Posts Tagged ‘Romila Thapar’

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 10th National Conference of ABISY was held at Mysore from December 24th to 26th 2015 on “Women in Indian culture: From ancient to Modern” (3)

December 29, 2015

The 10th National Conference of ABISY was held at Mysore from December 24th to 26th 2015 on “Women in Indian culture: From ancient to Modern” (3).

RSS briefed about the conference earlier - Indian Express, Aug 17, 2015

ABISY, RSS and women: In August itself, the RSS briefed about the conference[1] as could be noted from the Indian express. From December 24 to 26, Akhil Bharatiya Itihas Sankalan Yojana (ABISY) will hold a three-day conference in Mysore, where around 1,000 delegates will discuss “Women in Indian culture: through the ages”. “We will discuss their strength and their importance in various phases of Indian history. Women in Rig Vedic times enjoyed a high status in society but due to several reasons their status began to decline,” said Balmukund, an RSS pracharak working with ABISY. Sources say an RSS meeting in Nainital discussed the gender ratio in RSS affiliates (see chart). “Representation of women is gradually increasing in our organisations. At the Ahmedabad conclave, we will discuss several aspects of women empowerment and their role in our organisations,” said Mahila Samanway chief Geeta Tayi Gunde, who coordinates among the affiliates on women’s issues. Though RSS shakhas don’t allow women, a separate organisation called Rashtra Sevika Samiti holds women’s shakhas on the lines of RSS shakhas[2]. But, RSS has been having dialogue with Christians and Muslims. However, they are not able to counter negative reorting of media, whenever, it is mentioned that they are against so-and-so and so on[3].

Aggressive left historiansThe aggressive domination of the Leftist and Muslim historians: The excessive, extreme and unnecessary domination of the leftists and Muslim groups over the proceedings of IHC has been resented, questioned and examined by neutral historians, archaeologists and other connected experts many times. The way they have been projecting the medieval and modern periods and suppressing the ancient period and also the interpretation of national, social, religious and political issues, problems and controversies in a biased manner much against the interests of common Indians[4]. The IHC coetrie have been authoritatively imposing such one-sided view for the last 60 years, as could be noted not only from the yearly proceedings volumes, but also their interviews, views and comments registered in the media on various occassions. Ironically the charges of so-called elite, eminent and emeritus hisorians have been proved baseless even at the level of Supreme Court, when their own engaged experts filed petitions alleging the saaffronization of educational curriculum, academic and social institutions, the Hon’ble Court ruled out dismissing them. Romila Thapar agitated and openly questioned the judgment dubbing as “Hindutwa judgment” and declared that they would be appealing against the judgment, but noting happened. So in a democaratic country, all views have to be accommodated, naturally, the so-called rightist, nationalist and hindutwa views also be provided space equally. As the dominant leftist and Muslim coetrie does not relish this, the ideological struggle has now been turned into political one and for which they are responsible. This was revealed even during the IHC-2014 jeld at JNU taking the issue of “glorification of Nehruvian era”[5].

marxist-historian-work-together-ideologicallyABISY, RSS and IHC: RSS and IHC were having ideological struggle over Indin history, historiography and methodoloy for the last three decades. While the IHC dominant groups have been moving ahead with the current topics, recent issues and contemporary problems, the rightist, nationalist and patriotic counterparts have not even realized their exisence. Most of them have been almost The IHC ideological bandwagon and aggressive coetrie many times do not recongize peer group experts, only because of the reason that they might be against their ideology. Thus, many prominent, professional and secialized historians, archaeologists, epigraphists, numismaticians and others were / are never invited or allowed to attend the conference by their own “rogue mannerism” but showing off as “expertized professionalism”.  Though RSS has been trying to counter them through ABISY and BISS, their heads, zonal heads and members have been –

  1. Not matching with the professionalism of the leftist and Muslim ideologists.
  2. The vigour started in 1980s died down with changed persons heading[6].
  3. Instead of “offensive”, “defensive” position is taken in the match, however, there have been some individual fighters, but they are ignored by the rightists.
  4. In spite of the judicial victory[7], they could not continue the academic struggle with proficiency, professionalism and practice[8].
  5. inexperienced in preseting papers, if at all, they come forward to present.
  6. read and understand Indian history any perspective.
  7. Ameteurish, unprofessional and incompetent in dealing with their ideological opponents.
  8. Dormant because of excessive patriotism and refused to look at other ideologists in right perspective.
  9. Ignore, sideline and even disregard the exerienced who come to join, work with and get along the ABISY and BISS.
  10. Active only when BJP or NDA is in power and latent during other periods.

