Archive for the ‘history’ Category

Sathyaraj regrets, whole-heartedly regrets, apologizes or worries about business? The media mode of dramatization of reporting of Dravidian racism, linguistic fascism and Ideological negationism!

April 22, 2017

Sathyaraj regrets, whole-heartedly regrets, apologizes or worries about business? The media mode of dramatization of reporting of Dravidian racism, linguistic fascism and Ideological negationism!

Sathyaraj apologizes - Tamil

Of course, only Sathyaraj won’t be affected by this threat” – Indian Express support for Sathyaraj[1]: Indian Express has exposed the financial implication of the drama of opposition to Satyaraj by the Kannadiga groups. It carried a report as follows: “That a lot of expectations and money are riding on S S Rajamouli’s 200 crore sequel “Baahubali the Conclusion”, due for release on April 28, 2017 is well known. It was therefore quite convenient for the pro-Kannada groups like Karnataka Rakshana Vedike to seek some gloating satisfaction by threatening to prevent the Karnataka release of Baahubali the Conclusion, in order to force an apology out of Tamil actor Sathyaraj for his nine-year-old controversial remarks on the Cauvery issue. It is at the stage of theatrical distribution, that a movie’s whole fate and business depends. Speaking to a news channel, director SS Rajamouli said that pro-Kannadiga groups targeting Baahubali 2 because of Sathyaraj was “not right.” “[We] learned that whatever comments Mr Sathyaraj made it was nine years back. And after that, about 30 films of his were released in Karnataka. Baahubali 1 released. No one had problems with that. And suddenly, raking up the issue at this point in time … ,” said Rajamouli. Of course, only Sathyaraj won’t be affected by this threat. But that is exactly the leverage for blackmail — when the stake against the risk is just too great and involves a whole crew of unrelated people, it is easy to browbeat somebody into senseless demands to selfish, parochial ends. The KRV has done this before in 2008, to get an “apology” from superstar Rajnikanth for his statements on the Hogenakkal project dispute, prior to the release of his movie Kuselan. In the country that is wild about movies, blockbuster movies like Baahubali make for cultural phenomena generating a lot of buzz, influence and capital”.

Sathyaraj apologizes - Kannda

“Arm-twisting of celebrities by fring elements” as observed by Indian Express[2]: After the financial implication, Indian Express has gone to the arm-twisting of the celebrities, as if Sathyaraj has not been of fringe element category, not speaking with decency and decorum and so on. It went on to report, “Over and over these days, this has been making movies and its makers easy targets for arm-twisting by fringe groups that know only too well that they possess the brazen muscle power of the mob to disrupt any hopes of soft power. They have the willing “activists” to attack where movies are vulnerable — at the sore point of revenue. This is exactly what also transpired in the case of Karan Johar’s dark apology video to Maharashtra Navnirman Sena, pleading them to spare his “Ae Dil Hai Mushkil” and in Shah Rukh Khan’s reassurance meeting with Raj Thackeray to ensure a smooth landing for “Raees”. It seems that as long as the law and order would not come to the active rescue of the filmmakers, any organisation with brawn and some political clout will feel brave for seeking such self-aggrandising settlements through soft coercion.” So the fans, general public and Indian consumers as a whole have to analyze the facts involved in such reportings.

Sathyaraj apologizes - Telugu

Sathyaraj regret – PTI version carried on by one media: Actor Sathyaraj has finally opened up on the controversy over the release of “Bahubali: The Conclusion”, in Karnataka. Pro-Kannada groups have called for a boycott of the film in the state alleging that the actor had hurt their sentiments in a speech made nine years ago. Despite the film’s team maintaining that he was only a supporting actor, the groups refused to budge from their stand[3]. Subsequently, in a video sent to the press on 21-04-2017 (Friday), the actor said[4], “Nine years ago, Tamilians were attacked in Karnataka over the Cauvery water dispute. There were protests demanding that the screening of Tamil films be stopped in that state. To condemn such calls, the Tamil film fraternity had organised a meeting, and many had expressed their anger. I was one among them… I understand that some of the words that I had uttered then have hurt the sentiments of the Kannadigas… In the past nine years, 30 films of mine, including Bahubali: The Beginning, were released in the state. There were no problems. I was even approached to act in Kannada films, but I couldn’t take them up because of other commitments.”

Sathyaraj apologizes - as-Kannadigas thrratened

Sathyaraj whole-heartedly regret – PTI version carried on by other media: “I sincerely express my regret for the remarks made by me during Cauvery protest nine years ago”, he said in a video message[5]. Asserting that he was not against Kannadigas or Karnataka, Sathyaraj claimed that his assistant Shekar, who is a Kannadiaga, is with him for the last 30 years. “In fact I had been invited to act in Kannada films, but I could not do so due to paucity of time”, he added[6]. Appealing for the smooth release of Bahubali-2, the actor said he do not want a movie made on such a grand scale by the hard work of thousands labourers and technicians to go waste[7]. I am a small actor in a mega film called Baahubali. I dont want the efforts of many people to go to waste. Not just that, I have the added responsibility of ensuring exhibitors in Karnataka, who have bought (screening rights of) Baahubali 2, are not affected,” he said in what he termed as an “explanation” to Tamil people and activists[8]. He said adding that in future if producers sense that because of me they might suffer losses, they need not approach him for signing films[9]. An atheist, known for his pro-Tamil views, Sathyaraj insisted that he will continue to voice support for matters concerning Tamils including the Cauvery dispute and the Eelam issue in Sri Lanka[10]. The actor, sporting a black T-shirt synonymous with the states Progressive movement led by rationalist leader, late E V Ramasamy Periyar, said he was not against Kannada people[11]. In a message to producers and filmmakers, he said those who fear “problems” in the future by casting him in their films may not do so and avoid “facing losses.”…… “Because I take more pride in living and dying as a Tamil without any superstition than living and dying as an actor,” he added[12]. He also extended his thanks to director Rajamouli, the films producers, various professional bodies of Tamil cinema including an artistes association and his well-wishers “for tolerating the difficulties caused by me.”

