoming Lok Sabha elections, the communal campaign has been intensified. This has resulted in outbreak of communal incidents in various parts of the country. The riots in Muzaffarnagar are the most glaring example.

It is necessary for the secular and democratic forces to unitedly counter the communal forces of all varieties and maintain people’s unity.

This Convention calls upon the secular and democratic forces to strengthen their efforts amongst the people and mobilize them for rebuffing the communal forces, preserve communal amity, defend our composite culture and strengthen the unity of the people”.

 

Marxist historian work together ideologicallyHere, also the work of Irfan Habib is noted. Therefore, now perhaps all these “eminent-elite” historians may join “Third-Front”!

Vedaprakash

31-10-2013


[6] CNN-IBN debate on the “Third-Front” in which Raja, D. P. Trivedi of NCP and others participated on 30-10-2013.

Ramajanmabhumi-Babarimasjid, evidences and Court or Hisorians as witnesses and Sunni Wakf Board Experts!

October 16, 2010

Ramajanmabhumi-Babarimasjid, evidences and Court or

Hisorians as witnesses and Sunni Wakf Board Experts!

Vedaprakash

Ramajanmabhumi-Babarimasjid and eminent hisorians: The eminent historians would appear immediately, whenever “Rama” appears in the headlines of Indian media. They start interpreting historicity of “Ramayana” according to their own way without any regard for the other view or perspective[1]. Even in the case of Sethu-samuthram, they started writing in “the Hindu” and EPW grinding their mills as usual[2]. Of course, the left media does / did not want the opinion of the others[3]. They vociferously lecture and write that they would appeal against the judgment and so on, but disappear thereafter. They exploit every forum like IHC etc., only to project their viewpoint[4]. Romila Thapar roared, “We would appeal against this jugment”, when the so-called “Hindutva judgment” came[5], but nothing happened! And the faithful readers of “The Hindu”, Frontline, EPW and the devoted members of IHC etc., also do not bother as to why their eminent historians tell lies or play such dubious games? Why they believe the eminent historians, because of their eminence or for their duplicity? Have they ever thought about them as to why they behave like that? Now, again these left / eminent intellectuals / historians have been busy with issuing statements. Besides, historians and experts others too join!

130 experts sign – ASI report should be made public, says appeal to Chief Justice[6] (14-10-2010): Now 130 experts have come out with an open letter addressed to the Chief Justice of India! The news reports say like this, “The Allahabad High Court based a significant part of its judgment in the Ayodhya case on the evidence provided by the Archaeological Survey of India’s report on its excavations at the site, submitted to the court in 2003. They accuse that the report is still hidden from the public eye, and a virtual gag order placed on archaeologists who acted as observers during the excavation[7]. Now that the judgment has been pronounced, a group of 130 academics, activists and intellectuals have demanded that the ASI report be published. In an open letter[8] to the Chief Justice of India and the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court, they urged that the report “be made available for scrutiny in the public domain, especially to scholars, as it is now a part of the public judicial record.” The ASI report, which concluded that a temple had existed at the site, has been criticised by many archaeologists for ignoring evidence such as animal bones, which would not have been found in a temple for Ram, and the existence of glazed pottery and graves at all levels which indicated Muslim residence”[9].

Shereen Ratnagar and D. Mandal were slapped with contempt of court charges by the Allahabad High Court: “In May, archaeologists Shereen Ratnagar and D. Mandal were slapped with contempt of court charges by the Allahabad High Court for sharing their observations in a book, titled “Ayodhya: Archaeology After Excavation”, published by Tulika in 2007. The orders in that case have been reserved”. That means they know the implications of the law. That is why they have been keeping quite since 2003!

The open letter and signatories: “The open letter notes that, “the world at large is equally constrained to silence. Such a judicially ordained zone of uncertainty curbs freedom of expression and fair comment.” Indians have never seen them in other caes where such issues have been involved. Thus, they want to selective!

Signatories: “The letter was signed by well-known Indian academics such as Sumit Sarkar, Uma Chakravarti, K.N. Pannikkar, K. Satchidanandan, Ajay Dandekar and filmmakers such as Anand Patwardhan, as well as less well-known Indian citizens – a software engineer, a textile design consultant, a teacher[10]. Academics from abroad – including those from universities in London, Chicago, Stockholm and Copenhagen – have also signed the letter, as friends of India”. This type of letters have been issued since 1992 and many times, the so-called signatories say that they have simply agreed to include their names in such letters. In some cases, they did / do not know also about the inclusion of their names!

