A.M.U.: Restoration of Minority Status; a deception
Khat main usne alijanab kyon likha
Is main dhoka zaroor hai sufi
After long four years, Prof. Azis startled all, by constituting a committee of his trusted men, to take up the Court case pending before the Supreme Court since 2006, on priorty basis. The Members of the Committee who are novice to the issue as they were neither associated with the long drawn battle in the Courts nor at any point of time and in any way, they are involved. The members are;
Mr. Moosa Raza ex-bureaucrat, new find, who was never associated with A.M.U, so is Mr. Khawaja Shahid serving bureaucrat and a local with high local stakes, Mr. P.A. Inamdar a builder who runs educational institutions on commercial lines and a beneficiary, VC’s blind supporter in all his misdeeds in the last two years as E.C. Member; Mr. Kamal Farooqui, the aspirant for Hony. Treasurer’s post, a sort of careerist, Mr. Kazmi, lawyer, University Council in Allahabad High Court, and Prof. M. Shabbir, Deptt. of Law A.M.U, both of them are not conversant with the essential details and intricacies of the matter.
This new Committee, besides being incompetent to handle the matter properly, is out-rightly un-authorized as the VC has no such powers, specially when there is a high-powered Committee existing which was constituted by the E.C in 2008 under the Chairmanship of Justice Saghir Ahmad with members like Mr. Zafaryab Jilani and Mr. Waseem Ahmad, who are conversant with the matter.
This E.C Committee may be revived rather strengthened by co-opting Mr. Saiyed Hamid senior most Alig and ex-VC, Mr. Naseem Ahmad ex-VC, Prof. Faizan Mustafa ex-Registrar A.M.U, Mr. S. Shahabuddin and Mr. Anil Dhawan, Senior Advocate who pleaded the case in the High Court as well as Supreme Court,even if Prof. Azis is not pleased with the names.
If the intentions are noble, this is the only way out for the University otherwise, it is merely to hood wink the masses because Prof. has of late, came under severe criticism in this matter.
The Teachers Association, AMU severely criticised the VC and demanded the constitution of the committee (in their usual ignorance that there already existed a E.C committee), removal of Ejaz Maqbool, University Council and reinstating of the Dy. Registrar, (who was reinstated without holding a Inquiry, proves his innocence and VC’s drama).
That the University standing Council, failed to appear on three consecutive hearings before the Supreme Court in February and March, 2010 (Hearings held after four years), on the direction of the VC. Luckily the case was not dismissed. This calls for investigation to unearth the truth. However, to save himself the all powerful and reckless Prof. Azis, shifted the blame on the dealing Dy. Registrar and was suspended, who is totally innocent as he kept the VC and Registrar posted with the developments on day to day basis.
That the VC has been persistently harping on extending benefit to Muslims at the proposed Campuses/Centres under Section 5(2)(c) of the AMU Act in spite of the truth known to Prof. Azis and all, that the operation of this provision has been suspended by the Supreme Court in 2006 and as such when AMU is not within its powers to offer consessions to Muslim, how these proposed Centres could possibly offer concessions.
Not only this, this very Shri Azis has declared in no unequivocal terms that there shall be no quota and admission shall be made on the basis of open All India Competition. What more is required to confirm that no concession can be extended to Muslims? and slogan by the VC and all is a farce.
Despite these hard realities, vested interests amongst Muslims, like Maulana Asrarul Haq Qasmi and several others in Murshidabad and Kishanganj seem convinced with the rhetoric of the Hon’ble VC. Shame on them. They are blaming on the contrary, those who are in the interest of the University and the Muslim, possing the Centres which are against the AMU Act and shall meet the fact before the Court of law, the reservation policies in different States met.
Similarly, people are convinced with Prof. Azis when in a press statement he tried to convince rather misleads the public that he shall fully cooperate with the ongoing Visitors Inquiry. What is the need for such a public statement in the first place and secondly, after meddling with the process in whatever way possible to side track and delay the Inquiry report which has already taken one year. His intentions could only be believed if he quits office during the pendency of the Inquiry. On the contrary, he is going full throttle, rightly or wrongly, mostly wrongly, to commence teaching at Murshidabad to mislead Muslim masses there and to serve the master, Shri Pranab Mukharjee (Murshidabad his constituency), who alone can bail him out of the mess he is in. This matter of establishing Special Centres (now Regional Centres, child’s play) the MHRD is fully supporting Prof. Azis disregarding the legality of the matter and AMU residential and Minority character. Big game is on with disastrous fallen outs for us.
The vry idea of establishing Campuses or Centres or whatever mooted out with the sole intention to benefit Muslims backed by Govt. too. But with suspension of operation of the concerned statutory provision in the AMU Act by the Supreme Court and the declaration of Prof. Azis himself under the existing situation that there shall be no quota and admissions shall be made on the basis of All India Entrance Tests; it all fell like a pack of cards. Where is the remotest possibility of offering any concessions to Muslims and therefore, the need to establish Campuses etc?
Elections are near Congress has big stakes and may continue befooling and misleading Muslims at least till then and therefore the exercise is on, at full swing, speaks loud and clear that the intentions are not noble. A big game is on, without regards of the disastrous fall-outs on AMU, threatening its Residential and Minority Character directly.