Sathyaraj apologizes - as-Kannadigas thrratened- want to be a Tamilian than actor

What the unrelenting Sathyaraj and the media want to convey to Indians: From the above, the secular Indians could understand the following points very clearly:

  1. That a lot of expectations and money are riding on S S Rajamouli’s 200 crore sequel“Baahubali the Conclusion”, due for release on April 28, 2017 is well known.
  2. It is at the stage of theatrical distribution, that a movie’s whole fate and business depends.
  3. Of course, only Sathyaraj won’t be affected by this threat.
  4. The KRV has done this before in 2008, to get an “apology” from superstar Rajnikanth for his statements on the Hogenakkal project dispute, prior to the release of his movie Kuselan.
  5. In the country that is wild about movies, blockbuster movies like Baahubali make for cultural phenomena generating a lot of buzz, influence and capital.
  6. Over and over these days, this has been making movies and its makers easy targets for arm-twisting by fringe groups that know only too well that they possess the brazen muscle power of the mob to disrupt any hopes of soft power.
  7. They have the willing “activists” to attack where movies are vulnerable — at the sore point of revenue.
  8. It seems that as long as the law and order would not come to the active rescue of the filmmakers, any organisation with brawn and some political clout will feel brave for seeking such self-aggrandising settlements through soft coercion.
  9. Sathyaraj does not want a movie made on such a grand scale by the hard work of thousands labourers and technicians to go waste.
  10. An atheist, known for his pro-Tamil views, Sathyaraj insisted that he will continue to voice support for matters concerning Tamils including the Cauvery dispute and the Eelam issue in Sri Lanka.
  11. The actor, sporting a black T-shirt synonymous with the states Progressive movement led by rationalist leader, late E V Ramasamy Periyar, said he was not against Kannada people.
  12. In a message to producers and filmmakers, he said those who fear “problems” in the future by casting him in their films may not do so and avoid “facing losses.”……
  13. Sathyaraj asserted that, “…..Because I take more pride in living and dying as a Tamil without any superstition than living and dying as an actor”.

© Vedaprakash

22-04-2017.

Sathyaraj apologizes - English

[1] Indian Express, Sathyaraj apologises before Baahubali 2: When will this arm-twisting of celebs end?, Written by Nandini Rathi, New Delhi, Updated: April 21, 2017 7:53 pm.

[2] http://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/opinion-entertainment/sathyaraj-apologises-before-baahubali-2-when-will-this-arm-twisting-of-celebs-end-4622632/

[3] Times of India, I express regret over my words: Satyaraj, TNN, April.22, 2017, 01.00 AM IST.

[4] http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/tamil/movies/news/i-express-regret-over-my-words-sathyaraj/articleshow/58298103.cms

[5] Deccan Herald, Sathyaraj apologies for his remarks against Kannadigas, Chennai, DH News Service, Apr 21 2017, 19:06 IST

[6] http://www.deccanherald.com/content/607472/sathyaraj-apologies-his-remarks-against.html

[7] Hindustan Times,  Baahubali 2: Sathyaraj expresses ‘wholehearted regret’ over Cauvery issue remarks, New Delhi Updated: Apr 21, 2017 14:25 IST.

[8] http://www.hindustantimes.com/regional-movies/baahubali-2-sathyaraj-apologises-over-his-comments-on-the-cauvery-issue/story-GDTALGwm5iyODylOZ6L88I.html

[9] India Today, Sathyaraj expresses regret for remarks made during Cauvery, PTI, April 21, 2017 | UPDATED 20:20 IST.

[10] http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/sathyaraj-expresses-regret-for-remarks-made-during-cauvery/1/935119.html

[11] Mid-day.com, ‘Baahubali’ actor Sathyaraj: Regret to have made hurtful comments against Kannadigas, By IANS | Posted 21-Apr-2017.

[12] http://www.mid-day.com/articles/regional-cinema-news-baahubali-2-sathyaraj-sorry-apologises-comments-karnataka-cauvery-row/18186185

Advertisements

Ideological racism, linguistic fascism and negationism among the Indian politicians – Baahubali becomes touching stone overcoming caste interpretation also!

April 21, 2017

Ideological racism, linguistic fascism and negationism among the Indian politicians  – Baahubali becomes touching stone overcoming caste interpretation also!

Kannada activists against Sathyaraj

Business motive attributed to the controversy: Praveen Shetty, the president of the KRV, was quoted in The News Minute[1] as saying “Why are directors [sic] pleading with the film chamber and senior actors in Karnataka? He had called us dogs during the Cauvery issue. We want a public apology from Sathyaraj, only then will the film be allowed to release in Karnataka.”[2] A few months ago, Baahubali 2 became the hottest film in the Karnataka trade, and many tried to procure it. But the producers of the film could not get the price that they were asking[3]. This led to a lot of jealousy and rivalry in the local trade, which may have led to raking up a 10-year old issue, which nobody imagined. Whether, the opposition has linguistic chauvinism, financial intricacies and business rivalry or otherwise, the hidden truth cannot be brushed aside. Now the film is going to be directly marketed in Karnataka by Arka Media, the producers, via NM Entertainment Sudhir. Meanwhile hectic parleys are going on to sort out the issue over the ban, which has snowballed into a political row[4].

Kattappa kiiled Baahubali

The actor Sathyaraj and his political role: There has been a lot of furore over the release of “Baahubali: The Conclusion” in Karnataka (scheduled for April 28, 2017), based on certain statements made by Tamil actor Sathyaraj during the Cauvery water crisis[5]. Sathyaraj plays Kattappa, a pivotal character, in the two-part film[6]. Producer Prasad Devineni from Arka Media Works tells us, “We plan on coming to Bengaluru soon to interact with fans and thank them for the support. We also want to appeal to the protesting organizations to support us when we are in the city.” The involvement of actors in the social and political issues has turned into a new twist in this way, affecting the release of a film. Perhaps, the cine-world has to learn that their members should restrict their polemics within the studios and sets and they cannot go beyond such limits enter into other areas to give discourses. There have been actors, who want to become politicians have been playing sage diplomatically avoiding controversies, but, Sathyaraj has been of different kind. Baahubali might have made him national or even international actor known to many, but, once his background is known, the business partners may not be comfortable with his extreme views and ideology.

Satyuaraj speech - Kannadigas opposed

Sathyaraj, Nagaraj and Baaahubali: Director S S Rajamouli sought to distance himself and his Baahubali 2 team from comments allegedly made by actor Sathyaraj that have led to a protest against the film’s release in Karnataka[7]. Rajamouli said the filmmakers were in no way related to the remarks made by Sathyaraj. “The producer and I want to clarify on the issue… The comments must have pained some of you but we don’t have any relation to it. Those were (his) personal comments and were made some nine years ago,” the director said in a video message on his official Twitter page. The controversy broke out after a video in which Sathyaraj allegedly made “derogatory” comments against Kannada activists went viral[8]. What Sathyaraj spoke might be nine years ago, but, Nagaraj has made it current by responding point by point. However, his speech has no takers, as every one, who knows about Sathyaraja, knows very well, he has been a staunch Periyarist, atheist, pro-Tamil separatist and anti-Hindu ideologist. In fact, in his movies, he has always exhibited such ideologies from Vedam puthithu to others. In ine movie, he shoots an astrologer dead asking a question, “Tell me how long you will you live”, when replies that he would live more, he finishes him off, i.e, just to prove that astrology is bogus. He has even donned the role of EVR in “Periyar”. Very often, he used to speak in atheist forums against Hindus, Hindu religion and belief system. As for as Nagaraj is concerned, Tamil people knew nothing, but, only through Sathyaraj, as he himself talked about Katal Nagaraj.

