Posts Tagged ‘Indian History Congress’

The 80th session of Indian History Congress held at Kannur University – IHC has become congress of Rowdy historians! [6]

January 8, 2020

The 80th session of Indian History Congress held at Kannur University – IHC has become congress of Rowdy historians! [6]

Marxist women historians, 1

Women who run riot talked about women: The two-day session on ‘Women in India: Reconstructing women’s history’, organised by The Aligarh Historians’ Society, as part of the Indian History Congress (IHC), once again brought to the fore the contentious issue of women’s entry in Sabarimala, as also the issues of gender equality and exploitation of women[1]. Parvathi Menon, who presented the paper on ‘Sabarimala and Women’, said that though women used to enter Sabarimala in the past, and the attitudes towards menstruating women entering the temples were flexible as late as the 1980s, it was still a taboo[2]. The taboo against fertile women entering the Sabarimala precincts was given legal sanction as late as 1991 through a Kerala high court judgment, she pointed out. After the apex court verdict in 2018, permitting women’s entry, the controversy took political tones and a group took the battle to the streets. “The arguments being advanced by defenders of the ban on childbearing age women entering the temples, that Ayyappan is a celibate god, are of recent origin in the centuries-long development of Ayyappa worship, and reflect the mainstreaming of the worship into the Vedic period,” she said.

Marxist women historians, 2

The Marxist interpretation of women-only encourage Islamic fundamentalism: Without changing mindsets, especially in respect of the new and shackling obscurantisms in the form of personal laws and superstitious beliefs, the gain that Kerala has achieved in great measure through public action towards women’s equality will be eroded, she added, underscoring the contradictions in the Kerala society and the denial of self-reliance for women in the man-woman relationship or in the family. Shalini Shah, in her paper, ‘Engendering female body, sexuality and desire in the Sanskritic tradition’, also discussed the issue of Sabarimala, in the context of female sexuality. “In the masculinist world, ‘sexual desire’ is a male prerogative. Women can be the object of desire, but not a desiring subject themselves,” she pointed out, adding, “We thus see that only a specific kind of woman was objectified in the masculinist discourse as sexually alluring. So, from an entirely male point of view, it is safe for the women of a specific age to enter the precincts of a Brahmachari deity.” Charu Gupta, in her paper, said feminist historians have underlined that both social reforms and nationalism have had an ambiguous relationship with the gender question. The presentations that lasted for two days had 18 papers that explored various aspects of women’s identity, based on myths, legends and social reality across the world. However, they could not discuss anything on Muslim women Triple Talaq Act, progress of them and other minority women.

Marxist women historians, 3

A Mohammedan minister came to speak for Mohammedans: Minister for higher education K T Jaleel has said no government has ever succeeded in detaining or degrading the minorities[3]. Addressing a special session on the concluding day of the Indian History Congress (IHC) here on Monday 30-12-2019, he said the history shows that the minorities contributed immensely in the progress of the respective nations and society[4]. “French historians noted that France began to decline after the banishment of minorities from their country. If Jews had not been displaced or murdered massively by Hitler, Germany would have become a super economic power of the world,” he said. “The recent CAA, NPR and NRC are imposed hurriedly as part of the political agenda,” he said, adding that historians have to protest and condemn moves against a minority community. However, he did not make any whisper as to how the illegal migrants of Myanmar, Bangladesh etc., have been affecting the Kerala society, polity and economy. He could not discuss about the ISIS problem that is encouraged by the infiltrators from Pakistan, Afganistan etc. In other words, the IHC historians have been colluding with the politicians in this way, to spoil the academic proceedings. Thus, it is evident that the IHC gang and the communists of Kerala have decided to host IHC at Kannur and exploit it, but, the ugly events exposed their hidden agenda bringing bad name to them.

