Archive for the ‘MGS’ Category

The 80th session of Indian History Congress held at Kannur University –The Governor speech was interrupted, Irfan Habib created a scene on the stage misbehaving! [4]

January 8, 2020

The 80th session of Indian History Congress held at Kannur University –The Governor speech was interrupted, Irfan Habib created a scene on the stage misbehaving! [4]

IHC - the two girls that created ruckus, Deepak touching police

Note those two “women-delegates,” who were used as a front, to start the ruckus and ten run riot to spoil the image of IHC.

IHC - the girl that created problem

See her face, how it changes…………..

IHC - the girl that created problem, how much strength

Yes, she can use force, as could be seen from her facial expression of violence…

The Bengali girl tossed the cap of the police

In that skirmish, the Lady-police hat was tossed and she catches it and wears! Thus, the so-called “woman-delegate” has no decency to respect a “Woman-police”! Is that way, she has been taught to oppose the authority?

Irfan Habib, the two women delegates and the rabble-rousing historians are not innocent: The media continued to report twisting the facts of events, as follows: “When the governor touched upon the subject of the CAA and defended the Centre, some participants started raising their voices in protest. When he said the house is open for discussion, two women delegates who were research fellows in the JNU, raised placards saying ‘this house (India) is not open for any discussions’. Even though the governor was heard saying that they have the right to protest democratically, the security officers tried to eject them. By then, the atmosphere was charged. Participants, students and professors began chanting slogans against the governor’s “political remarks”. According to some delegates, Khan quoted Maulana Azad, saying “the Partition took the dirt away but some potholes were left behind, where water has collected and now it is stinking.” He told the protestors, “You are causing a foul smell. Maulana Azad had said this for you.” This is when noted historian, professor Irfan Habib stood up and asked him to “quote Nathuram Godse” rather than Maulana Azad or Gandhi”. The media has utterly failed in pointing out the illegal misbehaviour, misconduct and unruly act of Irfan Habib and the so-called “women delegates”!

Histrisans shouting at Governer

Historians shouted and created ruckus-2

Historians shouted and created ruckus-3

Running riot historians or delegates

Running riot historians or delegates or mob

How the media has been mischievous in glorifying the rowdy behaviour of the historians: The media continued to report twisting the facts of events, as follows: “Particularly unseemly was the pandemonium that marked the inaugural with the distinguished historian and president of the current IHC, Irfan Habib (Aligarh school) getting up from his chair on the stage to remark, “The Governor may talk about Godse but not Maulana Azad.” That punctuated the Governor’s presentation with a full stop[1]. Mr Khan had his dander up, provoking the protesters to debunk the constitutional head for what they called his “unwarranted political remarks”. It needs to be underlined that the Indian History Congress ought not to be the venue of an ideological spat[2]. While the West Bengal Governor was barred from entering the JU campus as Chancellor on convocation day, the Kerala Governor, Mr Arif Mohammad Khan, was booed so severely that he had to wind up his address, claiming that his freedom of speech was being denied”.  Silly, stupid and ridiculous for the media to conclude that the act of disrespecting the Governors in the universities is a great job. That proves their ugly mindset of acting against the Act and Rules of this nation.

Irfan Habib tried to prevent Governer-4

Irfan’s idiotic talk of IHC not inviting the Governor: The media continued to report twisting the facts of events, as follows: “Historian Irfan Habib said the Indian History Congress (IHC) did not invite Kerala Governor Arif Mohammad Khan and it was the host institution, Kannur University, which invited him and other political leaders. “It is the right of the host institution to invite, however, we would not have thought of him,” the historian said criticising the Governor[3]. He was responding to the event that unfolded during the inauguration of the 80th session of the IHC at the university. He told The Hindu that the delegates were provoked when he started to speak about the Citizenship Amendment Act and denounced the Muslims. “The Governor was not invited to speak on CAA and the time of IHC is not for wasting,” he said adding that the Governor had the right to speak to an audience of his own[4]. The historian pointed out that the Governor was going into things that were no concern to the IHC. He was asked to address the IHC and not to a political audience, he asserted. Asked if there was a violation of the Governor’s protocol, Mr. Habib said the protocol did not govern the IHC and they had their own constitution. The members of IHC are governed by the Indian Constitution and the IHC’s, he said adding that the Governor’s protocol was false. Habib pointed out that in the past the President, the Vice-President and other eminent people attended the congress without any protocol. Habib was also critical of the Kerala government for posting the police at the IHC venue. The government should explain why policemen were deputed and four people were detained, he said. Habib also accused the police of obstructing him, when they had no business to be on the podium. So he pushed them aside to speak to the local secretary. He also expressed his concern that it happened in Kerala, where the Left government was governing.