Kattappa brings controversy - Baahubali

Rajamouli’s appeal to the opposing groups: In a statement, filmmaker SS Rajamouli had expressed his gratitude to the Kannada audience and said[9], “It’s known that actor Sathyaraj is playing a significant role in the film. It has come to my attention that a few of his earlier comments had hurt a large section of you. I feel it’s my responsibility to clarify the issue. Baahubali has no connection to Sathyaraj’s remarks. He has only acted in a role in the film. He took his remuneration for it. Sathyaraj’s comments are his personal opinion. Our view is that his personal opinion shouldn’t trouble the film that he acted in. Yet, as responsible people, we have spoken about the situation with Sathyaraj over the phone. We don’t have more power than this. Sathyaraj had made those remarks nine years ago. After that, several films of his have released. The films he acted and produced have been released in Karnataka. Baahubali: The Beginning had also released. We request you to receive Baahubali: The Conclusion as well as the earlier films. If Baahubali: The Conclusion is stopped, Sathyaraj won’t suffer any loss. The problem is for the technicians and producers who have worked hard for five years on the film and for Kannada distributors and movie audiences. I urge you to not show anger against Sathyaraj on Baahubali.”

Dr Sathyaraj - donning EVR atheist

The peculiar Tamilnadu politics with codified and well-scripted agenda: As for as Tamilnadu is concerned, the people connected with cine-field have been successful in becoming politicians, powerful politicians, chief ministers and Central ministers also. In turn, such political ascendancy has also helped their business prospective and hence, cinema and politics have become inseparable for the Dravidian ideologists. The strategy has to be inclusive Dravidian ideology, Tamil separatism, anti-north, anti-Hindi, anti-Sanskrit, anti-Brahmin principles incorporated wherever possible, even if not possible, they have to be included without fail. EVR, Anna, Karunanidhi, MGR, Jayalalita and others have risen to top only because of their political and cinema connections. Of course, the Karunanidhi family and now AIADMK feuds expose the lack of strong leadership and dilution of “dravidian ideology”. This has made others tempting join politics, but, Sivaji Ganesan, SSR, T. Rajendran have suffered a lot. Rajnikanth has been cautious without taking any final decision. Kamal Hassan has now showing his political intention, but, only exhibited through twitter postings. However, individual powerful leaders of whatever nature, their exclusiveness has proved the dangerous decline after their death.

Sc groups wanted to ban Baahubali in 2015

Caste interpretation appearing in 2017: The casteist interpretation has been given to Baahubali by some columnists[10]. The Quint has interpreted in a characteristic way, “SS Rajamouli’s blockbuster ‘Bahubali: The Beginning’ has won the national award for best flm. Congratulations to the team….Here’s a quick peep into our archives – an argument that the movie actually shows how to keep dalits, adivasis and women suppressed…… Remember Agent Orange and Napalm in the Vietnam war? Well, Baahubali has its own version of burning people alive, as long as they are dark adivasis… obviously named KALAkeyas. Katappa, a great soldier and leader even eats separately from his ‘masters’. Why? Because hum choti jaat ke hain.” Thus goes the comments[11]. Thus, in one stroke, it accused “Baahubali” for depicting all war crimes, social exploitation and nuclear to chemical weapon usage against the tribals and others for the survival of higher castes. Perhaps, none noticed such allegory, euphemism or joke!

Pagadaikku piranthavan - opposed by SCs in Tamilnadu 2015

Baahubali faced casteist wrath, but, susidised in JUly 2015 in Tamilnadu[12]: In July 2017, a movie theatre in Madurai playing the hugely popular South Indian hit Baahubali was attacked with petrol bombs by a Dalit group for featuring a line (Pagadaikku Pirandhavan) considered derogatory against a sub-caste of the Dalit community. Subsequently, writer Madan Karky apologised for any hurt caused. Baahubali may be in the news for featuring an anti-Dalit line in the climax, but Dalit activists, filmmakers and scholars point out caste-based slurs have always been a part of Tamil Cinema. “Caste-based slurs such as Chandala, which denotes a sub-caste of a Scheduled Caste community in Tamil Nadu, have been so casually used in comedy-sequences by Tamil comedians like Vadivelu and Vivek. In Ameer’s Paruthiveeran, a super hit song Yele Yelelo, the hero actually calls his girl friend Sandali – which means that she is a daughter of a prostitute. We live in a society where such songs are celebrated,” says Punitha Pandian, editor of Dalit Murasu, a magazine that writes critically about social issues. Pandian remarked that often ignorance is given as an excuse and urged the civil society – intellectuals, activists and media – to do more to sensitise the masses. “This is not a problem of Dalits alone. We have been constantly talking and writing about these things but we have reached a stage where only a petrol bomb can force the society to talk about it. Filmmakers must be sensitised about social issues,” he says. What does the film industry make of the accusation that caste-based slurs have always been a part of Tamil films? Film-maker S.P. Jhananathan says that most young and budding writers are seldom aware of social issues, and suggests that the writers’ union must be actively involved in raising consciousness. “Most film-makers and writers are not aware of social issues. Film-makers and writers are also cut from the same fabric of society; how can they be any different,” he asks. Asked if there is a tendency to smuggle in the idea of caste pride into the narrative to appeal to politically dominant communities, Jhananathan says it is very much possible. “If the film directly deals with the issue of caste rivalry between dominant castes and Dalits, one need not shy away from talking about caste. But I would urge film-makers to be open about it. The problem is when caste pride is inserted in a film which has nothing to do with it,” he says.  The interpretation continued[13].

© Vedaprakash

21-04-2017

Why Kattappa kiiled Baahubali

[1] Thenewsminite, ‘No Baahubali release without Sathyaraj apology’: Kannada groups refuse to budge, Wednesday, Aprul 19, 2017. 12:58.

[2] http://www.thenewsminute.com/article/no-baahubali-release-without-sathyaraj-apology-kannada-groups-refuse-budge-60602

[3] Firstpost, Baahubali 2’s Karnataka release in jeopardy; did trade disagreement snowball into political row?, Sreedhar Pillai, Apr, 20 2017 13:49:17 IST

[4] http://www.firstpost.com/entertainment/baahubali-2s-karnataka-release-in-jeopardy-did-trade-disagreement-snowball-into-political-row-3394296.html

[5] The Times of India, Don’t show anger against Sathyaraj on Baahubali, Sunayana Suresh| TNN | Apr 21, 2017, 12.00 AM IST.

[6] http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/kannada/movies/news/dont-show-anger-against-sathyaraj-on-baahubali-ss-rajamouli/articleshow/58277733.cms

[7] Hidusthan Times, Sathyaraj’s comments not related to Baahubali: SSRajamouli, Updated: Apr 20, 2017 17:20 IST

[8] http://www.hindustantimes.com/regional-movies/sathyaraj-s-comments-not-related-to-baahubali-ss-rajamouli/story-CFXA2to86YiOIssO3j2gFK.html

[9]

[10] TheQuint.com, National Awards-Winner ‘Baahubali’ an Upper-Caste Male Conspiracy?