Urban naxal elite gang

Resolutions passed as usual and none bothers: IHC concluded and deplored the detention of four delegates following the commotion at the inaugural ceremony on December 28 and called for the defence of the composite culture of the country[5]. The resolution passed in this connection also requested the state government not to share the details of the detained people to any central or other agencies[6]. “Confident that the Kerala state government is vigilant in fulfilling its promise of protecting the civil liberty of all citizens, the Indian History Congress hopes that the state government will (a) duly train the police personnel in managing security, and (b) ensure that the personal details of the individuals detained are not communicated to any central or other agencies,” it said. Many resolutions at the IHC were in connections with the present political turbulence over CAA, Jammu and Kashmir and related issues. The IHC without knowing the legality and their local standi, they go on pass such resolutions for the last 35 years, but, none bother and bothered about it. When B. R. Grover was alive, he was the only person to point out their vanity, futility and useless nature of resolutions. As IHC has been losing credibility year by year and now proven to be a den of rowdies, the coming years might witness strength coming down. Moreover, their arrangements of transport, accommodation and food have also been coming down, while the delegate fees increasing. Thus, the delegates were also not satisfied in all aspects.

Urban naxal elite gang-2

The agenda of opposing ruling government exposed: Expressing concern over the adverse conditions for research and educational institutions in Jammu and Kashmir, owing to the official closure of internet and libraries, and non-functioning of educational institutions since August, the IHC, in another resolution, called upon the authorities to lift restrictions on internet and take measures to restore normalcy in J&K. It also condemned the police action in some universities following protests against CAA. The resolution said it is conscious of the adverse effects such violent acts will have on academic freedom and pursuit of research and instruction. “Political figures should refrain from inaccurate statements as the one about India having been under ‘foreign rule for one thousand years’ as if all Muslim rulers were foreigners,” read another resolution. Disagreement with the National Education Policy, another resolution said the move to infuse ‘heavy dose of Sanskrit’ at all levels of education including science and technology, social science and Indian system of knowledge… will make education not only static but unequal and unjust for many. In another resolution on ‘built heritage,’ it said the Indian heritage is still in danger, and there were efforts to alter the authenticity of monuments that have affected their historicity. IHC president Amiya Kumar Bagchi, secretary Mahalakshmi Ramakrishnan and treasurer Burton Cleetus denied any protocol violation on their part at the inaugural ceremony.

Kannur university hosted IHC, office barriers

Questions raised and posed to historians, history students and related persons: Having seen the behaviour of the historians, the general public may raise many questions:

  1. The IHC historians have been reportedly highly educated, elite, emeritus and so on, why then, they behaved in this way?
  2. Why the well-learned professors, HODs, and others raised hands, turned their faces ugly, shouted badly and virtually run riot before others?
  3. Definitely, they must have known what is decency and decorum to be maintained in such functions. They have invited Governors, Chief Ministers, Prime Ministers etc., and therefore, treating the same class differently raises the credibility, accountability and responsibility.
  4. What the youngsters, young students and others would think about these historians and others? Or they giving field-training in this way to become rowdy-historians in coming years.
  5. Would they want to nurture, teach and bring up good students or rowdies, raising slogans, disrespecting the authorities, fighting with the police and so on?
  6. The “two women delegates” were actually, verifying the genuine nature of the members and giving clearance. However, on 27th, they were virtually harassing the delegates because of their technical fault [they are not getting the connection or some issue]. How then, these two could run riot?
  7. Or, were the organizers planned to use these women as a front to create a problem and get undue publicity?
  8. Had all involved been really interested in history, research and related areas, they would not have indulged in such “unhistorical,” un-academic and unruly activities. Yet they did – proved that they had bad intentions.
  9. Historians have not done their duty for the last 70 years and therefore, they cannot do anything with the Acts and laws of the land. Therefore, it is better they concentrate in history and save their honour instead of poking nose in politics etc. Would they learn a lesson or do otherwise?

© Vedaprakash

08-01-2020

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

[1] Times of India, Sabarimala comes to the fore at IHC session, P Sudhakaran | TNN | Dec 31, 2019, 11:50 IST.