Romila Thapar and others: Statement issued through Sahamat (01-10-2010): Another report goes like this: “Questioning the verdict of the Allahabad High Court on the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title suits, a group of left-leaning intellectuals on Friday said the judgment was “yet another blow to the secular fabric of the country” and the “repute of our judiciary”.  The scholars, including Romila Thapar, K M Shrimali, K N Pannikar, Irfan Habib, Utsa Patnaik and C P Chandrasekhar, said in a statement through the platform of Safdar Hashmi Memorial Trust (SAHMAT) that the verdict had raised “serious concerns” because of the way history, reason and secular values had been treated in it. “The view that the Babri Masjid was built at the site of a Hindu temple, which has been maintained by two of the three judges, takes no account of all the evidence contrary to this fact turned up by the Archaeological Survey of India’s own excavations — the presence of animal bones throughout as well as the use of ‘surkhi’ and lime mortar (all characteristic of Muslim presence) rule out the possibility of a Hindu temple having been there beneath the mosque,” the statement noted.

The verdict on Ayodhya: a historian’s perspective[11] (01-10-2010): Under this caption, the view of romila thapar appeared in “The Hindu”. It goes like this, “It has annulled respect for history and seeks to replace it with religious faith.

“The verdict is a political judgment and reflects a decision which could as well have been taken by the state years ago. Its focus is on the possession of land and the building a new temple to replace the destroyed mosque. The problem was entangled in contemporary politics involving religious identities but also claimed to be based on historical evidence. This latter aspect has been invoked but subsequently set aside in the judgment.

“The court has declared that a particular spot is where a divine or semi-divine person was born and where a new temple is to be built to commemorate the birth. This is in response to an appeal by Hindu faith and belief[12]. Given the absence of evidence in support of the claim, such a verdict is not what one expects from a court of law. Hindus deeply revere Rama as a deity but can this support a legal decision on claims to a birth-place, possession of land and the deliberate destruction of a major historical monument to assist in acquiring the land?

“The verdict claims that there was a temple of the 12th Century AD at the site which was destroyed to build the mosque — hence the legitimacy of building a new temple.

“The excavations of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) and its readings have been fully accepted even though these have been strongly disputed by other archaeologists and historians. Since this is a matter of professional expertise on which there was a sharp difference of opinion the categorical acceptance of the one point of view, and that too in a simplistic manner, does little to build confidence in the verdict. One judge stated that he did not delve into the historical aspect since he was not a historian but went to say that history and archaeology were not absolutely essential to decide these suits! Yet what are at issue are the historicity of the claims and the historical structures of the past one millennium.

“A mosque built almost 500 years ago and which was part of our cultural heritage[13] was destroyed wilfully by a mob urged on by a political leadership. There is no mention in the summary of the verdict that this act of wanton destruction, and a crime against our heritage, should be condemned. The new temple will have its sanctum — the presumed birthplace of Rama — in the area of the debris of the mosque. Whereas the destruction of the supposed temple is condemned and becomes the justification for building a new temple, the destruction of the mosque is not, perhaps by placing it conveniently outside the purview of the case.

Has created a precedent[14]: The verdict has created a precedent in the court of law that land can be claimed by declaring it to be the birthplace of a divine or semi-divine being worshipped by a group that defines itself as a community. There will now be many such janmasthans wherever appropriate property can be found or a required dispute manufactured. Since the deliberate destruction of historical monuments has not been condemned what is to stop people from continuing to destroy others? The legislation of 1993 against changing the status of places of worship has been, as we have seen in recent years, quite ineffective.

What happened in history, happened. It cannot be changed[15]. But we can learn to understand what happened in its fuller context and strive to look at it on the basis of reliable evidence. We cannot change the pas[16]t to justify the politics of the present. The verdict has annulled respect for history and seeks to replace history with religious faith. True reconciliation can only come when there is confidence that the law in this country bases itself not just on faith and belief, but on evidence”.

