Posts Tagged ‘Irfan Habib’

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 with agenda! [3]

January 2, 2020

The 80th session of Indian History Congress held at Kannur University – Highly politicized and spoiled show – The Governor targeted with agenda! [3]

IHC Kannur politicized with rowdyism

The ugly political background of the present IHC: The background of Kannur and politics have to be known, probed and understood by historians. IHC has been conducting its annual tamasha only in Communist, congress and Mohammedan dominated areas since 1980s. It is a fact that those government sponsor and grant money, so that their political ideologies are nurtured, percolated through papers and getting published in the proceedings. This is how the academic proceedings have been manipulated. Instead of uniting youth, they have been doing their worst to divide them based on communalized ideology, ideologized polity and politicized pseudo-secularism. None could imagine that Ambedkar did not know secularism, just because, it was inserted later. Therefore, the amendment of the provisions of the Constitution according to the existing exigency has been quite normal, whereas, the opposition parties have been trying to run riot on one or other pretext.

Kannur political and communal murders Graphics-4

Organizing Committee formed with the CM and other political leaders: The 80th edition of Indian History Congress would be held at Kannur University in the last week of December 2019[1].

  1. Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan and
  2. Minister of State for External Affairs V Muralidharan were elected as the chief patrons of its organising committee[2].
  3. The university’s Vice-Chancellor Gopinath Raveendran is its chairman.
  4. District panchayath President K V Sumesh,
  5. Syndicate member Dr V P P Musthafa, PK Sreemathi,
  6. Pro VC Dr PT Raveendran,
  7. Syndicate members Dr John Joseph,
  8. Advocate P Santhosh Kumar and
  9. Binju Kandakkai were elected as other members of the committee[3].
  10. Syndicate member A Nishanth,
  11. historian Dr C Balan,
  12. University Union chairperson Sisira TK were elected as conveners.
  13. Dr P Mohandas was elected as local secretary and
  14. Dr Manjula Poyil was elected as Treasurer.

Apart from them, cultural leaders, representatives of the people, political party leaders, research scholars, journalists, teachers and students are also part of the committee[4]. Pro VC Dr PT Raveendran presided over the meeting. VC Dr Gopinath Raveendran spoke about the importance of the event.

  1. Ports Minister Ramachandran Kadannappally was the chief guest.
  2. District panchayath president KV Sumesh,
  3. corporation councillor Lisha Deepak,
  4. Dr VPP Mushtafa, Biju Kandakkai, A Nishanth, Dr John Joseph,
  5. CPM district secretary MV Jayarajan,
  6. CPI district secretary P Santhosh Kumar,
  7. IUML district general secretary Abdul Karim Cheleri, Dr Manjula Poil and Dr C Balan participated in the meeting held.

Thus, the Marxist, Leninist, and all communist categories, Mohammedan and “secular” groups have ganged up, obviously to do something.

Kannur political and communal murders Graphics-3

IUML and communists engaged in poltical murders in Kannur and other places: It is interesting to note how IHC is regularly dominated with politicians, that too, with fundamentalist Mohammedans.  Just in May 2019, when CPM Kannur district secretary M V Jayarajan demanded that Muslim women who queue up in polling booths should remove their face veil, Abdul Karim Cheleri said the communal mindset of the CPM has been exposed through Jayarajan’s statement[5]. LDF candidate P K Sreemathi too supported the demand[6]. “Jayarajan had raised the issue to prevent bogus voting. It’s not an anti-religious statement, said Sreemathi[7]. However, IUML does not want others to interfere with their religious sanctions[8]. Moreover, for IHC how these politicians are coming together is not, as otherwise, their party cadres have been involved in killing each other. Just two months back, the same Abdul Karim Cheleri accused CPI (M) involved in killing their cadre accusing another Jayarajan[9]. Isahak, 38, was allegedly hacked to death at Tanur by a group of unidentified assailants with suspected links to the ruling Left[10]. Meanwhile, the IUML alleged that there was a CPI(M) conspiracy behind the attack.[11] “Former Kannur district secretary P Jayarajan came to the area a few days ago and held a meeting where some of the culprits also took part,” a Youth League leader alleged.