[2] http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kozhikode/sabarimala-comes-to-the-fore-at-ihc-session/articleshow/73041989.cms

[3] Ties of India, No government can succeed by degrading minorities, says Jaleel, TNN | Dec 31, 2019, 4:4m9 IST.

[4] http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kozhikode/no-government-can-succeed-by-degrading-minorities-says-jaleel/articleshow/73037212.cms

[5] Times of India, IHC concludes, slams detention of delegates, TNN | Dec 31, 2019, 4:45 IST

[6] http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kozhikode/ihc-concludes-slams-detention-of-delegates/articleshow/73037182.cms

The 80th session of Indian History Congress held at Kannur University – IHC has become congress of Rowdy historians! [5]

January 8, 2020

The 80th session of Indian History Congress held at Kannur University – IHC has become congress of Rowdy historians! [5]

A K Balan, Arif and Habib

Law Minister A K Balan tried to play down the turn of events: The governor on Sunday 29-12-2019, said historian Irfan Habib had tried to manhandle his aide-de-camp and added the protesters were not ready to hear him when he started responding to their position[1]. Speaking to a news channel later, the governor reiterated that protocol was violated during the event. “Governor’s programme duration shouldn’t be more than one hour. The organisers violated the schedule. The names of two speakers, including Habib, were not there on the initial programme list. But I sat there for one-and-a-half hours listening to speeches,” he said[2]. Earlier in the day, Khan summoned Chief Secretary Tom Jose to Raj Bhavan over the Kannur incident. Sources said the governor expressed his unhappiness over the ‘protocol violation’ and sought a reply. Law Minister A K Balan tried to play down the turn of events by saying the chief secretary met Khan to apprise him of the details of the Cabinet decisions. As a law minister, obviously, he realized the consequences, whereas, the senile Habib could not do that. Kannur University vice-chancellor said earlier in the day that there was a violation of the protocol and Habib’s speech was not included in the programme schedule. It shows that the hosting VC knew what was happening or what Habib would do on the stage. Therefore, the involvement and collusion of VC with Habib could be noted. In any case, much damage has been done to IHC that could be repaired with much difficulty in the coming years.

Marxist historians, India

IHC has become a den of Marxist historians: Established in 1935, and have 2530 life members, 33,000 annual members. The IHC enjoys ‘monopoly’ over the historical narrative of the country, and almost all the history books promoted by the central government (NCERT, recommended in Central Universities syllabus), state governments, are written by the members of IHC.  Habib is a son of Mohammed Habib, a Marxist historian from Aligarh Muslim University, and grandson of Mohammed Naseem, a wealthy barrister and a member of Congress party. He was a professor of History at AMU and later appointed as Professor Emeritus after retirement. The “eminent” members IHC are the usual suspects, who presented or fabricated the evidence contrary to the historical Ram Mandir in Ayodhya, on which Babri Masjid was constructed. Romila Thapar, D N Jha, Bipin, Chandra, Satish Chandra, R S Sharma, Mridula Mukherjee, Nurul Hasan, Sumit Sarkar, Athar Ali and many others enjoyed a monopoly over the official narrative of history. Post the Supreme Court’s Ayodhya verdict that came in favour of the temple, these leftist historians stood exposed. And the more interesting fact is, almost all of them are self-described Marxists and belong to ‘Marxist school of historiography’. In historiography, this type of stereotypes, monopoly, and forceful thrust of ideology do not work in the long run. Definitely, people have started questioning their ideology, as in practice, it does not work. Therefore, any ideology that does not solve the basics of common people, would be thrown away automatically.