Earlier stand – Irfan Habib (01-10-2010): “With the three judges pronouncing differing opinions on the historical and archaeological aspects of the case in the Allahabad High Court’s judgement on the disputed land in Ayodhya, many leading historians have been left bemused. “It’s not a logical judgement with so many parts going 2-1. One does not accept the logicality of the judgement,” said Irfan Habib, a noted historian and a former Chairman of the Indian Council of Historical Research who earlier taught at the Aligarh Muslim University. He noted that the verdict seemed to legitimise the events of 1949[17], when an idol was placed inside the mosque, by constant references. On the other hand, by minimising any mentions of the demolition of the Babri Masjid in 1992, the court seemed to be disregarding it, he said. He also expressed surprise that two judges questioned the date of construction of the Babri Masjid, as well as the involvement of emperor Babar or his commander Mir Baqi, since there had been clear inscriptions to this effect before the demolition. “Things that are totally clear historically, the court has tried to muddy,” he said[18].

D. N. Jha: “The historical evidence has not been taken into account,” said D.N. Jha, history professor at the Delhi University. Noting the judgement’s mention of the “faith and belief of Hindus” in reference to the history of the disputed structure, Dr. Jha asked why the court had requested an excavation of the site.“If it is a case of ‘belief,’ then it becomes an issue of theology, not archaeology. Should the judiciary be deciding cases on the basis of theology is a question that needs to be asked,” he said.

Supriya Verma, one of the observers: Professional archaeologists also noted that the judges did not seem to rely heavily on the Archaeological Survey of India’s court-directed excavation of the site in 2003, at least in the summaries of their verdict available on Thursday evening. “Somewhere, there is doubt about the credibility of that report,” said Supriya Verma of the Jawaharlal Nehru University, who acted as an observer during the ASI excavation. She noted that neither Justice Sudhir Agarwal nor Justice Dharam Veer Sharma even referenced the ASI report to support his conclusion on the existence of a temple on the site before the mosque was built. “It is almost as though they themselves were not convinced by the evidence. They are clearly conceding that there was no archaeological evidence of a temple or of its demolition…It is a judgement of theology,” she said.

Jaya Menon, one of the observers: Another observer of the ASI excavation, Jaya Menon of the Aligarh Muslim University, noted that the ASI report itself did not provide any evidence of a demolition, and only asserted the existence of a temple in its conclusion. “So I don’t know on what basis they made their judgements,” she said. The ASI report had been criticised by many archaeologists for ignoring evidence such as animal bones, which would not have been found in a temple for Ram, and the existence of glazed pottery and graves which indicated Muslim residents.

The eminent historians as witnesses of Muslims in the Allahabad case: 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. Ironically, the following have been the witnesses of the case in question, which is criticised by them:

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[19]
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

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.

HC judge exposed experts espousing Masjids cause: Waqf Board Line-Up Accused Of Having Ostrich-Like Attitude:  The role played by independent experts, historians and archaeologists who appeared on behalf of the Waqf Board to support its claim has come in for criticism by one Allahabad High Court judge in the Ayodhya verdict. While the special bench of three judges unanimously dismissed objections raised by the experts to the presence of a temple, it was Justice Sudhir Agarwal who put their claims to extended judicial scrutiny. Most of these experts deposed twice. Before the ASI excavations, they said there was no temple beneath the mosque and, after the site had been dug up,they claimed what was unearthed was a mosque or a stupa. During lengthy cross-examination spread over several pages and recorded by Justice Agarwal, the historians and experts were subjected to pointed queries about their expertise, background and basis for their opinions.
To the courts astonishment, some who had written signed articles and issued pamphlets, were withering under scrutiny and the judge said they were displayed an ostrich-like attitude to facts. He also pointed out how the independent witnesses were connected one had done a PhD under the other, another had contributed an article to a book penned by a witness.

The vociverous historians could not give evidences properly as witnesses with all their extertise[20]: Some instances underlined by the judge are[21]:

  • Suvira Jaiswal[22] deposed whatever knowledge I gained with respect to disputed site is based on newspaper reports or what others told (other experts). She said she prepared a report on the Babri dispute on basis of discussions with medieval history expert in my department.

  • Supriya Verma[23], another expert who challenged the ASI excavations, had not read the ground penetration radar survey report that led the court to order an excavation. She did her PhD under another expert Shireen F Ratnagar.

  • Verma and Jaya Menon[24] alleged that pillar bases at the excavated site had been planted but HC found they were not present at the time the actual excavation took place.

  • Archaeologist Shereen F Ratnagar has written the introduction to the book of another expert who deposed, Professor Mandal. She admitted she had no field experience.