Kannur political and communal murders Graphics-1

How K.K.N.Kurupp narrates about the murderous Kannur heritage: The culture of bloodshed in Kannur, which continues even today despite ritualistic political handshakes to give peace a chance, is probably as old as the folk traditions of the land, its myths and history[12]. From the myths of theyyams that glorified the subaltern gods to the Vadakkanpattu (ballads) and the revolt against the British by Pazhassi Raja, there are plenty of stories where people shed blood with pride. But in the age of democracy why is this place obsessed with martyrdom? Is it because a martyr is a political investment? From the murder of RSS leader Vadikkal Ramakrishnan in Thalassery in 1968 (considered to be the first political murder) to killing of E Santhosh (another RSS activist) in January 2017, nearly 186 people have been killed here over the past five decades. The north Malabar region always had a tradition of violence right from the days of feudalism, said historian K K N Kurup[13]. “If the reason is politics, why is it not there in other parts of India or Kerala? Why they practice this camouflage battle strategy here only?“ he asked. He felt that this was the continuation of a tribal character though their act of vendetta is political in nature. “If African tribes involve in fights to assert their racial supremacy, here it is for political supremacy. Both reflect the same attitude. I feel they have the element of the `suicidal fighter’ in this age of democracy ,“ he said.

Kannur political and communal murders Graphics-2

K.K.N.Kurupp – refuted for his linking traditional pattus and dances to violence: However, it is wrong to link the gory culture in politics with Vadakkanpattu, said kalaripayattu exponent P Meenakshi Amma. “The fights narrated in Vadakkanpattu had a basic element of ethics. In the political battlefield, bloodshed is mostly an act of vendetta. They get involved in it because they have no knowledge about the tradition of kalaripayattu and Vadakkanpattu,“ she said. But this political violence cannot be isolated from the folk tradition of the place that often told the story of the lower-caste victims, said researcher T Sasidharan, who heads the political science department of Kannur S N College. He had exhaustively researched the history of political violence in Kannur and wrote a book titled `Radical Politics of Kannur’. “When we look at the socioeconomic aspect of the murders and violence in Kannur, it can be seen that nearly 65% of the martyrs, irrespective of politics, belong to the thiyya community. A majority of them are economically-backward,“ he said. Though the murder of Ramakrishnan is considered to be the beginning of political murders in Kannur, the roots of political violence began with the emergence of Praja Socialist Party (PSP) in the 1950s under P R Kurup, he said. There were clashes between PSP and the Communist Party in Panur and with the disintegration of PSP in the late 60s, the violence took a new turn when its workers joined Jana Sangh.

Jayaraj with Madani poster-IHC
It was only the political competition between the Communists and the Mohammedans: Though political rivalry is said to the reason for the violence here, the political character is fast vanishing and `quotation culture’ is making inroads, said K P Mohanan, a local political observer who has closely followed the culture of bloodshed in Kannur. Though murders have been an ongoing process, incidents such as the attack on CPM district secretary P Jayarajan on August 25, 1999 worsened the situation. This ultimately led to the murder of Yuva Morcha leader KT Jayakrishnan on December 1, 1999, and a spate of murders followed, he added. “It is a fact that Kannur shows a tribal character when it comes to murder, and that is why if one person is killed, his political tribe target the rival elsewhere. But, the tragedy is that quite often the poor working-class people coming home after their day’s work are the victims,“ he said. Incidentally, while murders in the past took place in broad daylight, now it is committed at night and this has given rise to the impression that some `third parties’ and quotation gangs ¬ without any political commitment ¬ have replaced the political warriors, claimed residents.

© Vedaprakash

01-01-2020

Pinarayee with Madani poster-IHC

[1] Indian Express, Kannur University to host Indian History Congress in December, Published: 24th September 2019

[2] http://edexlive.com/news/2019/sep/24/kannur-university-to-host-indian-history-congress-in-december-8326.html

[3] The Hindu, Organising panel formed for history congress, STAFF REPORTER, KANNUR, SEPTEMBER 26, 2019 02:01 IST, UPDATED: SEPTEMBER 26, 2019 02:01 IST.

[4] http://thehindu.com/news/national/kerala/organising-panel-formed-for-history-congress/article29513641.ece

[5] Indian Express, MV Jayarajan’s comment on face veil courts controversy, Published: 19th May 2019 03:34 AM | Last Updated: 19th May 2019 03:34 AM

[6] http://newindianexpress.com/states/kerala/2019/may/19/m-v-jayarajans-comment-on-face-veil-courts-controversy-1978790.html

[7] The Hindu, Jayarajan’s remark triggers row, SPECIAL CORRESPONDENTKANNUR , MAY 18, 2019 18:38 IST, UPDATED: MAY 18, 2019 18:38 IST.