Marxist historians, India-2

Marxist-Mohammedan medieval historiography forced and imposed by JNU-DU-AMU gang: Almost all the office bearers, regional members, sectional presidents, and E. C. are “Marxists”. A person does not enjoy ’eminence’ until and unless s/he is a member of IHC, and this body has a monopoly of Marxists[3]. The topmost professional body of Historians is dominated by the people from one school of thought; one could not find a single member from any other non-Marxist school in this body[4]. The members of IHC also dominated the government history research bodies like- Indian Council of Historical Research, an institution under Ministry of HRD. Habib was chairman of ICHR from 1986 – 1993, and he employed his colleagues from IHC at ICHR too. After the Modi government came to power, it tried to end the monopoly of Marxist and Nehruvian historians, by placing historians from diverse schools of thought. The monopolized, autocratic and dominated attitude and behaviour only led to the creation of local history congresses in each state. However, by blaming BJP, RSS or any right-wingers, these leftists, Marxist, Mohammedans and other divisive gangs cannot do anything good to the country. That is why people have lost interest in history and historians. Many universities removed history subject/courses from the curriculum, as it could not fetch any job in the current scenario.

Marxist historians, India-3

Definitely, the unruly acts of historians were planned: As an observer, I can register the facts that the learned Habib had lied, on many accounts. All delegates were thoroughly frisked, checked and allowed inside. Therefore, if some of “delegates” or “historians” entered with placards, then, he was responsible for such act as the president. That means, they entered evidently with the good books of Irfan Habib or under his clout. The Kerala MP K. K. Ragesh only started talking politics exceeding limits and the governor had to respond.  Had they [the historians] had come for the history, Irfan should have first prevented that MP as he spoiled the so-called “scientific and secular nature of history” principle reportedly followed by the IHC. As he accused Kerala government, then, the government could react to Habib? Habib has become senile and evidently, he does not know the Act and Rules in these aspects, and therefore talking definitely nonsense about “posting police” etc. Let him worry about the history and not to politicize and spoil IHC. The planned rowdyism of IHC gang could be seen here[5]. The video exposes the ugly mindset and behaviour of the so-called eminent historians. The irony that the so-called eminent, elite and emeritus historians behaved like politicians, agents of some political and party paid protesters! Since 1980s, these “historians” have been divided into “Marxist,” “AMU,” “JNU,”  “Mohammedan, “Bengali” and so on!  They never cared for the South Indians. They have one set of 30-40 persons and group regroup and manipulate the governing body and enjoy life. Even after retirement, as they want to monopolize they have been doing this academic fraud to sideline other historians. Here, Irfan Habib physically misbehaved with the Governor, as could be clearly noted from the videos. This is a security breach and unbecoming for a historian like him.

Marxist historians, India-fraud

Dalits, women and Muslims: When the first day was ruined with the folly of the senile old man, the next day was dominated with the heavy dosage of old wine in old bottles making the listeners to sleep. As the hall was air-conditioned, in the sweating Kannur climate, some hundreds went there and took good rest. On the second day 29-12-2019, of the Indian History Congress (IHC), history of the marginalized assumed centre stage and there were deliberations on women, dalits and the marginalized sections[6]. It appears that these historians, unwittingly, have taken up the old failed thesis to whip up the passion, but, as awareness has been created, they cannot fool the public.  The speakers who addressed various sessions opined that what we need is not rewriting history but adding new things to it. There were efforts to rewrite history, they said[7]. Historian Rajan Gurukkal, who chaired a session on Kerala history, said that the process of writing history will go on and the imagined state of the end of history will never happen. Historian Kesavan Veluthat, another panellist, said “William Logan idolised Nairs and termed them as ‘great Nairs, while he demonized Muslims and referred to them as ‘horrible Muslims’.” Historian Sanal Mohan talked about the challenges of alternative history and said that unless we did not have archives, we would not be able to tell anything new. The session on dalit history opined that there should be more studies on this segment. The influence of dalit politics in literature was one main aspect of the session. They went on mentioning the expression “dalit”, whereas, the government long back, ordered through a circular not to use it, as it is neither legal nor constitutional. Moreover, when the PM government came to power, it also instructed not to use it[8]. The session ‘Women in India: Reconstructing Women’s History’ by Aligarh Historians’ Society deliberated upon the rights of women and issues they face.