The Quint, March 28, 2016, 12:23 pm

[11] https://www.thequint.com/videos/2015/12/29/baahubali-the-beginning-caste-class-gender-satire-cinemcism

[12] The Hindu, Caste references polarise Tamil film fans, CHENNAI: JULY 27, 2015 01:56 IST UPDATED: JULY 27, 2015 01:56 IST.

[13] Subagunarajan, Editor of the Tamil film journal Kaatchi Pizhai, says the fundamental problem lies in the way such casteist slurs have been embedded in the Tamil language. “Words such as chandala and kepmari, both of which denote the name of a caste, have been used as swear words. This is why Periyar called Tamil a barbaric language,” he says. However, Subagunarajan fears that society may be heading to a stage where film-makers and writers cannot discuss caste issues at all. “The courts must be proactive and not admit such cases unless it is very pressing. If the film uses a casteist slur to underscore oppression, then it is not an issue. It becomes an issue when it is used to elicit laughs,” he says hoping that the film industry will take measures to correct itself. D. Ravi Kumar, general secretary of Viduthalai Ciruthaigal Katchi, says that while the issue needs to be debated in society, he disagrees with the form of protest. “The swear words have a connection to the specific social history of oppressed people. In a democratic society, we cannot continue to use it and we need to debate it. However, the form of protest is unacceptable. Democratic issues cannot be communicated in an undemocratic way,” he says.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/baahubali-in-caste-issues/article7467345.ece

Tarun Vijay has been caught into the Dravidian cobweb without understanding the the Dravidian ideology, philosophy and polity!

April 8, 2017

Tarun Vijay has been caught into the Dravidian cobweb without understanding the the Dravidian ideology, philosophy and polity!

Tarun tweets to apologize on black people-4

“We have black people around us,” said Tarun Vijay[1]: Day after the Centre denied charges of racism in the assault on a group of Nigerians in Greater Noida, the BJP was left red-faced by its leader Tarun Vijay’s remark during a discussion on Al Jazeera that Indians cannot be called racists as they live with “black people” from the southern states of Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh[2]. “If we were racist, why would we have the entire south, which is complete, you know, Tamil, you know Kerala, you know Karnataka and Andhra, why do we live with them? We have black people around us,” said Vijay[3]. He has been totally wrong in dubbing the South Indian people have been black and as if the north Indian people white. In other words, he has accepted the dubbing of Dravidian ideologists that thw “Aryans invaded India suppressing the black Dravidians”! The remarks sparked a furore, embarrassing the former MP’s party colleagues and leadership[4]. Some opined that whatever, the good work, he has done through the installation of Tiruvalluvar, has undone through such meaningless remarks. More so, because BJP chief Amit Shah had called on 06-04-2017 [Thursday] for expanding the party’s roots and strengthening the organisation in southern states.

Tarun tweets to apologize on black people

The African envoys accused India of “racism”: India reacted sharply as a group of 44 African envoys described the attacks as “xenophobic and racial” and accused the government of taking no “known, sufficient and visible” deterrent action. In parliament Foreign Minister Sushma Swaraj said that the attacks were “criminal acts” and cannot be called racial. “Before the inquiry is completed, please don’t say it is driven by racial discrimination,” she said, while speaking in the Lok Sabha, where some opposition leaders demanded to know the government’s response to allegations of “racial attacks” on Africans in Greater Noida. In India, the attacks on the Africans have been mainly due to drug trafficking, financial frauds and sexual harassment incidences. In medieval period and even today, they have been engaged in piracy also demanding ransom. The Indians, (in general, though, do not bother about the movement of the foreigners), have been cautious about the Nigerians only for these reasons. However, they continue to get involved in such activities. Thus, Tarun has failed to point out the facts to the foreign media, instead indulged in talking about “not-known” subject to him. While the attacks on Indians have been racist in US, UK, Australia and other countries, in India, the attacks are not racial, but, retaliatory nature, because of the explicit reasons.

Tarun tweets to apologize on black people-2

“The Hindu” has been so happy in interpreting “racist” twist, with Marxist attack on BJP[5]: BJP leader and former Rajya Sabha member Tarun Vijay’s statement to a television channel that Indians could not be racists as they lived with “black” South Indians, sparked off a storm on the social media on Friday [07-04-2017], with Mr. Vijay coming in for severe criticism. Communist Party of India (Marxist) leader Brinda Karat told The Hindu: “Mr. Tarun Vijay’s comment reflects the core Hindutva ideology of Aryan superiority. What was in my mind came out today. He has apologised for his words, but his thoughts will remain what they are.” The Communist / Marxist “The Hindu” added glefully that, “Mr. Vijay is a former editor of RSS-related publication Panchjanya.While refusing to come on record, a BJP leader said that Mr. Vijay had himself retracted his statement and it was time to move on”, as if it is “secular, unbiased and balanced”. This has been the way, the Indian media has been working catering to the needs of Indians.

Through twitter, he apologized and corrected himself: Vijay was not available for comment but apologised for his remarks, while attempting to explain them, in a series of tweets[6]. In one tweet, he acknowledged that his remarks sounded “ridiculous and very bad”[7]. “In many parts of the nation we have different people, in colour and never ever we had any discrimination against them,” he posted[8]. “My words perhaps were not enough to convey this. Feel bad, really feel sorry, my apologies to those who feel I said different than what I meant,” he wrote[9]. He even said[10], “I said we worship Krishna, which literally em, ans black, we were the first to oppose any racism and were in fact victims of racist British” and “In may parts of the nation we have different people, in colour and never ever we had any discrimination against them”. But, it was too late, as what he said was broadcast already[11]. However, it is evident that he has not understood the history of South India, particularly, that of Tamlnadu and its implications. Or the advisiors from Tamilnadu has been misguiding him through their wonderful ideas. Even in the case of Tiruvalluvar and connected issues, they had misled him for the consequences, that I explained in my Tamil blogs.

Tarun tweets to apologize on black people-3

The BJP leaders have been ignorant of the Dravidian ideology, philosophy and polity: However, at least three senior BJP leaders and an MP told The Indian Express that the comments from the former editor of RSS mouthpiece Panchajanya were “extremely embarrassing” and could damage the party’s image in the south. “It’s really bad for us that this has come the day after our party chief wanted leaders to strengthen the party in the southern states. In spite of all the explanations and the apologies, such statements will damage the party’s image and adversely affect its efforts to come up as a party for all,” said one leader.  The BJP cannot handle issues of South India or Tamilnadu in this way, without understanding the facts. The present leadership of Tamilnadu has not been any match to the Dravidian political and ideological leaders, as most of them have been ignorant of the Dravidian ideology, philosophy and polity since 1920s to 1970s.

The Kerala BJP leadrrs have been uncomfotable with his comments: In Kerala, where the BJP is in the race for the Lok Sabha by-election in Malappuram, a leader pointed out that Vijay’s comments have become a “hot topic” for the media. Kerala BJP chief Kummanam Rajasekharan and former state chief V Muraleedharan said the matter should be “closed” as Vijay had apologised. But Rajasekharan said, “If there has to be an explanation, the party leadership should be asking for it.” A BJP leader from the state said Vijay’s remark would “overshadow” the party’s attempts to highlight the “Communist violence against the BJP and the RSS” at the national level. “These leaders should be cautious in making remarks in public. With social media and visual media being so alive now, one has to be cautious,” said the leader.