Kr. Hashmat Ali Khan
Advocate (1953)
Ex-member, AMU Court
Aligarh
Friday, July 16, 2010
Taliban Style of Justice and Campus Ban for Lifetime by Aligarh Muslim University (AMU)
Adil Hossain
reply-to TheAligarhForum@yahoogroups.com
to worldofaligs@yahoogroups.com,
TheAligarhForum@yahoogroups.com,
AligarhNetwork@yahoogroups.com,
voiceofaligs@yahoogroups.com
date Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 6:53 PM
subject [TheAligarhForum] Taliban Style of Justice and Campus Ban for Lifetime [3 Attachments]
mailing list Filter messages from this mailing list
mailed-by returns.groups.yahoo.com
signed-by yahoogroups.com
unsubscribe Unsubscribe from this mailing-list
hide details 6:53 PM (54 minutes ago)
Everybody must have read the Aesop’s fable of The Wolf and the Lamb. First the Wolf accused the lamb that he grossly insulted him last year. The lamb replied that he was not born then. The Wolf put another charge that he fed from his pasture and he meekly replied that he had not tasted grass yet. The wolf indicted the lamb again that he drank from his well, and he rebutted that he never drank water and mother’s milk is his food and drink both. Desperately the Wolf seized the Lamb and ate him up, saying, "Well! I won't remain supperless, even though you refute every one of my imputations." And we get the morale of the story; “The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny”. The way the present AMU administration dealt with the trial of my case and that of Mr. Afaq Ahmad, both from the Dept. of Mass Communication, AMU one can only think of that hungry wolf who doesn’t care for anything, but for his supper only.
Okay So It’s Official, I am an Old Boy of AMU now. The Disciplinary Committee held on 07.07.2010 has recommended issuing Migration Certificate to me and also imposing Campus Ban i.e. means Campus Ban for lifetime. The same Committee also recommended rustication Order for Mr. Afaq Ahmad, M.phil Mass Communication for two academic session’s i.e 2009-10 & 2010-11 along with campus ban for the same period.
The Proctor in his Office Memo vide D.No. 2541/Proc dated 13.07.2010 has added other charges to me that I repeatedly asked for the evidences which were going to be used against me and I sought explanation from the Discipline Committee. They thankfully noted in the same Office Memo, “But instead of defending himself and answering the charges he allegedly impugned the entire institutional edifice of enquiry and procedure and proceedings thereunder and made counter charges and posed counter questions”. It is clearly proved from the suspension Order that The Discipline Committee was held in Talibani style where the accused was not provided with any evidence for full and informed defence complying with the principle of natural justice. The Office Memo admitted clearly my stand that I was not ready to defend myself in an unprepared way and I kept asking for evidence of which I am sure that the AMU administration framed me with malafide intention without having any written document against me. “However he neither rejected the charges nor accepted the charges rather he kept on repeating that the charges are vague and he was not provided with any evidence. “
From the very beginning I have stressed on the point that student’s career are taken to be so cheap by the AMU administrators that they don’t even care to comply with the principle of natural justice or with the principle of audi alteram partem which any democratic institution must follow during any judicial or quasi-judicial trial.
The Supreme Court of India has given the following directives defining the “audi alteram partem” principle to be followed during any judicial or quasi-judicial process in the famous case of Union of India vs Tulsiram Patel & Others 1985 AIR 1416, 1985 SCR Supl. (2) 131,
“the audi alteram partem rule, in its fullest amplitude means that a person against whom an order to his prejudice may be passed should be informed of the allegations and charges against him, be given an opportunity of submitting his explanation thereto, have the right to know the evidence, both oral or documentary, by which the matter is proposed to be decided against him, and to inspect the documents which are relied upon for the purpose of being used against him, to have the witnesses who are to give evidence against him examined in his presence and have the right to cross-examine them, and to lead his own evidence, both oral and documentary, in his defence”.
Thereafter from the Office Memo D.No.2541/Proc Dated 13.07.2010 , it is very much clear that the Disciplinary Committee at the very outset violated the rules set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India as they again charged the accused i.e me for asking evidence & for counter questioning which is the right of any accused as mentioned clearly in the abovementioned Supreme Court Judgement. Such clear defiance of the Supreme Court Directives by the AMU administration and the Disciplinary Committee can only be interpreted that Aligarh Muslim University has adopted Taliban Style of Justice under the regime of the present Vice-Chancellor to crush any voice of dissent with the harshest laws available.
The present Vice-Chancellor is only resorting to double standard when he talks about democratic form of protest. In his meeting with the natives of Kishanganj on June 25, 2010 along with the President Old Boys Association, New Delhi Mr. Khwaja Shahid he agreed on certain things where he advised in the Action to be taken with immediate effect portion that to press for AMU Off-Campus Centres, “NH 31 road and other major markets in Kishanganj will be jammed “. So its amply clear whereas he advise natives of Kishanganj to block the National Highway to get AMU off-campus centre at any cost , at the same time he imposes Campus Ban for lifetime to a student with the charges of blocking the university road at 10.00 pm to demand for electricity restoration inside the campus. What if another Prof.P.K.Abdul Azis will handle such road block of National Highway at Kishanganj? Would this present Vice-Chancellor then support such administrator who will throw every people involved in blocking National Highway in the Jail for lifetime? The Vice-Chancellor must answer on such double standard where he pounce on every student who get involved in democratic protest and on the other side asking people to block national highway to get his desired AMU Off-Campus Centre.
I won’t act like a crying baby. I am only putting these facts to people which will have some dangerous repercussions in future. AMU in the recent times has lost many cases in the Court of law and it naturally gave the media the opportunity to question the administrative actions in the harshest language.
With the harshest decision on me and Mr. Afaq Ahmad flouting all rules and regulation at place, the AMU administration wishes to give a clear message to the students involved in any kind of activism that they have the power to torture us mentally, physically, economically for unnecessary reasons even if we go to court and win our case. However they are not bothered with the fact that Court will like most of the cases would overturn their decisions and media would again portray them in bad light. They just want to save their ego. The anti-student, anti-activism forces should be happy only when the Court would support the decisions taken by the AMU administrations. When they don’t, and media shows how AMU still shows their thumb to the rule of law and get punched on the face by court, they must ask how long this should go.
The people at the forums are talking about an influential group. Please make one and offer for crash course on the Constitution and Principles of Natural Justice for free of Charge for the people sitting at the administration. Else, such illiterate people sitting at the helm of affairs would ruin the reputation of our alma mater.