© Vedaprakash

08-01-2020

Why police stood before Habib

[1] Indian Express, Day after heckled in Kannur, Governor acts tough, says protecting Constitution his responsibility, Published: 30th December 2019 04:27 AM | Last Updated: 30th December 2019 08:14 AM

[2] http://newindianexpress.com/states/kerala/2019/dec/30/day-after-heckled-in-kannur-guv-acts-tough-says-protecting-constitution-his-responsibility-2082548.html

[3] TFI.Post, You will know why Irfan Habib snapped if you know about IHC, the apex body responsible for all historical distortion, by Amit Agrahari, 29 December 2019.

[4] http://tfipost.com/2019/12/you-will-know-why-irfan-habib-snapped-if-you-know-about-ihc-the-apex-body-responsible-for-all-historical-distortion/

[5] http://asianetnews.com/kerala-news/protest-against-kerala-governor-in-kannur-q37mjq

[6] Times of India, History of marginalized takes centrestage on Day 2 of IHC, TNN | Dec 30, 2019, 4:58 IST.

[7] http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kozhikode/history-of-marginalized-takes-centrestage-on-day-2-of-ihc/articleshow/73022399.cms

[8] Times of India, Kerala govt prohibits using ‘Dalit’, ‘Harijan’ in official communications, TIMESOFINDIA.COM | Updated: Oct 18, 2017, 0:56 IST

NEW DELHI: The Kerala Information and Public Relations Department’s internal circular has directed to avoid usage of words “Dalit” and “Harijan” in its official communications. The order was issued based on the directive from Kerala State Commission for Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) Chairman Justice PN Vijayakumar.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/kerala-govt-bans-prohibits-using-dalit-harijan-in-official-communications/articleshow/61123362.cms

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

The 80th session of Indian History Congress held at Kannur University – Highly politicized and spoiled show – The Governor targeted! [2]

January 1, 2020

The 80th session of Indian History Congress held at Kannur University – Highly politicized and spoiled show – The Governor targeted! [2]

Pandal where inaugural session was held-changed

The IHC coterie enjoying the life: The delegates [historians, researchers, students] were struggling to settle down at different places, the elite, eminent, emeritus categories were enjoying life in star hotels, star-category hotels, A/C rooms etc. When thousands of  “delegates” were waiting for the transport, to be sent by the IHC host, these “babus” were dropped at the venue in cars, cabs and special vehicles. And these people only have been talking about equity, equality and such terminology. Definitely, they have been enjoying the life at IHC proceedings before and after retirement. After EC meeting, they used to have good food provided at the place of course with drinks also and this has been the practice since 1980s, as observed by our team attending the conference. They have some 50-100 known people and they engage their friends in the EC and other office barriers so that none would question their activities.

Ramachandran Kadannappalli IHC

Highlights of the Session:  The circular declared that, Professor A. K. Bagchi (Kolkata) would take over from Professor Irfan Habib, officiating General President as the General President of the session and deliver his address at the inaugural session.

The Sectional Presidents are:

  1. Professor Suchandra Ghosh, Kolkata (Ancient India);
  2. Professor Farhat Hasan, Delhi (Medieval India);
  3. Professor M.D. David, Mumbai (Modern India);
  4. Professor B.R. Deepak, Delhi, (Countries Other than India);
  5. V. Selvakumar, Thanjavur (Archaeology); and
  6. Professor Zoya Hasan, Delhi (Contemporary India).

Shri N. Ram would deliver “the Professor S.C. Misra Memorial Lecture” on 28 December, 2019, scheduled at 6 pm.

The IHC Symposium on ‘Heterodoxy in the Indian Tradition’, will be held on 29th December, 2019, at 6 pm. Prof. K.M. Shrimali, Prof. Irfan Habib and Prof. Sugata Bose will be the distinguished speakers.

Special panels are being organized on the following themes:Ø

  • ‘Women in India: Reconstructing Women’s History’ [Aligarh Historians Society]
  • ‘Dalit Intellectual History’
  • ‘History of Kerala’
  • ‘Change and Continuity in Religious Traditions of South Asia’.