Normally, courts do not make adverse comments on the deposition of a witness and suffice it to consider whether it is credible or not, but we find it difficult to resist ourselves in this particular case considering the sensitivity and nature of dispute and also the reckless and irresponsible kind of statements…[25] the judge noted. He said opinions had been offered without making a proper investigation, research or study in the subject. The judge said he was startled and puzzled by contradictory statements.When expert witness Suraj Bhan deposed on the Babri mosque, the weight of his evidence was contradicted by anotherexpert for Muslim parties, Shirin Musavi, who told the court that Bhan is an archaeologist and not an expert on medieval history[26]. Justice Agarwal noted that instead of helping in making a cordial atmosphere it tends to create more complications, conflict and controversy. He pointed out that experts carry weight with public opinion.

When the matter is subjudice, one has to obey law: It is a simple matter that whenever, any issue / case is pending with the Court, as the matter is subjudice, it should not be discussed or the decisions cannot be drawn in favour of anybody. However, these left historians etc., have been always speaking and writing supporting for Muslim cause or against Hindus, as is evident from their own recorded / printed statements / articles always published in the selected in few journals / ndewspapers. Unfortunately, they have even agreed to be witnesses for the Wakf Board in the Allahabad Court as their names are figuring. Ironivcally, they are called as Sunni Wakf Board experts![27]

When religions rely upon belief system, so also secularism historians too belive so ignoring objectivity: Like believers and dis-believers historians too believe and compel others to believe their perspective without any objectivity. As their objectivity differes, their perspective also differ, but try to argue with ideology, as could be understood by others. With belief system, no two ideologists could come together; with objectivity no two historians could accept the same historical event in the same view or pwerspective; here, the media has been projecting only one view. So what about the other view and why the media does not provide opportunity to accommodate their view? Should “audi alteram partem – hear the other side and decide” be applicable only to the Courts according to the principle of natural justice or the historians do not want to follow?

The same pattern as noted in the case of DK, DMK and other rapid atheists and radical experts is noted in the case of these eminent historians or Sunni Wakf Board experts: As it is pointed out in the case of DK[28]-DMK[29] radicals and rabid atheist groups that they do not come to Courts or face courts, though, they used to cry and roar that they are not afraid of Courts and so on. Here, also, suppressing the facts, these historians talk and write one thing in the dailies and cover up their mumbling and bungling in the court. The court recordings of the witnesses have been actually exposing their hollowness of expertise, deceptiveness of historical knowledge and their dubious role as witnesses. That they accuse even without seeing, even without reading or just discussing with others etc, prove their capacity of manoeuvring and manipulation of academics. How they get PhDs etc., only prove such academic degradation and professional pampering without any shame or remorse. It is open secret that the JNU, AMU, DU, IHC, ICHR and others at one side and BMAC, Sunni Wakf Board, AIMPLB at the other side have been playing communalism under the guise of secularism. Just by accusing others they cannot live, survive and continue their careers in this competitive world.

Why the eminent historians and Sunni Wakf Board experts did not respond to the remarks of the Judge? Definitely, the remarks of the Judge have been questioning the integrity of the eminent historians and Sunni Wakf Board experts, who deposed before the court as witnesses! They cannot simply brush aside such exposure, as it casts aspersion on their position. The English reading Indians and Indian students may doubt their veracity, reliability and uprightness, as they read their writings or listen to them. Therefore, they should go to court to clear the mess instead of shooting out letters to the Chief Justice just like politicians.

Indians and Indian youth should note as to whether these Sunni Board experts should teach history. Very often, it is said, claimed and propagated that India is / has been secular. Yes, how then the eminent historians professional archaeologists acted as Sunni Wakf Board experts and deposed as witnesses to the Muslims? Why these retired historians, senile professors and their working agents always make clamor about history, historicity and historiography in India, as if they are the sole selling agents of such stuff? Nowadays, the fact is that a few have been takers for history and most of the universities have dispensed with history subject. Definitely, the so-called historians have lost their importance and thus they tried to struggle for survival with the political and communal support. Now, the documents are available to all and the facts are known to everybody who access them through internet or otherwise. Common people may not know or understand the deceptive talkings and writings of the eminent historians or Sunni Wakf Board experts, but slowly they come to know. They easily understand that who want to settle the dispute and who want to continue the dispute for their stakes. Definitely, Muslims and Hindus want to settle the issue once for all, but these history gamblers and politicians want to continue. Therefore, the will of people prevail.

Vedaprakash

16-10-2010


 

[2] Romila Thapar, “Where fusion cannot work – faith and history” (the Hindu, dated September 28, 2007).