The Tamilnadu BJP leaders should be trained in the Dravidian ideology, philosophy and polity: When contacted by The Indian Express, BJP general secretary P Muralidhar Rao said, “He has realised that what he said was wrong and against the BJP’s ideology. He has apologised for it, why should we pursue it now?” Rao said that Vijay would not have meant what he said. “This man has been working with cultural organisations in Tamil Nadu. He has carved out a space for himself in the cultural field there,” said Rao. In one of his tweets, Vijay wrote: “I have Tamil, Bengali, Telugu in my family — worked with commitment for Tamil culture, without any politics, collectively with all.” In another tweet, he wrote: “I can die but how can I ridicule my own culture, my own people and my own nation? Think before you misinterpret my badly framed sentence.” That was followed by this line: “And, I never, never, even in a slip, termed south India as black. Have patience to watch the show before reacting angrily.” In the programme, Vijay was defending India against charges of racism following the attacks on the African students.

© Vedaprakash

08-04-2017

[1] Hindustan Times, Tarun Vijay sparks racism row: ‘We’ve south India… we live with black people’, by Dhrubo Jyoti, Updated: Apr 07, 2017 19:51 IST.

[2] http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/bjp-s-tarun-vijay-stokes-racism-row-we-have-south-india-we-live-with-black-people/story-rmaP8qguUK7zr1mWem2e4O.html

[3] India Today, When Tarun Vijay fought for Tamil, had Thiruvalluvar statue installed at Haridwar, New Delhi, April 7, 2017 | UPDATED 00:53 IST

[4] http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/tarun-vijay-tamil-thiruvalluvar/1/923279.html

[5] The Hindu, Tarun causes stir with racist remark, NEW DELHI APRIL 07, 2017 23:59 IST UPDATED: APRIL 07, 2017 23:59 IST.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tarun-causes-stir-with-racist-remark/article17876140.ece

[6] NDTV, BJP’s Tarun Vijay Shocks With Racist Comment, Apologises, Edited by Shuchi Shukla | Updated: April 07, 2017 16:11 IST.

[7] http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/bjps-tarun-vijay-shocks-with-racist-comment-apologises-1678566

[8] Indian Express, Ex-BJP MP Tarun Vijay’s insight: ‘We live with blacks (south Indians), can’t be racist’, Written by Liz Mathew; Updated: April 8, 2017 9:49 am.

[9] http://indianexpress.com/article/india/tarun-vijays-insight-we-live-with-blacks-south-indians-cant-be-racist-4604467/

[10] Times of India, Attacks on Africans: BJP leader Tarun Vijay defends his comments, says they weren’t racist, TIMESOFINDIA.COM | Apr 7, 2017, 03.19 PM IST.

[11] http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/attacks-on-africans-bjp-leader-tarun-vijay-defends-his-comments-says-they-werent-racist/articleshow/58065086.cms

Richard Huckle, Vijesh Kooriyil and Hasan Suroor: How these pedophiles are different to be treated variously under secularism or otherwise by the British and Indian media?

June 9, 2016

Richard Huckle, Vijesh Kooriyil and Hasan Suroor: How these pedophiles are different to be treated variously under secularism or otherwise by the British and Indian media?

Pedophiles connected with India are prosecuted in London CourtsJune 2016 flooded with pedopphile cases adjudicated in London, but connected with India: In June 2016, pedophile cases are adjudicated and decided in London courts prosecuting various categories, as reports appearing in the media. They are first Richard Huckle, second Vijesh Kooriyil[1] and then, columnist Hasan Suroor. Indians really have to wonder as to how all these pedophiles have been connected with India, particularly South India. Indians do not know as to such pedophile cases would be decided in June one by one.  Richard Huckle was visiting Bangalore Christian orphanage,   Vijesh Kooriyil hailing from Malappuram and Hasan Suroor, the famous columnist of “The Hindu”! As Indians are imbibed with secularism, western and leftist ldeologists, they are made to think as this prosecution has been of the British type or secular type. Richard Huckle has been Christian, Vijesh Kooriyil obviously Hindu and Hasan Suroor Muslim! Whether the court cases are timed, reporting coincidental or assumed pattern incidental would be decided in due course. However, the accelerated interest, swift attention and rapid curiosity exibited by certain Indian media makes Indians to concentrate in the news. Yes, the Hasan Suroor has been picked up by “The Hindu”, “Outlook, “Scroll.in” etc., to come out with response evidently heaving a sigh of relief. First look at the news appearing in the media.

hasan-suroor-muslim-apologetic-columnistCharged Hasan Suroor found not guilty: A UK court on Tuesday (07-06-2016) dropped a case of “sexual grooming” against an Indian-origin British journalist, London-based Indian journalist and columnist Hasan Suroor for lack of evidence and declared him not guilty[2]. Suroor was ‘trapped’ by a vigilante group at a spot in south London and subjected to aggressive and threatening questioning by the group. The Crown charged Mr. Suroor with violating Section 16 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (sexual grooming of a child) and Section 1(1) of the Criminal Attempts Act (1981)[3]. The Crown formally withdrew charges as its chief witness Jonathan Clark, a member of the vigilante group, withdrew his support for the prosecution and failed to appear. Further, Mr. Suroor has no digital footprint of grooming, which is common marker of online sexual grooming, his lawyer Paul Mason told The Hindu[4].

hasan-suroor-muslim-apologetic-columnist-supporting-isSerious allegations were sought to be pursued on the basis of a “telephone call” from an “unregulated” vigilante group: Suroor, who was arrested by British Transport Police (BTP) last November 2015 after an anti-paedophile sting operation in London, is now planning to sue the vigilante group, Unknown TV, behind the sting for damages[5]. “Following a further review of the case there is now no longer a realistic prospect of conviction,” the UK’s Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) told Blackfriars Crown Court in a written submission on Tuesday (07-06-2016). The judge ruled that he had decided to return an “unequivocal verdict of not guilty”. The judge ruled he had decided to return an “unequivocal” verdict of “not guilty” and criticised the prosecution’s handling of the case[6]. He said he was “extremely concerned” that such serious allegations were sought to be pursued on the basis of a “telephone call” from an “unregulated” vigilante group[7]. But, Indians wonder as to such an advanced country could have such “unregulated” vigilante group moving all over the London city prouling on alleged pedophiles and the CPS to book case pursued on the basis of a “telephone call” from them.

hasan-suroor-leftist-is-supporter-hindutwa-opponent-twitters-2A written order declaring Suroor innocent is to be issued on 24 June 2016: A written order declaring Suroor innocent is to be issued on 24 June 2016 along with a ruling on his application for his legal costs to be reimbursed. Suroor’s lawyer Paul Mason said: “The robust stand we took has paid off.” The CPS is yet to officially comment on the case[8]. Suroor had been caught on camera as he was confronted by members of Unknown TV, organisers of the sting operation who alleged he was waiting for a 14-year-old girl[9]. A member of the anti-paedophile vigilante group had allegedly posed as a 14-year-old and allegedly solicited Suroor on social media[10]. Groups such as Unknown TV pose as minors on dating and social networking sites in an attempt to catch adult men who solicit sex with minors[11].