[8] http://thehindu.com/news/national/kerala/jayarajans-remark-triggers-row/article27172605.ece

[9] Business Standard, Five held in connection with IUML worker’s killing, Press Trust of India | Malappuram , Last Updated at October 25, 2019 20:35 IST

[10] http://business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/five-held-in-connection-with-iuml-worker-s-killing-119102501261_1.html

[11] Economic Times, Politics of violence: Kannur witnessed 186 Murders, TNN, Updated: Mar 08, 2017, 01.05 PM IST

[12] http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/politics-of-violence-kannur-witnessed-186-murders/articleshow/57532865.cms

The 80th session of Indian History Congress held at Kannur University – Highly politicized and spoiled show [1]

January 1, 2020

The 80th session of Indian History Congress held at Kannur University – Highly politicized and spoiled show [1]

Kannur university hosted IHC

Delegate fees, accommodation etc: The 80th session of Indian History Congress was held at the Kannur University Campus. On 27th itself, many delegates, evidently from long distance, from northern states started arriving by various trains.  For varied reasons, there was a delay at every point and slowly, the registration went on and then, they were accommodated at different lodges and hotels situated near and as well as 30 to 40 kms away from the Kannur University campus. Rs 3500/- was charged and many felt, it was excessive. The kit was not given, as they were not ready. Moreover, the accommodation given was not satisfactory. It is evident that they were impartial in allotting accommodation to delegates and thus tried to confuse with fee structure and other conditions as follows. This is mentioned because the circulars of the IHC had threatened the delegates with different circulars. One read as follows[1]: “IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENTS REGARDING LOCAL ARRANGEMENTS”:

  1. Last date for receipt of Delegate Fee: The last date for the receipt of delegate fee (Rs 3,500) is 1 st December, 2019 by DD, and 20/12/2019 by online payment. Delegates are requested not to delay payments of delegate fee beyond the last date because accommodation will be arranged on the basis of the delegate fees already received. If any delegate, despite this plea, arrives at the venue without payment of delegate fee in time, he or she will have to find accommodation on his or her own, while paying us Rs. 1500/- for the kit and meals. Alternatively, the member can pay Rs.5000/- as delayed delegate fee, provided we can find accommodation, without guaranteeing it[2].
  2. Delegate Fee Remittance: Delegate fee of Rs. 3500/- can be paid via the online registration cum payment link https://forms.gle/gZTQf6eveRrf8oDU6 (credit card, debit card, RTGS, NEFT, Paytm) or by Demand Draft. If any delegate would prefer to make his or her own arrangements for accommodation, and only requires the kit and the food facilities, the payment will be Rs. 1500/-, as stated above.
  3. All payments must be in the name of “Local Treasurer” payable at SBI, Fort Road Branch, Kannur-1, if you are paying by Demand Draft; you can fill the online form and insert your Demand Draft details, and send the DD to the address given below with your membership no., full name, and other details. Or, you may fill in the form sent with the Local Secretary’s circular and speed-post or courier a copy of it with your Demand Draft to “Dr P. Mohandas, Local Secretary, 80th Session, Indian History Congress Organizing Committee, HRDC Buildings, Kannur University Campus, Kannur 670002 – KERALA.”
  4. Please do not forget to mention your name, mobile number, and membership number at the back of the DD. The Local Secretary will NOT accept cheque payments of any kind, including multi-city cheques. We also strongly recommend the online payment option.
  5. The confirmation of the payment of the delegate fee must reach the Local Secretary not later than 28 November 2019.
  6. Reception: The Reception Desk in the Kannur University campus, Thavakkara, Kannur, Kerala, will be active from the morning of 27th December, 2019, to 28th December afternoon. The Help Desk at Kannur Railway Station and Kannur Airport will be active from December 27th morning to 28th afternoon. While transport will not be provided to the University, the volunteers will be at the Station and Airport to help arrange for transport.

All these show that how they have been very meticulous in collecting money from the delegates, but, they were not sincere in reciprocating by giving reasonably good accommodation, food etc., as could be known from the subsequent events.