However, there were many confusions and problems due to demonstrations etc.

Inuagural session , 28-12-2019 IHC

The inaugural function on 28-12-2019: On 28th morning, the inaugural function was arranged in a samiana with a lot of security arrangement. The space was divided into five categories:

  1. The stage, where the invited signatories and VIPs sat
  2. RHS from the stage for the media
  3. LHS from the stage for the IHC office barriers and VIPs.
  4. RHS from the stage – for ladies,
  5. LHS from the stage for gentlemen.

With frisking and checking of bags etc., they were allowed inside. Repeatedly, announcements were made that “when Governor comes, all should stand up” and so on! In fact, one historian was commenting, “Are we school children?………….” The Governor and others came and occupied. The card [inaugural ceremony] issued by Popinath Ravindran and P. Mohandas, mentioned the dignitaries as follows:

Prof Gopinath Ravindran, VC, Kannur University

Sri Biju Kandakkai, Member Syndicate.

Sri K. Sudhakaran, M.P, Lok Sabha.

Sri K. K. Ragesh, M.P., Rajya Sabha.

Sri Ramachandran Kadannappalli, Hon’ble minister for ports, museums, archaeology and archives.

Prof Amiya Kumar Bagchi

Prof Irfan Habib

Sri Arif Mohammad Khan, Hon’ble Governor of Kerala.

Ifran Habib heckled Governer

How the politics spoiled the inaugural function: Prof Gopinath Ravindran, VC, Kannur University, welcomed the Governor, Minister, MP, and other VIPs.

Sri Biju Kandakkai, Member Syndicate lamented that the funds to IHC had been dwindling down. Actually, it is not known as to why they should worry about the funds when they had already collected Rs. 70 lakhs as delegate fees. It has to be verified whether the VIP groups from JNU, AMU, DU etc., had been paying delegate fees or not, because they get maximum comforts etc. suppose, 100 VIPs do not pay, but enjoy means, Rs 10 lalkhs would be wasted from the collected funds. Ironically, he spoke in highly Sanskritized Malayalam. He stressed that regional history should be given importance. The rewiting of textbooks should be stopped.

Sri K. K. Ragesh, M.P., Rajya Sabha,  CPI(M) explained how Kannur martyrs played a crucial role in the freedom struggle. He pointed out that British hanged many from the Malabar region. Then, suddenly, he turned to political issues and started opposing the Citizenship Amendment Act and so on. He started interpreting that the constitutional provisions were attacked. The secular fabric of the country was attacked and universities targeted. Though certain section of Indian did not participate in the freedom movement, they were posing as freedom fighters. History has to be written properly.

Sri Ramachandran Kadannappalli, Hon’ble minister for ports, museums, archaeology and archives pointed out that IHC has thousands of members. India has 5000 years of history starting with the Indus Valley Civilization.

Prof Amiya Kumar Bagchi started reading from his printed material. As he was old, he was struggling to read also.

Irfan Habib misbehaving with governer-2

The response of Sri Arif Mohammad Khan, Hon’ble Governor of Kerala: K.K. Ragesh. The Rajya Sabha MP Ragesh’s speech caught the attention of the governor as he was speaking in English, unlike the other dignitaries on the stage. “When he heard Ragesh referring to contemporary issues, the governor asked for a pen and pad to take notes of his speech,” says Kandakkai, a former central committee member of the Democratic Youth Federation of India (DYFI)[1]. After Dr Amiya Kumar Bagchi, the newly elected chair of the Indian History Congress concluded his address, Khan started his speech. (Bagchi was allowed to speak for 30 minutes and Khan for 31 minutes, as the governor should be given more time than any other guests as per the protocol.) Actually, the Governor proceeded to address, but, suddenly he was asked to sit, as the newly elected president had to address! Ironically, the governor had to inaugurate the function to continue. The governor did not read the written text but opted to go extempore to respond to the earlier speakers. At one moment, he personally addressed Ragesh, telling him that it was a rebuttal of his comments[2].