Parvathi Menon, The Hindu columnistParvathi Menon expert on “Ayodhya related secular issues”[12] reports about the case: It is intriguing that the “Outlook” has come out with apologia sort of support to Saroor[13], that too, an article type written by[14]Dipsikha Thakur is a trainee journalist with Outlook. She graduated from Cambridge earlier this year with a BA in English and Classics.” She has written a lengthy story, as if, she was writing for her examinations. But, “The Hindu” has been more professional, as it has bandwagon of historians category of columinists (Bangalore’s residential editor of The Hindu). Thus, Parvathi Menon came for resucue[15], “The charges of sexual-grooming filed …have been withdrawn for lack of evidence, although the judge hearing the case at the Blackfriars Crown Court has set the date for formally declaring Mr. Suroor, “not guilty” on June 24…….”. She has been so faithful and loyal to mention him as “Mr.Suroor was ‘trapped’”……….. subjected to aggressive and threatening questioning by the group. …….. as its chief witness Jonathan Clark, a member of the vigilante group, withdrew his support for the prosecution and failed to appear……… Further, Mr. Suroor has no digital footprint of grooming, which is common marker of online sexual grooming, his lawyer Paul Mason told The Hindu……..”. Paravthi Menon as been a vigorous writer on Ayodhya related issues[16] commenting upon the Supreme Court judgment and so on, particularly criticizing Hindutwa[17].

Vijesh Kooriyil Crown Court“….chief witness Jonathan Clark, a member of the vigilante group, withdrew his support for the prosecution and failed to appear….”: The proceedings, as reported by the British media has been intriguing, for the following reasons:

1.       The CPS is yet to officially comment on the case.

2.      The written order to be out on June.24, 2016.

3.      The complaintant / witness did not co-operate or became hostile.

4.      That is, the chief witness Jonathan Clark, a member of the vigilante group, withdrew his support for the prosecution and failed to appear…

5.      The Vigilant group may appeal.

Why then, the particular Indian media houses react differently for Hasan Surror, but keeping silence on the first two pedophiles ant the related issues. When India has already been affected by the pedophile menace, how they could react with bias towards Hasan Suroor alone without caring for thousands and perhaps, lakh of Indian children, young boys and girls, teenage girls and others. Really, it is ironical that they play “communal card” under the guise of “secularism”!

© Vedaprakash

09-06-2016

[1] Kerala Paedophile failed to turn up at Oxford Crown Court on Tuesday to face trial for repeatedly raping a young boy in Oxford between 2010 and 2011. The court heard the 29-year-old business manager was on unconditional bail when he told his solicitors he was going to attend court, before boarding a plane to Delhi from Heathrow on Monday night (06-06-2016). But a jury of seven women and five men unanimously found Kooriyil guilty of both rapes on the boy who was aged six or seven at the time.

http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/14536619.International_manhunt_launched_for__dangerous__child_rapist_who_fled_on_the_eve_of_his_trial/

[2] Firstpost.com, Indian-origin UK journalist Hasan Suroor found not guilty in paedophile sting case, PTI  Jun 8, 2016 07:25 IST

[3] The Hindu, Crown Prosecution withdraws charges of sexual grooming against journalist Hasan Suroor, Parvathi Menon, London, June 8, 2016 Updated: June 8, 2016 19:12 IST

[4] http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/crown-prosecution-withdraws-charges-of-sexual-grooming-against-journalist-hasan-suroor/article8705923.ece

[5] http://www.huffingtonpost.in/2016/06/08/hasan-suroor_n_10349758.html

[6] The Hindusthan Times, Case against Indian-origin scribe Suroor dropped in UK, Updated: Jun 08, 2016 10:42 IST

[7] Scroll.in, Not enough evidence against journalist Hasan Suroor in child abuse case, says UK by Scroll Staff

[8] http://www.hindustantimes.com/world/case-against-indian-origin-scribe-suroor-dropped-in-uk/story-NF7rt7o8aoStnOxb6ZvdcK.html

[9] The allegations are related to a sting video shot by the group, in which a group of men are heckling Suroor and accusing him of paedophilia. According to Outlook, the 65-year-old journalist did not deny the group’s allegations that he had met a 14-year-old girl online and that they exchanged sexually suggestive messages. They agreed to meet, and while he was waiting for the girl to show up, the group members appeared with a camera and cornered him. http://scroll.in/latest/809547/not-enough-evidence-against-journalist-hasan-suroor-in-child-abuse-case-says-uk

[10] The Huffington Post, Indian-Origin Journalist Hasan Suroor Found Not Guilty In Paedophile Sting Case, Posted: 08/06/2016 13:41 IST Updated: 08/06/2016 13:42 IST

[11] http://www.firstpost.com/india/indian-origin-uk-journalist-hasan-suroor-found-not-guilty-in-paedophile-sting-case-2822400.html

[12] http://www.frontline.in/static/html/fl1809/18090790.htm

[13] Outlook, Hasan Suroor and the question of culpability, Thursday, 09 June, 2016.

[14] http://www.outlookindia.com/website/story/hasan-suroor-and-the-question-of-culpability/295868

[15] http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/crown-prosecution-withdraws-charges-of-sexual-grooming-against-journalist-hasan-suroor/article8705923.ece

[16] http://www.frontline.in/static/html/fl2019/stories/20030926005613100.htm

[17] http://www.countercurrents.org/comm-menon300304.htm

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

January 14, 2016

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

Malda IHC conference, communal fire and blaspheme riots – were they incidental, coincidental or ancillary (1)?

January 14, 2016

Malda IHC conference, communal fire and blaspheme riots – were they incidental, coincidental or ancillary (1)?

Azam Khan

Malda, IHC and resolution passed on Ayodhya-stones: The speeches of Azam Khan in November 2015 and the resolutions passed by IHC in December 2015 have been the ignition for the Muslims to run riot. “The collection of stones at Ayodhya raises the suspicion of another breach of law.  The Indian History Congress urges the Central and State governments to ensure that religious sentiments are not incited to play with monuments and break the law with impunity,” noted the IHC[1]. It is ironical that the eminent historians, who were indicted by the Allahabad High court for giving false evidences on historical and archaeological facts pertaining to Ayodhya have audacity to talk about law, breaking law etc. At the IHC session itself, many Malda Muslims attended to observe the proceedings of the Conference and they were very happy to note that the dominant coterie of IHC has been favouring for the cause of Muslims. Many papers read there have been in support of the Muslim-cause in many aspects. Of course, the AMU group conducted separate session, as usual, to kindle fire.