…………………., Historical Memory without History, in Economic and Political weekly, VOL 42 No. 39 September 29 – October 05, 2007, pp.3903-3905.

K. N. Panikkar, Myth, history and politics, Frontline, October 5, 2007, pp.21-24.

Suraj Bhan, “Government should have stood by ASI”, Ibid, pp.19-20.

[4] During the 2007-IHC session, Suvira Jaiswal was making such satatements. Then, in Delhi also they tried take up the matter. Now, in February 2011 at Malda, they may raise the issue. However, the Indians have to weait and see.

[5] In “the Hindu”, as usual, the news appeared with her photo and all, but after that everbody would have forgot about it! However, their warrior-like talk, veiled threatening and tactics of suppression of facts cannot be acquired by others.

[6] The Hindu, ASI report should be made public, says appeal to Chief Justice, Published: October 14, 2010 01:54 IST | Updated: October 14, 2010 02:03 IST; http://www.hindu.com/2010/10/14/stories/2010101464751800.htm

[7] How this has been a blatant lie has been exposed by the judge and that is why these guys have now tried to save their image by writing such letters. Of course, the media gives due publicity to such hypes and gimmicks.

[8] However, their mumbling, jumbling and bungling deposes before the Court have been kept as closed secret!

[9] Thus the eminent historians look for a non-vegetarian kitchen of Muslims there instrad of a temple. The same experts declared that the 16” inscription was planted by the Karsevaks in 1992.

[10] When Bharatiya Itihasa Sankalana Samiti works on the same lines, the same eminent historians make fun of having such diversified experts, but now they themselves have such signatories, just to project their strength.

[11] The Hindu, Published: October 2, 2010 00:41 IST | Updated: October 2, 2010.

[12] There is nothing new in Romila’s argument, as she repeats the same matter again and again. The unfortunate thing is that she like her friends always want others should accept their views!

[13] How they contradict in their views legally can be noted in such statements. When convenience comes, they forget law, when law is against them, they start talking generalization or raise the bogey of “Hindutva”!

[14] Law precedence is created in the Court. Yes, definitely, the judges are the persons to create and others have to accept. Of course, the appealable legal remedy is there.

[15] But whatever happened also cannot be forgotten. When the same historians want to whitewash the temple destruction of the Muslims and accept only the Muslim contribution, such type of exclusivist logic is not explained. Why the students should not know the facts? In law it is said audi alteram partem – hear the other side and decide. How then historians want to decide without knowing the other side?

[16] Why then the interpretation of the past is always different for different historians? Nowadays, historians do not want objectivity also. How then they woerry about accuracy, when they themselves are not worried about it?

[17] Acts and Rules are within the time frame work. All know that Places of Worship Act is there and it e3xempts only this place and not others. Why then they talk about pre-1947 and after 1947, when law its4elf  cannot do so?

[18]The Hindu, Historical evidence ignored, say historians, dated October 1, 2010, http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article805087.ece

[23] It is interesting to note that the ASI report talks about a shrine followed by a temple with different structural phases, it also talks of “animal bones recovered from various levels of different periods”. If any shrine and a temple existed how can anyone account for the animal bones, Supriya Verma asks? She also maintains that stones and decorated bricks could have been used in any building, not necessarily only in a temple. Also, the carved architectural members have come from the debris and not from the stratified context.

[24] She got appointment in the AMU after she started supporting the cause of mosque and appeared as Sunni Wakf Board expert!

[25] The historians who deposed as witnesses and as well as others should carefully read this and understand their postion. They cannot pretend as if nothing happened or pose as great authorities and roam here and there in historical forums and conferences. Now Indians have also understood their double-games, double-speak and double-standards.

[26] Nowadays, just like medical experts or specialized doctors, these historians ad archaeologists trading charges like this – so-and-so is an expert in that field and he alone can know the truth and others cannot know the truth. Such type of exclusive mind-set exposes their arrogance and weakness and not the real expertise.

[27]Asghar ali Engineer, Archaeological Excavations and Temple, September 1-15, 2003,  http://www.csss-isla.com/arch%20150.htm

[28] Vedaprakash, Old Judgments and  New thoughts in the present context: S. Veerabadran Chettiar vs E. V. Ramaswami Naicker  others., http://vedaprakash.indiainteracts.in/2008/08/09/old-judgments-and-new-thoughts-in-the-present-context-s-veerabadran-chettiar-vs-e-v-ramaswami-naicker-others/