Kannur university hosted IHC-5,000 fees

The academic session, paper presentation etc: On 27th, after registration done from morning, the kit was not given. When the delegates came for dinner by 7 pm, message was sent to all to bring “food token” coming for dinner by 7 pm. Their timing was horrible, perhaps, within a minute all 3000 delegates get their kits and come there with token for food. Naturally, many delegates did not get their kit-bag, as some of them left their fee-receipts in the rooms themselves. Initially, the people at the “Food-tent” were adamant in their attitude by insisting tokens. One person was not agreeing with the on-line registration with accommodation details and other messages received in cell-phone and shown to him. He was so stubborn and posed and as a strict disciplinarian, but, later he was allowing others who did not pay delegate fees also. Coming to paper presentation also, they were not definite about, as no “list of papers” was given in the kit. When the asked on 30th morning, surprisingly, the declared that all copies were exhausted. Really, it is a wonder how thousands of copies could vanish. The fact could be that purposely, they printed fewer copies. Thus, the brought out one[3] “Supplementary paper list.” Then, another “Supplementary list-2” was released[4]. Then, “Final list” was released[5]. So, it is not known, why this confusion and all. It is evident that the person-in-charge of papers received had not done his job properly. Yet, the sectional presidents were harassing the paper presenters without following the sl.no.order.

IHC, the kit

The so-called kit: The kit is nothing but a small cloth bag containing a pencil and sharpener with a scribbling pad. Of course a souvenir and a booklet “Sheikh Zainuddin Makhdoom II and Tuhfat ul Mujahideen – A Revisit to a Historical Text: After 437 years” of Dr K.K.N.Kurup. There was a program card about inauguration.

  1. The booklets of addresses sectional presidents,
  2. list of papers,
  3. pen and
  4. other required materials were not found.

Really, it is surprising that for payment of Rs.3500/-, the kit given had been in this way. Moreover, that cloth bag also “complementary” from one “………………….college…………” and Yono by SBI. Therefore, it is not known how this type of kit was conceived and finalized to be distributed to the delegates.

Kannur university hosted IHC, proceeding volume

About the proceeding volumes: Their circular declared, “It is expected that the printed volume of the Proceedings of the 79th session (Barkatullah University, Bhopal) will be ready (both in the form of a printed copy and CD) for free distribution among members such as were on rolls at the 79th session) at the forthcoming (80th ) session at the Kannur University, Kerala”. However, the CD was not given. Old copies of previous proceeding volumes were brought and dumped near registration counter. Actually, many life members are not attending regularly, but, they are not getting their volumes. Earlier, if Rs 20/-. 40/- etc., were sent by M.O, the life members used to get the volumes by Registered book post. Therefore, it is not known, how the volumes are sold, without giving copies to life members.

Kannur university hosted IHC, food not upto the mark

The food provided to the delegates: Though, the organizers asked about “Food” veg or non-veg, it was evident that they did not care about the “veg” food takers. When six or seven tables were with non-veg items, only one table was with veg-food. The veg-food quality was very normal and the items were not prepared properly. The sambar and rasam were not up to the mark. The items were too salty, sour and nor palatable also. As usual, the non-veg historians invaded veg also, looted and the veg-historians had to keep quiet. However, hundreds of historians and delegates were shouting for “Azadi / freedom” for many things. Here, they were contradicting and violating the rights of others. Above all, that “dictator” was worried and particular in asking for token!

Kannur university hosted IHC, office barriers

The attitude of the office barriers, their engaged volunteers etc: Any simple onlooker could notice that the IHC engaged volunteers, that too, young girls had been so indifferent, callous and uninterested with the delegates of aged, coming from different places etc. They made others waiting, or going from counter to counter without any reason. Shockingly, nearly 50 such volunteers were sitting in a row with tables and chairs. The two young ladies were asking the delegates to wait for 10 minutes for every 20 and 30 minutes. They claimed that the registration had to be done online by them. Thus, the delegates were made to stand there for nearly two hours and then they started sending messages through phones. However, one had to wait for another message for confirmation and then for accommodation. The accommodation also was not provided, though, they claimed, it would come as message. After asking a dozen times only, they provided and then again had to wait for vehicle, as the places were 20 to 30 kms away from the university campus.