Md. Adil Hossain,
AMU 2002-2010
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Proceedings of the AMU's Khap Panchayat known as Disciplinary Committee
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
To
The Vice-Chancellor
A.M.U, Aligarh Dated: 12.07.2010
Subject- Denial of fair trial by the Discipline Committee held on 07.07.2010 which exhibited bias, partial and pre-determined attitude.
Respected Sir,
I was suspended, without any prior show cause/explanation letter, violating the principle of audi alteram partem, vide LD No. 2113/Proc dated 03.06.2010 with 03 allegations. I was then served a Chargesheet vide LD.2177/Proc dated 09.06.2010, received by my parents on 22.06.2010 and by me on 26.06.2010. I also received a notice from the Proctors Office vide D.No. 2364/Proc dated 29.06.2010 for attending the duly constituted Discipline Committee on 07.07.2010. In the meantime I sent three letters to your office with the request to provide me with evidences so that I can make full and informed defence in front of the Discipline Committee but in vain. But even though I was denied the evidences which were to be used to substantiate the allegation against me, in violation of the principle of natural justice, out of respect and to uphold the sanctity of the duly constituted Discipline Committee I appeared before it on 07.07.2010.
In the Discipline Committee, the Proctor after reading out the allegations against me invited me to respond. I humbly pointed out the non-provision of evidence to me and therefore I cannot make full and informed defence. In the mean time the Registrar shouted at me saying that University authorities are not here to provide evidence and I am to simply give my explanation. I modestly tried to make him aware of the basic principle in any such proceedings that the burden of proof lies on the accuser. To my utter dismay, the Registrar retorted, “Go to the Court and prove your innocence”.
The Proctor intervened to assert that I know what wrong I have committed and therefore I do not require any evidence. He showed me some pages from a distance alleged that it was a copy of a write up on the net that he had gobbled up money. I meekly submitted that in a quasi-judicial process like this everything should be on paper and nothing can be in the air. I again emphasized the need of evidences which will be used to substantiate the charges against me with sufficient time to prepare my defence to be placed before any Discipline Committee.
The Registrar again to my utter shock stated that I do not require any evidence as things are clearly stated in my charge sheet and he read out the passages from it where it was written that I wrote defaming articles on the internet. He stressed that the chargesheet contained enough evidence. I humbly submitted that there is a basic difference between Charge sheet, which contains the allegations, and evidence, which is used to substantiate the allegations.
The Proctor said that the Deputy Proctor Fareed A Khan (who was sitting there and appeared to be part of the Discipline Committee) has submitted a complaint and is the witness to substantiate the charge that I blocked the main University road because of which the electricity restoration progress came to a standstill in the night of 01/02 June from 9.00 to 10.45 pm. I pointed out that if such thing happened the Chief Electricity Engineer must have submitted a complaint letter because he is the responsible authority for it. But a Dean, Member of the Discipline Committee, shot back that such complaint letter is not required and any Staff can report such incident. I again emphasized that the complainant and prosecuting authority can’t be a witness, which is against the principles of law.
I pointed out that the suspension order contained only 03 whereas the Charge sheet contained 06 allegations and therefore it should be construed as afterthought and liable to be quashed. One Dean, Member of the Discipline Committee, intervened to press that such practice is justifiable and Proctors Office may add new charges if they find any during the process of inquiry. To which I replied that the allegations added could not have been found during the Inquiry as they appear to be events that took place, if at all, much before the Inquiry and further no Inquiry was conducted and if conducted I was not given any opportunity to be heard by it, violating the principles of natural justice. Another Dean, Member of the Discipline Committee, asked me why I sent all the correspondence to the Vice-Chancellor after my suspension to which I replied I found it proper to address the Vice-Chancellor for he is the competent authority to direct the Proctor to provide me with evidences. The same Dean asked my final stand on the charges against me and I again humbly submitted that the allegations are vague and I require evidence which are proposed to be used to substantiate the allegations to rebut them. I again stressed that without evidence I cannot make a full and informed defence so I must be given a fair trial by providing me the evidence. The Dean replied that I can’t question the fairness and impartiality of the Discipline Committee and it can be added as another allegation against me, I therefore went quiet. Finally I was asked to leave.
University is a temple of learning and any act of discrimination at this stage may impact severely to the natural growth of any student. The Discipline Committee of 07.07.2010 was extremely biased and prejudiced against me, which is proved by the fact that they denied me the evidence violating the principle of natural justice. I therefore feel that it will take the harshest possible action against me, without giving me a full opportunity to defend myself.
I therefore request in view of the above to kindly direct that the entire proceedings be quashed and the allegations against me be dropped as it is by now obvious that there is no evidence to substantiate the allegations against me.
Thanking you.
Yours faithfully
(Md. Adil Hossain)
M.A(Prev) Mass Communication, Roll No: 09-MCM-06
C/O Mohd. Chaman, Quarter no F/3
V.M.Hall Compound, AMU, Aligarh-202002
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
reply-to TheAligarhForum@yahoogroups.com
to worldofaligs@yahoogroups.com,
TheAligarhForum@yahoogroups.com,
AligarhNetwork@yahoogroups.com,
voiceofaligs@yahoogroups.com
date Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 6:53 PM
subject [TheAligarhForum] Taliban Style of Justice and Campus Ban for Lifetime [3 Attachments]
mailing list
mailed-by returns.groups.yahoo.com
signed-by yahoogroups.com
unsubscribe Unsubscribe from this mailing-list
hide details 6:53 PM (54 minutes ago)
Everybody must have read the Aesop’s fable of The Wolf and the Lamb. First the Wolf accused the lamb that he grossly insulted him last year. The lamb replied that he was not born then. The Wolf put another charge that he fed from his pasture and he meekly replied that he had not tasted grass yet. The wolf indicted the lamb again that he drank from his well, and he rebutted that he never drank water and mother’s milk is his food and drink both. Desperately the Wolf seized the Lamb and ate him up, saying, "Well! I won't remain supperless, even though you refute every one of my imputations." And we get the morale of the story; “The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny”. The way the present AMU administration dealt with the trial of my case and that of Mr. Afaq Ahmad, both from the Dept. of Mass Communication, AMU one can only think of that hungry wolf who doesn’t care for anything, but for his supper only.