Irfan Habib tried to prevent Governer-6

He differentiated between Rajya sabha MP and Lok sabha MP: “As a person who entered Parliament at the age of 26, I cannot but react when confronted with political issues,” he said[3]. “I became a governor by taking an oath to protect the Constitution and speak for it. I have quit positions when I felt the Constitution was under threat.” “Please don’t give too much importance to them. Please take your places,” he told those who had stood up in protest. “You have no right to create violence or disturbance. You can’t silence me with protests. You can’t shout me down. You have come with an agenda,” Khan said, but by then he could barely be heard over the slogans. “I came to know about the harassment that (former) Pakistan cricketer Danish Kaneria faced because he is a Hindu,” he said, alluding to retired fast bowler Shoaib Akhtar’s allegation that Kaneria had been a victim of discrimination from some team-mates[4].

Irfan Habib tried to prevent Governer-4

Irfan Habib became belligerent moving towards the Governor: “I sent a renowned Malayali writer on my behalf to call those who were protesting, for a discussion, but they said that they were here to protest and not for discussion. So I said that when you shut the doors of discussion then it creates an environment of violence and hate followed by a sentence of Gandhiji[5]. The moment I said this, Irfan Habibji got up from his seat and wanted to charge me,” Khan told ANI here.”My ADC stopped him and then he (Habib) went behind the sofa and came from the other side. He was stopped by my security, ADC and others. Since he stood on the stage, some protesters created a ruckus there,” Khan added[6].

© Vedaprakash

01-01-2020

Irfan Habib tried to prevent Governer-5

[1] The Wire, At History Congress, Irfan Habib Leads Dissent Against Kerala Governor’s Defence of CAA, Dec.29, 2019.

[2] https://thewire.in/politics/kerala-governor-arif-mohammed-khan-historian-irfan-habib-caa

[3] The Telegraph, At history meet, CAA backlash in Kannur University, By K.M. Rakesh in Bangalore, Published 29.12.19, 5:06 AMUpdated 29.12.19, 5:06 AM

[4] http://telegraphindia.com/india/at-history-meet-caa-backlash-in-kannur-university/cid/1731173

[5] Business Standard, Irfan Habib tried to charge me; was defending law which is my duty: Arif Mohammad, ANI | Politics First Published: Sun, December 29 2019. 21:53 IST, Last Updated at December 29, 2019 22:10 IST.

[6] http://business-standard.com/article/news-ani/irfan-habib-tried-to-charge-me-was-defending-law-which-is-my-duty-arif-mohammad-119122900753_1.html

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

October 31, 2013

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

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

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

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

Habib speaks at AMU 2010

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

Habib speaks at Sahmat 2004

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

They include –

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

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

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

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

Irfan Habib twitter

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

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

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

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

 

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

Vedaprakash

31-10-2013


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

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

October 16, 2010

Ramajanmabhumi-Babarimasjid, evidences and Court or

Hisorians as witnesses and Sunni Wakf Board Experts!

Vedaprakash

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The eminent historians as witnesses of Muslims in the Allahabad case: The eminent historians, historical experts  and leftist manufacturers never bother about their secular credentials.  It is not known as to why these coteries should always support for the Masjid or Muslim cause. Ironically, the following have been the witnesses of the case in question, which is criticised by them:

Sl.No Witness no Name of the witness
1 Witness No. 63 R.S. Sharma
2 Witness No. 64 Suraj Bhan
3 Witness No. 65 D.N. Jha[19]
4 Witness No. 66 Romila Thapar
5 Witness No. 70 Irfan Habib
6 Witness No. 72 B.N. Pandey
7 Witness No. 95 K.M. Shrimali
8 Witness No. 99 Satish Chandra
9 Witness No. 102 Gyanendra Pandey

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vedaprakash

16-10-2010


 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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