© Vedaprakash

31-12-2019

Kannur university hosted IHC-members etc

[1] Based on the circular issued by IHC that can be downloaded from here to verify – http://indianhistorycongress.com/uploads/IHC_2nd_Circular_2019.pdf

[2] Note the language used for the delegates coming. When IHC changed venues , the delegates lost thousands of rupees in booking and cancelling tickets. Ironically, if any concession was availed, no refund would be available……

[3] Supplementary list of papers,

http://indianhistorycongress.com/uploads/SUPPLEMENTARY_LIST.pdf

[4] Supplementary list -2 of papers,

http://www.indianhistorycongress.com/uploads/Supplementary_List-2.pdf

[5] Final list –

http://indianhistorycongress.com/uploads/final_list_of_papers.pdf

How Irfan Habib as an “eminent-elite” historian could attend the political meet conducted under the guise of “Convention for People’s Unity Against Communalism”?

November 3, 2013

How Irfan Habib as an “eminent-elite” historian could attend the political meet conducted under the guise of “Convention for People’s Unity Against Communalism”?

Fall of Comrades - Irfan Habib a witness 2013

Political and secular / communal nexus proved: The Weekly Organ of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), has duly acknowledged the services of the Comrade Irfan Habib and provided details as follows: “The fact that the Convention was inaugurated by one of India’s most renowned historians and accomplished scholar, Prof Irfan Habib, by itself sent the message that the unique evolution and growth of the `idea of India’ cannot be allowed to be thwarted by the communal forces, but the people only could not identify as to who are communal and secular[1]. It added that, “Eminent historian Professor Irfan Habib presided over the Convention. Addressing the Convention, he stressed the importance of coming together of all the leaders with influence on crores of people, on a single platform against communalism. He recalled how the communal forces killed Mahatma Gandhi for trying to see that communal amity is maintained and warned that these very forces are raising their head again”, so he becomes “leader of leaders” to address and advice[2]. That is ironically, the Comrades fell down on the stage in front of everybody!

Convention for People’s Unity Against Communalism.2

Secularism versus Communalism: So it is evident that again, the so-called debate of “Secularism-communalism” has started. Irfan Habib himself has been accused of behaving like “Communal Muslim” by none other than his old friend and Comrade M G S Narayanan. These two eminent, elite, renowned historians and accomplished scholars had fought with each other for many “historical issues” within and outside ICHR, IHC etc. In spite of their 100% pure secular brand standards, why they should have questioned the other about integrity, honesty, uprightness etc., in handing “historical affairs”. ICHR Controversy 2004 University today When they could not keep their things clean without any controversies, how they could join corrupt politicians and sit with them on the stage? None questioned how that one of the eminent, elite, renowned historians and accomplished scholars with their 100% pure secular brand standards should share with Mullayam Singh Yadav, and other politicians charged with many corruption cases?

MGS Narayanan ICHR sacked Dec 2003

Is it correct for Irfan Habib to inaugurate, attend and lecture at the Third-Front Conference: These elite, eminent and belligerent historians always cry that history should not be polluted on any account, no communalism, casteism, racism, sectarianism, medievalism,  parochialism and so on. They have been criticizing, condemning and even disparaging rightist, right wing, R S S, V H P, B J P and others as they spread communalism, communal virus, communal hatred and so on. During the IHC sessions, they have been going on posing as secular, balanced, unbiased, historian doing good for the country.

Convention for People’s Unity Against Communalism-section of the audience

Historio-politicians and politico-historians should be made accountable: In the case of politicians, now people want that they should be sanitized, cleaned and disciplined with various Acts, Rules etc. Whenever, any politician comes under the cloud, he is asked to keep him away from the politics and then come back, when, he is given clean chit. In the same way, why these blatantly political historians siding and hobnobbing with the politicians, acting agents and witnesses of communal organizations and Wakf Boards should not be asked to get out of the forums like ICHR, IHC etc., and then come, if they are cleared off of their acts of violation, contempt court proceedings, misappropriation charges etc[3].

convention-on-peoples-unity-against-communalism-from distance

Vedaprakash

02-11-2013


[1] People’s Democracy(Weekly Organ of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), Hugely Successful Convention against Communalism, Vol. XXXVII, No. 44, November 03, 2013
http://pd.cpim.org/2013/1103_pd/11032013_edit.html

[2] People’s Democracy, Clarion Call for Defeating Communal Forces, CONVENTION FOR PEOPLE’S UNITY AND AGAINST COMMUNALISM,(Weekly Organ of the Communist Party of India (Marxist)
Vol. XXXVII, No. 44, November 03, 2013, http://pd.cpim.org/2013/1103_pd/11032013_convention.html

[3] See Universitiestoday website for more details.

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/