Okay So It’s Official, I am an Old Boy of AMU now. The Disciplinary Committee held on 07.07.2010 has recommended issuing Migration Certificate to me and also imposing Campus Ban i.e. means Campus Ban for lifetime. The same Committee also recommended rustication Order for Mr. Afaq Ahmad, M.phil Mass Communication for two academic session’s i.e 2009-10 & 2010-11 along with campus ban for the same period.
The Proctor in his Office Memo vide D.No. 2541/Proc dated 13.07.2010 has added other charges to me that I repeatedly asked for the evidences which were going to be used against me and I sought explanation from the Discipline Committee. They thankfully noted in the same Office Memo, “But instead of defending himself and answering the charges he allegedly impugned the entire institutional edifice of enquiry and procedure and proceedings thereunder and made counter charges and posed counter questions”. It is clearly proved from the suspension Order that The Discipline Committee was held in Talibani style where the accused was not provided with any evidence for full and informed defence complying with the principle of natural justice. The Office Memo admitted clearly my stand that I was not ready to defend myself in an unprepared way and I kept asking for evidence of which I am sure that the AMU administration framed me with malafide intention without having any written document against me. “However he neither rejected the charges nor accepted the charges rather he kept on repeating that the charges are vague and he was not provided with any evidence. “
From the very beginning I have stressed on the point that student’s career are taken to be so cheap by the AMU administrators that they don’t even care to comply with the principle of natural justice or with the principle of audi alteram partem which any democratic institution must follow during any judicial or quasi-judicial trial.
The Supreme Court of India has given the following directives defining the “audi alteram partem” principle to be followed during any judicial or quasi-judicial process in the famous case of Union of India vs Tulsiram Patel & Others 1985 AIR 1416, 1985 SCR Supl. (2) 131,
“the audi alteram partem rule, in its fullest amplitude means that a person against whom an order to his prejudice may be passed should be informed of the allegations and charges against him, be given an opportunity of submitting his explanation thereto, have the right to know the evidence, both oral or documentary, by which the matter is proposed to be decided against him, and to inspect the documents which are relied upon for the purpose of being used against him, to have the witnesses who are to give evidence against him examined in his presence and have the right to cross-examine them, and to lead his own evidence, both oral and documentary, in his defence”.
Thereafter from the Office Memo D.No.2541/Proc Dated 13.07.2010 , it is very much clear that the Disciplinary Committee at the very outset violated the rules set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India as they again charged the accused i.e me for asking evidence & for counter questioning which is the right of any accused as mentioned clearly in the abovementioned Supreme Court Judgement. Such clear defiance of the Supreme Court Directives by the AMU administration and the Disciplinary Committee can only be interpreted that Aligarh Muslim University has adopted Taliban Style of Justice under the regime of the present Vice-Chancellor to crush any voice of dissent with the harshest laws available.
The present Vice-Chancellor is only resorting to double standard when he talks about democratic form of protest. In his meeting with the natives of Kishanganj on June 25, 2010 along with the President Old Boys Association, New Delhi Mr. Khwaja Shahid he agreed on certain things where he advised in the Action to be taken with immediate effect portion that to press for AMU Off-Campus Centres, “NH 31 road and other major markets in Kishanganj will be jammed “. So its amply clear whereas he advise natives of Kishanganj to block the National Highway to get AMU off-campus centre at any cost , at the same time he imposes Campus Ban for lifetime to a student with the charges of blocking the university road at 10.00 pm to demand for electricity restoration inside the campus. What if another Prof.P.K.Abdul Azis will handle such road block of National Highway at Kishanganj? Would this present Vice-Chancellor then support such administrator who will throw every people involved in blocking National Highway in the Jail for lifetime? The Vice-Chancellor must answer on such double standard where he pounce on every student who get involved in democratic protest and on the other side asking people to block national highway to get his desired AMU Off-Campus Centre.
I won’t act like a crying baby. I am only putting these facts to people which will have some dangerous repercussions in future. AMU in the recent times has lost many cases in the Court of law and it naturally gave the media the opportunity to question the administrative actions in the harshest language.
With the harshest decision on me and Mr. Afaq Ahmad flouting all rules and regulation at place, the AMU administration wishes to give a clear message to the students involved in any kind of activism that they have the power to torture us mentally, physically, economically for unnecessary reasons even if we go to court and win our case. However they are not bothered with the fact that Court will like most of the cases would overturn their decisions and media would again portray them in bad light. They just want to save their ego. The anti-student, anti-activism forces should be happy only when the Court would support the decisions taken by the AMU administrations. When they don’t, and media shows how AMU still shows their thumb to the rule of law and get punched on the face by court, they must ask how long this should go.
The people at the forums are talking about an influential group. Please make one and offer for crash course on the Constitution and Principles of Natural Justice for free of Charge for the people sitting at the administration. Else, such illiterate people sitting at the helm of affairs would ruin the reputation of our alma mater.
Md. Adil Hossain,
AMU 2002-2010
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Proceedings of the AMU's Khap Panchayat known as Disciplinary Committee
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
To
The Vice-Chancellor
A.M.U, Aligarh Dated: 12.07.2010
Subject- Denial of fair trial by the Discipline Committee held on 07.07.2010 which exhibited bias, partial and pre-determined attitude.