Irfan pulled by Kannur VC and taken aside

Irfan Habib’s lies and the media coverage: There have been many documents that lay mandatory conditions as to how a Governor has to be treated when he is invited for any function. A University is a place, where, educated people are there, it is unimaginable that such events could have taken place at Kannur. Being a responsible historian, Habib went on telling lies.:

  1. Whether IHC invited, Kannur University invited, that is immaterial, as the so-called historians have to behave properly respecting the post.
  2. The Governor has not only been head of the Kerala State, but, Chancellor of all Universities of Kerala.
  3. The VC of Kannur University is responsible for the behaviour of the historians or delegates, who came there.
  4. As the Kannur University hosted the session, the IHC has been equally responsible for the decent behaviour and smooth proceedings of the deliberations.
  5. That the “women-delegates” were so prompt and ready to swing in action to show the placards, shout slogans and roughly behaved with the police proved that they had planned already.
  6. Habib’s blabbering that, “the Governor had the right to speak to an audience of his own,” is idiotic, because, he was the first person started heckling and interfering with the speech of the Governor.
  7. Habib’s, “I am 88; his ADC must have been 35 or 40. You can imagine the falsity of this statement from these facts,” rant[5] has been totally false, as the video proved his behaviour.
  8. Ironically, not only ADC, the VC had to control him, pull his hands, pulled him aside and made him to sit away from the Governor. So all had watched how the 88 behaved with vigour!
  9. The reporter of “The Hindu” and other media houses should know some fundamentals about the duties of Chancellor, VC and other dignitaries of the University.
  10. The IHC had involved in politics long back and the historians cannot fool common people and citizens of India. Perhaps, the people might start questioning them one day, if they continue to lie in this fashion. It is not their “Marxist or Mohammedan historiography” to interpret, misinterpret or distort to suit them without any objectivity, impartiality and neutrality.

Irfan Habib a liar, rowdy

What Governor told

Telling lies bad for historians: The media continued to report twisting the facts of events, as follows: “Historians[6], Jabir Raza of AMU and Farhat Hasan of DU, said[7], “When the protests commenced, professor Irfan Habib, who was on the dais in the capacity of the outgoing president of the IHC, got up from his seat and proceeded to the VC of Kannur University, Gopinath Ravindran, to request him to stop what was happening and requested the governor to refrain from turning the IHC into his political arena. He had also requested the governor to stop making remarks of the nature he was indulging in. As soon as Habib went there, the ADC and the security officer of the governor pushed him aside and tried to stop him. The governor, too, started accusing Habib of trying to stop him from speaking.” But, these two were sitting 100 ft away among the audience, of course shouting at the Governor, as the videos show, therefore, they had lied only. Irony and regrettable that the historians behave like rowdies.

© Vedaprakash

07-01-2020

Rowdiism at IHC Kannur, 2019

[1] The Statesman, Profund and profane, SNS Web | New Delhi | December 31, 2019 2:45 pm

[2] http://thestatesman.com/opinion/profound-and-profane-1502839562.html

[3] The Hindu, Indian History Congress did not invite Governor: Irfan Habib, C.P. Sajit, KANNUR, DECEMBER 29, 2019 16:55 IST; UPDATED: DECEMBER 29, 2019 17:30 IST

[4] http://thehindu.com/news/national/kerala/indian-history-congress-did-not-invite-governor-irfan-habib/article30425605.ece – comments_30425605

[5] The Telegraph, Habib responds to Kerala governor: No fisticuffs, I’m 88, By K.M. Rakesh in Bangalore Published 31.12.19, 7:15 AMUpdated 31.12.19, 7:15 AM- The governor told a Malayalam channel on Sunday that Habib had started ‘fisticuffs’ with his ADC on the dais

http://telegraphindia.com/india/habib-responds-to-kerala-governor-no-fisticuffs-im-88/cid/1731739

[6] Times of India, MU, DU historians refute Kerala governor’s claim of heckling by Irfan Habib, Anuja Jaiswal | TNN | Dec 30, 2019, 4:18 IST

[7] http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/agra/amu-du-historians-refute-kerala-governors-claim-of-heckling-by-irfan-habib/articleshow/73021211.cms

Vairamuthu’s research on Andal, the “quoted quote research methodology,” and the confession of “eminent historians”!

January 20, 2018

Vairamuthu’s research on Andal, the “quoted quote research methodology,” and the confession of “eminent historians”!