Ayodhya stones IHC resolution

Unblushing historians plan riot again in 2015: During the 76th session of the IHC held at the University of Gour Banga in Malda from December 27 to December 29, the Congress passed resolutions on the need to prevent the formulation of uniform syllabi across all universities, protect monuments, and stop the utilisation of monuments destroyed illegally (such as the Babri Masjid) for political gains. The IHC was established in Poona in 1935 at its first session under the name Modern History Congress, which was altered to its present name in 1938 at its second session at Allahabad. It was consciously organised as a forum for Indian historians and has held its annual sessions regularly since 1938. It has regularly considered issues of historical and national interest, and passed resolutions. In 1975 and 1976 it was the only Indian academic organisation that criticised the imposition of the Emergency in its resolutions. Since 1984 the IHC began to raise its voice against the threat to monuments, posed by the agitation against the Babri Masjid and agitations, both from different groups, demanding the Right of Worship in different monuments. It condemned the demolition of the Babri Masjid in 1992, and its present resolution is consistent with the standpoint it has consistently taken as the main body of India’s professional historians[2].

Eminent historians, IHC, resoltion

Flexibility needed for History Syllabi in Universities: The Indian History Congress is deeply concerned by the decision of the University Grants Commission (UGC) to introduce a uniform syllabus across universities in the country. Such a measure does not do justice to the differentiated nature of universities in different parts of the country. They adversely affect all of them by not allowing them to make use of their natural potential. Conceding a latitude of 20 to 30% will not address this problem. The work of regulatory bodies such as UGC should normally be to monitor the implementation of minimum standards and the basic principles enshrined in the constitution. Creating a homogenous syllabus from the whole country goes beyond this mandate and will strike at the roots of the autonomy of universities. Imposing a syllabus necessarily created by those who are unaware of the ground realities of particular universities will be tantamount to downgrading universities to the level of primary schools, defeating the purpose of higher education, and denying universities a chance to develop the resources available to each.

Eminent historians, IHC, resoltion mughal tombs to be protected

Resolution 2Protecting Monuments: The Indian History Congress has been constantly drawing the attention of the Archaeological Survey and other authorities towards the deteriorating condition of several monuments in the country, and their poor present state of preservation and lack of proper repair. At its 75th session (2014) at JNU, Delhi, it cautioned all concerned against the kind of restoration work by the Aga Khan Trust, which has gravely imperiled the status of Humayun’s Tomb — a world-heritage site. There are reports in the press of a crematorium affecting the Taj Mahal, and a fly-over dominating Akbar’s tomb, Sikandra. There are fears that Ajanta frescoes are getting affected. It is necessary to develop and enforce a rigorous system of protection and preservation on the strict established principles, so as to save our great national heritage.

IHC resoltion, ram-mandir, stones

Resolution 3No permission must be given to utilise the illegal destruction of monuments such as Babri Masjid for political gains: The Indian History Congress had strongly urged at its sessions from 1984 onwards that the Babri Masjid was entitled to protection both as a medieval monument, built in 1528, and as an important example of Sharqi architecture. However, it was allowed to be destroyed in 1992, an act which provoked national condemnation. That destruction was planned to enable the ground to be cleared to build a modern temple. Now the collection of stones at Ayodhya raises the suspicion of another breach of law. The Indian History Congress urges the central and state governments to ensure that religious sentiments are not incited to play with monuments and break the law with impunity.

Destruction_of_the_Temple_of_Baalshamin

IHC, ISIL and destruction of historical monuments: However, they are not worried about the artefacts, archaeological and historical evidences are being destroyed in Afghanistan, Syria and other places by Taliban, ISIL etc. It is not that they are not not connected with India and Indian history. Not only now, many Muslim boys and girls with all their engineering and other professional degrees have been sneaking to Syria and ready fight for ISIL and of course against India also. The Taliban, ISIL and all other jihadi groups have already declared that they would invade India and establish an Islamic State there or annexe it to Global Islami State to be formed. Then, what would happen to the historical monuments, toms etc., in India, about which the eminent historians have been so worried to pass resultions!

UGB_Main_Building

Malda-IHC manipulated to suit the Islamic fundamentalism: The IHC has been systematically promoting absurd papers submitted by some crackpot-writers like “Ayodhya was in Afghanistan” and so on. Though, majority believers of India and the members of IHC have been Hindus, the IHC coterie never bothers about Hindus, but promote only Islamic fundamentalism. If any one goes through proceedings volumes, she / he can find out easily as to how they have been biased against Hindus. As IHC has been a registered society and most of the members have been Hindus, the selected coterie cannot manipulate the proceedings in this way.  the As most of the right-wing and other neutral historians stopped attending the IHC, because of the manipulative, authoritarian and fascistic attitude of these so-called eminent, elite and emeritus historians, it has been working unquestioned by anybody. Of course, for them, there is no provision in MRTP ACT[3] to impose restrictions or conditions to contain their fascist monopoly activities. Recently, lakhs of rupees were pumped to accommodate and feed lavishly the delegates and hence, none even think of such things happening in IHC. The delegates were describing as to how many sweets were provided and so on at the Malda session!

RSS parivar IHC

Eminent historians, RSS and calling names: Azam Khan called RSSwalas homosexuals and one Hindu activist called Mohammedans also homosexuals and perhaps their leader also. So also IHC used to call RSS in different names. It is just like “tu-tu-me-me” [you scold, I scold; you abuse, I also abuse], as they used to tell in hindi.  However, why the eminent historians have been so allergetic, nervous and afraid of RSS is not known. From Romila Thapar to Irfan Habib, they are so worried about RSS and they take every opportunity to call RSS with names. Just one month back to IHC-Malda, when Intellectuals, scholars, academics, authors, scientists and artists gathered in New Deelhi here on Novemver 1, 2015 and called upon President Pranab Mukherjee to advise the government to ensure the freedom of life, faith and expression, in his speech, historian Irfan Habib said[4], “………There is not much difference between Islamic State (IS) and the RSS as far as intellect goes.” However, he could not condemn any of the Malda anti-national groups viz., Ittehad-e-Millat, Idara-e-Shariya and other leftist gangs involved in opium cultivation, drug manufacturing, arms-smuggling, fake-currency circulation and other illegal activities reported in the media openly. Jyoti Punwani notes[5] that “It’s the RSS for whom India’s senior most historian is an object of hate” under the caption “A history lecture under the shadow of thugs”. Ever since, they were indicted in the Allahabad High Court judgment, they became uncomfortable, as the English knowing readers have realized their double-game of supporting fundamentalist, radical and terrorist Muslims under the guise of promoting Marxist historiography and secularism with scientific temper and so on. Thus, to hide their motive, they try to attack RSS for their folly. Thus, now, they mention about Akhil Bharatiya Itihas Sankalan Samiti also in their writings and speeches.

© Vedaprakash

14-01-2016


 

[1] http://www.thecitizen.in/NewsDetail.aspx?Id=6447&Of/Lahore/and/Ayodhya%E2%80%A6.