Respected Sir,
I was suspended, without any prior show cause/explanation letter, violating the principle of audi alteram partem, vide LD No. 2113/Proc dated 03.06.2010 with 03 allegations. I was then served a Chargesheet vide LD.2177/Proc dated 09.06.2010, received by my parents on 22.06.2010 and by me on 26.06.2010. I also received a notice from the Proctors Office vide D.No. 2364/Proc dated 29.06.2010 for attending the duly constituted Discipline Committee on 07.07.2010. In the meantime I sent three letters to your office with the request to provide me with evidences so that I can make full and informed defence in front of the Discipline Committee but in vain. But even though I was denied the evidences which were to be used to substantiate the allegation against me, in violation of the principle of natural justice, out of respect and to uphold the sanctity of the duly constituted Discipline Committee I appeared before it on 07.07.2010.
In the Discipline Committee, the Proctor after reading out the allegations against me invited me to respond. I humbly pointed out the non-provision of evidence to me and therefore I cannot make full and informed defence. In the mean time the Registrar shouted at me saying that University authorities are not here to provide evidence and I am to simply give my explanation. I modestly tried to make him aware of the basic principle in any such proceedings that the burden of proof lies on the accuser. To my utter dismay, the Registrar retorted, “Go to the Court and prove your innocence”.
The Proctor intervened to assert that I know what wrong I have committed and therefore I do not require any evidence. He showed me some pages from a distance alleged that it was a copy of a write up on the net that he had gobbled up money. I meekly submitted that in a quasi-judicial process like this everything should be on paper and nothing can be in the air. I again emphasized the need of evidences which will be used to substantiate the charges against me with sufficient time to prepare my defence to be placed before any Discipline Committee.
The Registrar again to my utter shock stated that I do not require any evidence as things are clearly stated in my charge sheet and he read out the passages from it where it was written that I wrote defaming articles on the internet. He stressed that the chargesheet contained enough evidence. I humbly submitted that there is a basic difference between Charge sheet, which contains the allegations, and evidence, which is used to substantiate the allegations.
The Proctor said that the Deputy Proctor Fareed A Khan (who was sitting there and appeared to be part of the Discipline Committee) has submitted a complaint and is the witness to substantiate the charge that I blocked the main University road because of which the electricity restoration progress came to a standstill in the night of 01/02 June from 9.00 to 10.45 pm. I pointed out that if such thing happened the Chief Electricity Engineer must have submitted a complaint letter because he is the responsible authority for it. But a Dean, Member of the Discipline Committee, shot back that such complaint letter is not required and any Staff can report such incident. I again emphasized that the complainant and prosecuting authority can’t be a witness, which is against the principles of law.
I pointed out that the suspension order contained only 03 whereas the Charge sheet contained 06 allegations and therefore it should be construed as afterthought and liable to be quashed. One Dean, Member of the Discipline Committee, intervened to press that such practice is justifiable and Proctors Office may add new charges if they find any during the process of inquiry. To which I replied that the allegations added could not have been found during the Inquiry as they appear to be events that took place, if at all, much before the Inquiry and further no Inquiry was conducted and if conducted I was not given any opportunity to be heard by it, violating the principles of natural justice. Another Dean, Member of the Discipline Committee, asked me why I sent all the correspondence to the Vice-Chancellor after my suspension to which I replied I found it proper to address the Vice-Chancellor for he is the competent authority to direct the Proctor to provide me with evidences. The same Dean asked my final stand on the charges against me and I again humbly submitted that the allegations are vague and I require evidence which are proposed to be used to substantiate the allegations to rebut them. I again stressed that without evidence I cannot make a full and informed defence so I must be given a fair trial by providing me the evidence. The Dean replied that I can’t question the fairness and impartiality of the Discipline Committee and it can be added as another allegation against me, I therefore went quiet. Finally I was asked to leave.
University is a temple of learning and any act of discrimination at this stage may impact severely to the natural growth of any student. The Discipline Committee of 07.07.2010 was extremely biased and prejudiced against me, which is proved by the fact that they denied me the evidence violating the principle of natural justice. I therefore feel that it will take the harshest possible action against me, without giving me a full opportunity to defend myself.
I therefore request in view of the above to kindly direct that the entire proceedings be quashed and the allegations against me be dropped as it is by now obvious that there is no evidence to substantiate the allegations against me.
Thanking you.
Yours faithfully
(Md. Adil Hossain)
M.A(Prev) Mass Communication, Roll No: 09-MCM-06
C/O Mohd. Chaman, Quarter no F/3
V.M.Hall Compound, AMU, Aligarh-202002
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Former VC Naseem Ahmad Targeted by Hon’ble Azis
Kam Maya Wa Na-Ahel Wa Riyakar Hai Hamid
Lekin Yeh Na Theen Aapke Farmane Ki Batein
(Saiyid Hamid)
I was not at all surprised at the outburst of Dr. Azis against the former Vice Chancellor, Mr. Naseem Ahmad, calling his period as the darkest one in AMU history. Such remarks are expected of a person with zero credibility and doubtful integrity, which only confirms his undesirable style of functioning. The remarks are not only in bad taste but too bad for a bad report. At the outset let me make it clear that I do not hold any brief for Mr. Naseem Ahmad and I had absolutely no contact with him, as usual, when he was the Vice Chancellor.
Mr. Naseem Ahmad was the first Vice Chancellor, who had the courage and conviction to declare that the AMU is a minority institution unlike his predecessors who often referred to it as the HISTORICAL CHARACTER. They lacked the nerves to speak the truth; perhaps they considered it a wiser way. The credit of implementing the long due reservation policy also goes to Mr. Ahmad. While all the earlier VCs were jittery and avoided it. It is a different matter that the Court not only quashed reservation but the Minority status also and went ahead to declare that even the Parliament has not been so empowered. You are, however, the first and probably the last VC in having scant respect for rules and regulations, absorbed in manipulations of the worst type by spreading lies and distorting the Act, Statutes, not concerned with the development of the University or enhancement of its academic standards. Did AMU in its ignorance cause any harm to you?