Andal, Vairamuthu controversy

The controversy started with Vairamuthu on Andal (07-1-2018): What Vairamuthu wrote about Andal as appeared in “Dinamani” in Tamil, and its translation is given as follows[1]: “As Andal was not born to Periyazhwar, there were no details available about her birth, though, she was brought up by a Brahmin, as the society that was controlled with caste stratification might not accept her into such caste hierarchy, Andal herself had already attained the freedom of word with force and there was a practice of offering women to temple accepted by the then society, some researchers have been compelled to arrive at stunning conclusions. The book ‘Indian Movement: some aspects of dissent, protest and reform’ edited by Subash Chandra Malik of Indiana University, USA contains such reference as follows: Andal was herself a devadasi who lived and died in the Srirangam Temple. The devotees might not accept this, but, those who oppose patriarchy and socio-religious (code) might think about it.” This created the controversy that is still raging in Tamilnadu and some parts of Andhra and Karnataka. Ironically, now, Dinamani has removed the controversial or rather blasphemous article and their regrets are appearing there[2].

Vairamuthu, Vaidhyanathan, dinamani

Verification of the book referred to by Vairamuthu: Now, let us analyze the “quote” of the learned poet and writer of Vairamuthu. As he has given the reference, now, as a “researcher”, anyone can go to the source and verify.

India movements, S C Malik edited book

Thus, let us see the book under reference. M. G. S. Narayanan and Veluthat Kesavan published a paper, “The Bhakti Movement in South India” in “Indian Movements: Some Aspects of Dissent Protest and Reform,” edited and introduced by S. C. Malik and published by Indian Institute of Advanced Study, Shimla in 1978. In which, what they claimed was,

Cheraman Perumal Nayanar notes the reception given to Shiva by devadasis of all ages while he went out in procession around the streets in Kailas35, and Andal herself is a Devadasi who lived and died in the Sri Rangam Temple36.

Quotations of MGS

The two footnotes given for support for those two lines are as follows:

  1. Ceraman Perumal Nayanar, Adiyula, M. Raghava Aiyangar, ed. Caruventar Ceyyukovai, 1951, Trivandrum, Vol.II, pp.136-64.
  1. T. A. Gopinatha Rao, The History of Sri Vaishnavas, Madras, 1923, Madras, p. 5.

MGS, Kesavan , tthe book

So when we look at page no.5 of the said book, what, T. A. Gopinatha Rao recorded is this, “When she reached marriageable age, she refused to marry anyone except the God Ranganatha of the Srirangam temple. The God appeared to the Alvar in a dream to declare before him his acceptance of the girl in marriage and ordered her to be brought to his residence at Srirangam. Periyalvar took her there with great eclat and left her in her Lord’s house and returned to his quiet residence at Srivilliputtur.

Quotations of MGS- TAG Rao reference

Therefore, there is nothing like what the learned historians M. G. S. Narayanan and Veluthat Kesavan reportedly claimed, “Andal herself is a Devadasi who lived and died in the Sri Rangam Temple.” Why then, the leaned “historians” wrote in that way and what was their motive?

Quotations of MGS- TAGopinatha Rao reference,p.5

M. G. S. Narayanan clarified to Dinathanthi that there was no such reference to Devadasi[3]: When Asoka Vardhini contacted M. G. S. Narayanan through phone, he accepted that there was no specific reference to Andal as devadasi and he mentioned it based on inference only. He also accepted that Veluthat Kesavan was a student of him, doing M.A history (implying that he might not have been having research expertise at that time). There is no inscriptional evidence to that effect and it was written only based on “oral tradition.” When she asked specifically, he specifically confessed that there is no primary evidence and even secondary evidence to that effect, it was a controversial interpretation and a “matter of inference”. Then, naturally, it is intriguing and shocking to know as to know how they could have written conclusively, “Andal was herself a devadasi who lived and died in the Srirangam Temple.” Now, he is considered as one of reputed and eminent historians of India, former chairman of ICHR and so on. Why them, they stooped to such “quoted quote” research methodology, amounting faking and forging such lies and falsehood in historiography?

Vairamuthu regrets for Andal comments

The implications of “quoted quote research,” bogey of “eminent historians” and other modern-day mythistories: Now let us analyze their quotations, reportedly lifted from two books mentioned above.