[2] http://indianculturalforum.in/index.php/2016/01/11/indian-history-congress-dont-break-monuments-dont-incite-religious-sentiments/

[3] The Monopolistic and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969.

[4] http://www.thehindu.com/news/not-much-difference-between-is-rss/article7832322.ece

[5] Jyoti Punwani, A history lecture under the shadow of thugs, October.29, http://thewire.in/2015/10/29/a-history-lecture-under-the-shadow-of-thugs-14369/

http://www.hindustantimes.com/india/saffronising-textbooks-where-myth-and-dogma-replace-history/story-CauM4dmmsPGrjZ3APAvNxO.html

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.

Hindu Temples of Tamilnadu under systematic destruction!

June 19, 2011

Hindu Temples of Tamilnadu under systematic destruction!

T. S. Subramanian has pointed out the deteriorating condition of murals in temples many times[1]. He should be congratulated to bring out such facts with concerned feelings expressed in his writings. However, the concerned and connected people have not taken any action to annul such vandalizing processes going on in the name of renovation, administration and other actions. The recent article “Targets of destruction” has been provoking, but we have to wait and see the response of the authorities.

Target of destruction: He starts with the appropriate beginning[2]: “Art, in more than 50 temples and three palaces in Tamil Nadu, is being mutilated” and explains the condition as follows: “Temples in Tamil Nadu are repositories of history, with inscriptions, sculptures, murals, bronzes, carvings, architecture and so on. The inscriptions provide valuable insights into the history of the period during which the temples were built, the village administration that prevailed, elections conducted for its assemblies, taxes collected, boards set up for the maintenance of lakes, ponds and canals, donation of land for Brahmin settlements, gifting gold for temple maintenance, etc.  There are more than 50 temples and three palaces in Tamil Nadu with murals. The palaces are Ramalinga Vilasam in Ramanathapuram and those at Bodinayakanur near Madurai and Padmanabhapuram in Kanyakumari district. While just four or five temples have murals dating back to the Pallava period (seventh to ninth century CE) and the Chola period (10th and 11th century CE), the majority of the murals belong to the Vijayanagar and the Nayak periods (14th to 17th century CE). The Brihadeeswara temple in Thanjavur have murals belonging to the Chola, the Nayak and the Maratha reigns.

Visual archivesThe mural masterpieces are visual archives on the history of the period, coronation rituals, the dress or the jewellery that men and women of those days wore, their hairstyle, musical instruments, the battles that they fought, the weapons used and so on. There are several Jain temples that have wonderful murals based on the Jain traditions, the Tirthankaras and the Yakshis. A favourite subject of many of the artists of those times was episodes from the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, and some of the artists even took care to write the labels for the episodes (captions) in Tamil or Telugu. Unfortunately in Tamil Nadu, the murals, the inscriptions, the sculptures and carvings have become targets of destruction and vandalism. The officials of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR and CE) Department, who administers the temples, are to be blamed for this state. Most often, these officials fail to appreciate and preserve these splendid works due to lack of knowledge of history.

How Meenakshi Temple was targeted? In the famous Meenakshi temple, Madurai, several historic mandapams have become shopping complexes. The Pudhu mandapam, the Ashta Sakti mandapam, Veera Vasantharayar mandapam and Meenakshi Nayakar mandapam teem with hundreds of shops, obstructing from view pillars with incredibly beautiful sculptures. A scholar on the history of the Meenakshi temple was displeased that its 1,000-pillared mandapam, with superb sculptures, has become ‘a studio’ now, with an incongruously gleaming granite floor, skewed focus lights and a big sculpture of Nataraja painted in black! Several years ago, the earthen bed of the temple’s famous ‘Golden Lotus’ tank (Pottramarai Kulam) was cemented up, with the result that no water stays in the tank now and it looks barren now. The HR and CE officials of the temple also whitewashed hundreds of beautiful murals, painted on the walls of the northern corridor of the Golden Lotus tank, portraying the ‘Tiruvilaiyadal,’ in the first quarter of 1996.

In a state of disrepair: While sculptures and carvings can survive for centuries because they have been chiselled out of granite, murals are vulnerable to nature. Since these murals were painted with natural dyes on mandapam walls or ceiling, they easily lend themselves to vandalism from devotees. Besides, they are exposed to sun or seepage of water from rain. Gaps between the granite slabs that form the roof of the mandapams lead to seepage of water due to rain and the sidewalls begin to ‘sweat.’ The lime plaster which forms the base for the murals has a tendency to absorb the water. When rain water falls on the murals painted on the ceiling or walls, fungus develops and the murals start peeling off. Smoke from the camphor (lit by the devotees) and from the oil lamps damage the paintings. Besides, they suffer from desecration at the hands of the HR and CE officials and devotees. Officials have fixed scores of metres of electric wires on the murals on the walls of the mandapams, installed switch boxes and tube lights on them, as it has happened in several places on the splendid murals in the Devaraja Swamy temple at Kanchipuram, portraying the 108 Divya Desam murals.

Other examples of vandalism: Extremely rare murals painted on wood in the Tirukkutraleeswarar temple at Tirukkutrala Chitra Sabha in Tirunelveli district have been vandalised. At the Siva temple at Patteeswaram, paintings were sandblasted in 1998 in the name of cleaning the surfaces on which they were painted. The paintings portrayed Lord Siva presenting a palanquin studded with pearls to the Saivite saint Tirugnana Sambandar because he could not bear to see his devotee walking in the sun. Temple officials sandblasted another row of paintings narrating the life of a mythical king who had no child but was blessed with a child after praying to Siva at Patteeswaram. Officials of the Lakshminarasimhar temple at Sevilimedu, near Kanchipuram, whitewashed them. They do not exist today.  Tales of destruction and desecration of these invaluable murals in temples in Tamil Nadu do not end with this list. What happened to the paintings at the Meenakshi temple at Madurai, the Trilokyanatha Jaina temple at Tiruparuttikunram near Kanchipuram, another Jaina temple at Karanthai near Kanchipuram and the Ramalinga Vilasam Palace in Ramanathapuram town take the cake.

Why this targested vattcks of vandalism? What the Mohammedan and the Europeans rulers could have done during their reigns is carried on in India, that too, after “independence” by the Indians by themselves. Ironically, “Hindu Religious & Endowment Board” under the control of proclaimed atheist, rationalist and particularly anti-Hindu ideologists for the last 70 years. The staff and officers entering into the department of HR&CE have been ideologists of all sorts of such category and some non-Hindus have also been there. And this vandalism is not done on one day, but carried on systematically. Whenever any official function comes, they carry out such destruction easily under the guise of celebration. The moment the temple comes under the control of HR&CE, any official comes into a temple, an office is constructed inside temple, that office is converted into some sort of lodge and then star-type accommodation, the temples start losing their sanctity. Perhaps, God is leaving the place. Under such circumstances, these modern day vandals, ideologists and rulers start their destruction.


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/