Ek Do Zakhm Nahin Jism Hai Sara Chhalni
Dard Bechara Pareshan Hai Kahan Se Ut’the
(Saiyid Hamid)
However, your fate is written on the wall. Please refer to the provision of the Statute 40(2), which reads, “…any officer salaried or otherwise may be removed on either of the following grounds, i) the officer has become incapable of performing his duties…”. You have invited the wrath by proving yourself as ‘incapable’ of performing your duty in observing the rules, a major duty assigned to the VC as per Statute 3(2) and nobody else in the University. Neither Mr. Sibbal nor Mr. Pranab Mukherjee can pull you out of the grave that you have dug for yourself. Do you still believe you can escape the guillotine? No one believes your statement that you would cooperate with the Visitor’s enquiry, in progress, as long as you occupy the chair. Why the realization has come so late after one year? Another big farce. What is the game behind it?
Mr. Naseem Ahmad owing to his sincerity, devotion and commitment to the Alma Mater (the qualities you awfully lack, rather you don’t believe in) stood firm like a rock against the determined onslaught of the then BJP Government and refused to hold Central all India Test on the ground that the AMU is an autonomous Minority Institution and requires no orders from the Central Govt regarding the governance of the University. And we could raise our heads high which we deserved. In your view, he must be a fool who missed the golden opportunity to earn a place with the Masters for all times to come like you and of course several other Muslims. Some people are late learners and some never learn. You are really great as you are taking orders even from Babus like Mr. Sunil Kumar, the Jt secretary, MHRD and we have often seen running in the corridors of power and prostrating before the bureaucracy to save yourself from all the allegations against you. We know, you are very well aware of the futility of the Special Centres for Muslims, at the cost of the University’s basic character. The proposal of these centres is nothing but a glorified gimmick to appease the Masters and to mint whatever comes to hand. These Centres are like blind men sitting in a dark room in search of a black cat which is not there.
Could you tell, which provision of the University Act & Statutes etc you have not violated?
Mr. Naseem Ahmad is a God fearing Muslim, honest and sincere in his dealings, always treated students as his own children and regarded the teachers as equals (not as Vice Chancellors personal servants to accompany and follow him wherever he goes to which the students are stark witnesses. This is more than sufficient to denigrate them before their own students (Do you really know that two teacher Assistant Proctors, remain on duty with you, whenever you go out from your residence, be it your office or elsewhere). He firmly believed that if every act of student indiscipline requires police presence and rustication extreme penalties, to establish discipline, which Aligarh rejects, the system will collapse. The moment a VC resorts to the police help like you he ceases the right to continue as AMU VC, who is a leader of the community – no father hands over students to police whatever be the situation. He avoided awarding extreme punishments to students keeping in view of their lives and career and the values and the traditions. Keeping this Aligarh ethos he revived the Students Union, which terrifies you. Give our own students their due, the statutory right of representation, especially when you are in full control and normalcy is restored to the full. Where Naseem Saheb, has failed, as claimed by you? You, Mr. Azis, unfortunately believe in terrorizing the students, intimidating the staff and generating a reign of terror on the campus with the help of Police, Security personnel, CCTV Cameras and what not and have the cheeks to claim you have achieved the normalcy on the campus. YOU ARE SITTING ON A VOLCANO
We are witness to the incident; a teacher was found guilty of moral turpitude and accepted his guilt; Naseem Saheb let him off only to save the teaching fraternity from a stigma. The very same Hon’ble teacher, you having confirmed that he was charged of plagiarizing a book and embezzled Hall money, you have chosen him as your legal adviser. “To err is human and to forgive is divine”, is perhaps the guiding principle for you in this particular case. But why then have you encouraged and harbored people of doubtful integrity and character? A man is known by the company he keeps.
Please recall the day when you were taken in the traditional carriage driven by horses to the office of the Vice Chancellor to take over the charge when Professor Saleemuddin, the then Pro-Vice chancellor (whom you designate as former VC. Why? Because you hold teachers in high esteem and misbehaves with them and victimize them when suits you) was asked by the Students’ Union President to step down from the carriage and he occupied the seat of Prof. Saleemuddin. You, instead of reprimanding the President because of his outrageous behaviour, cultivated him. For this student leader English was a foreign language and Urdu for you. How did you converse with him frequently?
Kindly recall the incident of September 2007, three months after your joining the University. This was culmination of the policy of appeasement of student leaders that you adopted immediately after your arrival. After the unfortunate incident of September 2007, you insisted for an enquiry and the E.C. endorsed your proposal, yet you did not allow the enquiry to be conducted. This points an accusing finger at you and exposes your treacherous ways. Is it because you too are responsible for the said incident due to your above said policies?
Finally you realize it or not, you have committed a suicidal mistake by crossing swords with a person, who stood by his commitments inspite of some of his failures and mistakes, that came his way but you are the one who has no concern and commitment to any one in the world except to your own good-self.
Let the readers decide the darkness of the period.
We, shall receive respect in proportion of the respect, we give to others.
May God help us.
Sincerely,
Prof. Ziauddin Ahmad,
Professor of Botany, Rtd.
__._,_.___
Lekin Yeh Na Theen Aapke Farmane Ki Batein
(Saiyid Hamid)
I was not at all surprised at the outburst of Dr. Azis against the former Vice Chancellor, Mr. Naseem Ahmad, calling his period as the darkest one in AMU history. Such remarks are expected of a person with zero credibility and doubtful integrity, which only confirms his undesirable style of functioning. The remarks are not only in bad taste but too bad for a bad report. At the outset let me make it clear that I do not hold any brief for Mr. Naseem Ahmad and I had absolutely no contact with him, as usual, when he was the Vice Chancellor.