  1. The book in question was published by Indian Institute of Advanced Study, Shimla in 1978 and not by Indiana University, USA as claimed by Vairamuthu.
  1. Vairamuthu should have verified the sources before quoting, that too, part of a sentence picking up from their paper. He must have consulted the original sources (as he knows Tamil very well) and also other secondary sources after 1978 to present his speech and “researched” article appeared.
  1. Ironically, he and the press, still carry such wrong and falsified blabbering[4]. “As part of my research for writing this article on Aandaal, I happened to read a collection of articles edited by Subhash Chandra Malik in the name of “Indian Movements: Some Aspects of Dissent, Protest and Reform”, the original from Indiana University and published by Indian Institute of Advanced Study in 1978. It is very much an Indian research study by Indian historians,”thus claimed Vairamuthu.[5]
  1. Vairamuthu added, “Professor M.G.S Narayanan & Professor Kesavan Veiuthat. Professor M. G. S Narayanan is considered as “one of India’s top authorities on ancient history” and has served as the chairman of Indian Council of Historical Research. Professor Kesavan Veluthat is the Professor of History in University of Delhi. The line mentioned in my article was from a reputed publication and by reputed historians.” But, M. G. S. Narayanan now refuted. Here, Vairamuthu mentioned, “G.S Narayanan is considered as “one of India’s top authorities on ancient history,” whereas, the subject dealt with has not been so ancient!
  1. Cheraman Perumal Nayanar notes the reception given to Shiva by devadasis of all ages while he went out in procession around the streets in Kailas35.” M. G. S. Narayanan himself accepted that the story of Cheraman Perumal was a myth floated after 13th century by the vested Mohammedan groups. Therefore, the question of devadasis of all sorts going out in procession is redundant, immaterial and incompetent.
  1. Andal herself is a Devadasi who lived and died in the Sri Rangam Temple36.” This is also fake, fraudulent and deceptive, as T.A. Gopinatha Rao never mentioned such sentence in his book, as pointed out above.
  1. It is unbecoming for these researchers, now, paraded as “historians” to quote that was not there in a book, secondary source.
  1. It exposes the dubious and dangerous nature of “quoted quote” research methodology, as most of the researchers, may not look into the quotes recorded by the “eminent historians.”
  1. Coming to ideology, it is evident that the involved personalities have been Marxists and atheists and thus, their speeches and writings have been tarnished with bias, prejudice and without objectivity.
  1. As the Marxist ideology is coupled with Dravidian ideology of atheism, that is directed against Hindu religion, evidently, Hindus have come to streets. How they have been oppressed, suppressed and attacked by them since 1960s have been too well-known to be repeated here.

© Vedaprakash

19-01-2018.

 

[1]ஆண்டாள் பெரியாழ்வார்க்குப் பிறந்த பெண் இல்லை ஆதலாலும், அவள் பிறப்பு குறித்த ஏதும் பெறப்படாததாலும்ஓர் அந்தணரே வளர்த்திருந்தாலும், குலமறியாத ஒருத்தியைக் குலமகளாய்க் கொள்ள சாதிக் கட்டுமானமுள்ள சமூகம் தயங்கியிருக்கலாம் என்பதனாலும், சமூகம் வழங்காத பாலியல் சொல் விடுதலையை ஆண்டாளே ஆவேசமாய் அடைந்துவிட்டதாலும், கோயிலுக்குப் பெண்ணைக் காணிக்கையாக்குவதை அரசும் சமூகமும் அங்கீகரித்ததாலும் கலாசார அதிர்ச்சி தரத்தக்க முடிவுக்குச் சில ஆய்வாளர்கள் ஆட்படுகிறார்கள்அமெரிக்காவின் இண்டியானா பல்கலைக்கழகம் சுபாஷ் சந்திர மாலிக்கை ஆசிரியராகக் கொண்டு வெளியிட்ட Indian Movement: some aspects of dissent, protest and reform என்ற நூலில் ஆண்டாள் குறித்து இப்படி ஒரு குறிப்பு எழுதப்பட்டிருக்கிறது Andal was herself a devadasi who lived and died in the Srirangam Temple. பக்தர்கள் இதை ஏற்றுக்கொள்ள மாடார்கள்ஆனால் ஆணாதிக்க எதிர்ப்பாளர்களும், சமய சமூக மறுப்பாளர்களும் இதை எண்ணிப் பார்ப்பார்கள்.

http://www.dinamani.com/editorial-articles/center-page-articles/2018/jan/08/%E0%AE%A4%E0%AE%AE%E0%AE%BF%E0%AE%B4%E0%AF%88-%E0%AE%86%E0%AE%A3%E0%AF%8D%E0%AE%9F%E0%AE%BE%E0%AE%B3%E0%AF%8D-2840681.html

[2]  Those who talk about freedom expression, speech and rights thereof and such issues should note this that the persons involved have evidently understood the gravity of the issue of sentiments of crores of belivers.

[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASUAnINM_jw

[4] TheNewsMinute, Devadasi is female servant of god, not prostitute: Vairamuthu’’s clarification on article, Saturday, January 13, 2018 – 22:04

[5] https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/devadasi-female-servant-god-not-prostitute-vairamuthus-clarification-article-74709