Unless, the rightists do not revaluate, reassess and reorganize themselves, they cannot win the battle.

Nehruvian era, IHC, ICHR and RSS (2014): Even as Madan Mohan Malaviya and Shyamaprasad Mookerjee continue to make news headlines, Jawaharlal Nehru dominated a day in New Delhi where historians praised his role, at an event that was sponsored among others by the state governments of Kerala, Karnataka and Assam, all Congress-led administrations. The three-day long Platinum Jubilee edition of the Indian History Congress (IHC), which concluded in JNU last year, also counts the Union government bodies ICHR andUGC among its main sponsors. The IHC Association, which organizes the meet, had set a broad direction for the annual event with the theme ‘Humanism, Tolerance and Reason: Defining the Contours of History’. But two panels under the auspices of the left-leaning JNU and Aligarh Historians’ Society (AHS) expressly focused on discussions and paper presentations concerning the Nehruvian Era and its current relevance, and the past and present forms of inequality in India, respectively[9]. But Dr Rakesh Batabyal, Local Secretary of the IHC, said there was nothing much political to read into the event. “We had written to all state governments for sponsorship and received from these three. Also, the HRD Ministry through UGC and ICHR has also sponsored the event, so there is nothing political about it,” he said. Batabyal pointed out that ICHR head Y. Sudharshan Rao – an appointee of the BJP-led Central government[10] – had also been invited and he attended the event. “The reason for focusing on Nehru was on account of the commemoration of the ex-PM’s Golden death anniversary. Also, we have voices from the economic right to left, it was an open field, he added. He also conceded, though, that finding historians from cultural right was difficult, and thus no presence could be seen,” he said. On its part, the RSS-affiliated history research organization was not too impressed with the event. “We used to go for the event in the past, but now none of our office bearers goes. The IHCA is a communist-leaning organization,” Mukul Pandey (sic), General Secretary of the ABISY, told ET[11].

© Vedaprakash

29-12-2015

[1] New Indian Express, Gender balance: RSS working to get more women in its ranks, Written by Shyamlal Yadav | New Delhi | Updated: August 17, 2015 2:27 pm.

[2] http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/gender-balance-across-organs-rss-looks-to-get-more-women-in-its-ranks/

[3] The ABISY is working on several projects to rewrite history. Last year the outfit organised a function at National Museum to pay homage to the “last Hindu emperor of Delhi Hemu Vikramaditya”. From December 24 to 26, ABISY will hold a three-day conference in Mysore, where around 1,000 delegates will discuss “Women in Indian Culture: Through the Ages.” – See more at: http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/tatya-tope-rss-linked-outfit-backs-descendants-theory-on-his-death/#sthash.KZjgannq.dpuf

[4] The Proceeding volumes sprak the truth and the papers chosen to include expose their bias, prejudice and hatred against others. Many times, very good researched papers, eventhough recommended by the sectional presidents after much appreciated discussion, were not included brcause of such professional, ideological and regional bias.

[5] The Economic Times, Historians praise Jawaharlal Nehru at annual Indian History Congress Association meet,AKSHAY DESHMANE, ET Bureau Dec 30, 2014, 09.33PM IST.

[6] During the New Delhi session, many of the faithfuls simply sent the life membership money with the note, “As per the directions of Mananiya Moropant Pingely, I hereby send the fees”. Alerted and bewildered by them, the ruling IHC bandwagon simply rejected their membership. However, both had been proved wrong, as the Delhi High Court decided differently, when they went to court.

[7] The so-called “Hindutwa” judgment consequent to the NCERT issue and coupled with “saffronization of academic curriculum”, the rightwing ideologists did not pursue the issue professionally.

[8] Note below what Balamkund says about it! . On its part, the RSS-affiliated history research organization was not too impressed with the event. “We used to go for the event in the past, but now none of our office bearers goes. The IHCA is a communist-leaning organization,” Mukul Pandey (sic), General Secretary of the ABISY, told ET.

[9] IHC dominat ideologists manipulate the session by bringing some unassuming paper presenters to force their views on others. This they have been doing in the case of RJM controversy also, making one fellow to present a paper “Ayodhya was in Afganistan”!

[10] This way of reporting has also been biased, because during the non-BJP regimes, the members were only the “appointees” of Communist, Muslim and Congress parties. In fact, the media should be balanced enough to address the issues properly without any pre-conceived notions.

[11] http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2014-12-30/news/57528747_1_ichr-jnu-event

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/