Posts Tagged ‘gaur banga university’

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

Advertisements

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