Mr. Naseem Ahmad was the first Vice Chancellor, who had the courage and conviction to declare that the AMU is a minority institution unlike his predecessors who often referred to it as the HISTORICAL CHARACTER. They lacked the nerves to speak the truth; perhaps they considered it a wiser way. The credit of implementing the long due reservation policy also goes to Mr. Ahmad. While all the earlier VCs were jittery and avoided it. It is a different matter that the Court not only quashed reservation but the Minority status also and went ahead to declare that even the Parliament has not been so empowered. You are, however, the first and probably the last VC in having scant respect for rules and regulations, absorbed in manipulations of the worst type by spreading lies and distorting the Act, Statutes, not concerned with the development of the University or enhancement of its academic standards. Did AMU in its ignorance cause any harm to you?
Ek Do Zakhm Nahin Jism Hai Sara Chhalni
Dard Bechara Pareshan Hai Kahan Se Ut’the
(Saiyid Hamid)
However, your fate is written on the wall. Please refer to the provision of the Statute 40(2), which reads, “…any officer salaried or otherwise may be removed on either of the following grounds, i) the officer has become incapable of performing his duties…”. You have invited the wrath by proving yourself as ‘incapable’ of performing your duty in observing the rules, a major duty assigned to the VC as per Statute 3(2) and nobody else in the University. Neither Mr. Sibbal nor Mr. Pranab Mukherjee can pull you out of the grave that you have dug for yourself. Do you still believe you can escape the guillotine? No one believes your statement that you would cooperate with the Visitor’s enquiry, in progress, as long as you occupy the chair. Why the realization has come so late after one year? Another big farce. What is the game behind it?
Mr. Naseem Ahmad owing to his sincerity, devotion and commitment to the Alma Mater (the qualities you awfully lack, rather you don’t believe in) stood firm like a rock against the determined onslaught of the then BJP Government and refused to hold Central all India Test on the ground that the AMU is an autonomous Minority Institution and requires no orders from the Central Govt regarding the governance of the University. And we could raise our heads high which we deserved. In your view, he must be a fool who missed the golden opportunity to earn a place with the Masters for all times to come like you and of course several other Muslims. Some people are late learners and some never learn. You are really great as you are taking orders even from Babus like Mr. Sunil Kumar, the Jt secretary, MHRD and we have often seen running in the corridors of power and prostrating before the bureaucracy to save yourself from all the allegations against you. We know, you are very well aware of the futility of the Special Centres for Muslims, at the cost of the University’s basic character. The proposal of these centres is nothing but a glorified gimmick to appease the Masters and to mint whatever comes to hand. These Centres are like blind men sitting in a dark room in search of a black cat which is not there.
Could you tell, which provision of the University Act & Statutes etc you have not violated?
Mr. Naseem Ahmad is a God fearing Muslim, honest and sincere in his dealings, always treated students as his own children and regarded the teachers as equals (not as Vice Chancellors personal servants to accompany and follow him wherever he goes to which the students are stark witnesses. This is more than sufficient to denigrate them before their own students (Do you really know that two teacher Assistant Proctors, remain on duty with you, whenever you go out from your residence, be it your office or elsewhere). He firmly believed that if every act of student indiscipline requires police presence and rustication extreme penalties, to establish discipline, which Aligarh rejects, the system will collapse. The moment a VC resorts to the police help like you he ceases the right to continue as AMU VC, who is a leader of the community – no father hands over students to police whatever be the situation. He avoided awarding extreme punishments to students keeping in view of their lives and career and the values and the traditions. Keeping this Aligarh ethos he revived the Students Union, which terrifies you. Give our own students their due, the statutory right of representation, especially when you are in full control and normalcy is restored to the full. Where Naseem Saheb, has failed, as claimed by you? You, Mr. Azis, unfortunately believe in terrorizing the students, intimidating the staff and generating a reign of terror on the campus with the help of Police, Security personnel, CCTV Cameras and what not and have the cheeks to claim you have achieved the normalcy on the campus. YOU ARE SITTING ON A VOLCANO
We are witness to the incident; a teacher was found guilty of moral turpitude and accepted his guilt; Naseem Saheb let him off only to save the teaching fraternity from a stigma. The very same Hon’ble teacher, you having confirmed that he was charged of plagiarizing a book and embezzled Hall money, you have chosen him as your legal adviser. “To err is human and to forgive is divine”, is perhaps the guiding principle for you in this particular case. But why then have you encouraged and harbored people of doubtful integrity and character? A man is known by the company he keeps.
Please recall the day when you were taken in the traditional carriage driven by horses to the office of the Vice Chancellor to take over the charge when Professor Saleemuddin, the then Pro-Vice chancellor (whom you designate as former VC. Why? Because you hold teachers in high esteem and misbehaves with them and victimize them when suits you) was asked by the Students’ Union President to step down from the carriage and he occupied the seat of Prof. Saleemuddin. You, instead of reprimanding the President because of his outrageous behaviour, cultivated him. For this student leader English was a foreign language and Urdu for you. How did you converse with him frequently?
Kindly recall the incident of September 2007, three months after your joining the University. This was culmination of the policy of appeasement of student leaders that you adopted immediately after your arrival. After the unfortunate incident of September 2007, you insisted for an enquiry and the E.C. endorsed your proposal, yet you did not allow the enquiry to be conducted. This points an accusing finger at you and exposes your treacherous ways. Is it because you too are responsible for the said incident due to your above said policies?
Finally you realize it or not, you have committed a suicidal mistake by crossing swords with a person, who stood by his commitments inspite of some of his failures and mistakes, that came his way but you are the one who has no concern and commitment to any one in the world except to your own good-self.
Let the readers decide the darkness of the period.
We, shall receive respect in proportion of the respect, we give to others.
May God help us.
Sincerely,
Prof. Ziauddin Ahmad,
Professor of Botany, Rtd.
__._,_.___
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
The Darkest Period of AMU?
The V.C., Dr. P.K. Abdul Azis, in his propaganda campaign, called a meeting in the Kennedy Hall on 14.06.2010. For the audience, entire staff of the Registrar’s office was called there. Obviously the work in the Registrar’s office remained suspended during this period. He explained his three years’ achievements. Some of his men delivered speeches in his praises obviously with exaggerations according to our typical culture. Objectionable part of this whole campaign is that he got his ‘Profile’ printed at the cost of the University and distributed among the audience.Still more objectionable is that he wrote in this ‘Profile’ the period of his predecessor as the ‘darkest period’ of the history of Aligarh. Not only this time but he is on record having said on so many occasions that he took over as Vice Chancellor of AMU at a time which, according to him, was the darkest period in the history of AMU. Obviously he is referring to the period when Mr. Naseem Ahmad, IAS, was the Vice Chancellor for almost five years. Since I was also part and parcel of that administration, I have full justification to comment on this irresponsible statement of Dr. Azis Saheb. Till he commented verbally I kept quiet but now when he has come out in writing, my response seems essential. Though I feel it highly embarrassing to discuss this point in public yet Dr. Azis has stooped down so low that I am left with no option but to open my mouth, Hum Bhi Munh Mein Zuban Rakhte Hain – Kash Poochho Ki Mud’daa Kiya Hai.
Making such comments against his predecessor is in a very bad taste, unbecoming of a Vice Chancellor and against propriety. No officer in a sober and cultured society is expected to talk ill of his predecessor. I am sorry to say that he leaves no limits when it comes to vigorous publicizing, rather marketing, of his so called ‘achievements,’ completely forgetting that he is paid for precisely all he has done or undone so far. So where is the need for such an aggressive propaganda and that too at the cost of the university funds? Has any of his predecessors indulged in such an exercise of self–praise? To my knowledge, none.
Because all of them were sober, committed and quiet persons whose only agenda was serving the University in line with the dreams of Sir Syed. They shun all gimmicks of cheap publicity. What is worse about Dr. Azis is that in his over–drive for selling himself, he deliberately denigrates his predecessors to prove that he is the only shining star in the long list of the Vice Chancellors of AMU. I wish there was someone among his so called ‘advisors’ who could advise him that he should not indulge in malicious propaganda against the previous Vice Chancellors.
Here are a few interrogatories for the ‘greatest achiever’, Dr. Azis Saheb:
1. Was the University ever closed sine die during the tenure of Mr. Naseem Ahmad? Not even for a day, compared to two long spells of sine die closures during the tenure of Dr. Azis Saheb. The two murders, which Dr. Azis Saheb has referred to time and again , were committed after Mr. Naseem Ahmad had left the charge. Can Dr. Azis Saheb deny this fact which is in the common knowledge on the campus?
2. Who revived the AMU students’ union after a long gap? The answer is obvious. What about Dr. Azis Saheb?
3. Was there ever any delay in admissions, examinations and declaration of results during the tenure of Mr. Naseem Ahmad? Never
4. Who stopped the practice of arbitrary nominations in admissions and introduced the transparent system of nominations strictly on merit under various categories? On the other hand a very competent lady (Professor Imrana Naseem) was relinquished of her charge as OSD of Girls’ Sch. by Dr. Azis Saheb only because she refused to entertain an arbitrary admission of the recommendee of Mr. Fatmi, the then a Minister.
5. Were there any complaints regarding admissions or conduct of examinations and various entrance tests during Mr. Naseem Ahmad’s tenure? The reply is again in the negative.
6. Who submitted the proposals regarding the up-gradation of J.N Medical College and Z.H College of Engineering and Technology? Who started construction work of the Endocrinology Centre? Who initiated and almost completed the construction work of Dr. Ambedkar Hall for boys and Begum Sultan Jahan Hall for girls? Who started the restoration work of some of the heritage buildings like Victoria Gate wing of S.S Hall, Justice Mahmood’s bungalow (Pili Kothi) and PVC Lodge (It was renovated especially for the purpose of VIP guests and was attached to the Guest House, which has now been allotted to the “extraordinarily competent our illustrious Registrar” by the V.C., who enjoys a luxurious life there)? Who got completed the construction work of the building of Prof. K.A Nizami Centre for Quranic Studies? Who arranged for uninterrupted supply of electricity for the entire AMU campus and got constructed a separate Sub-station for the University? Who got almost all the University roads repaired and re-carpeted? Who ensured introduction of the UGC’s model curricula in almost all the courses? At whose initiative the Govt. of India approved the proposal for establishment of Urdu Academy in not only AMU but two other central universities? Can Dr. Azis deny that these initiatives were taken during the tenure of Mr. Naseem Ahmad?
7. Who raised the banner, though unsuccessfully, for the restoration of minority character of AMU? The reply is again obvious. During the tenure of Dr. Azis Saheb, the University Counsel absented himself on three consecutive hearing dates from Supreme Court without seeking adjournment and Dr. Azis Saheb has failed to take any action against the Counsel, why?
8. Who can deny that four University convocations were held during the tenure of Mr. Naseem Ahmad? Only one convocation could not be held due to the non availability of the VIP who had earlier given the consent to be the Chief Guest for the occasion?
9. Was he not Mr. Naseem Ahmad who raised a banner of successful revolt against the MHRD’s move for common entrance tests for various professional courses?
10. Did Mr. Naseem Ahmad control students’ discipline involving the Police or did he strengthen University’s own discipline system?
11. Lastly were there any allegations of corruption and financial bungling against Mr. Naseem Ahmad or against any of the other Vice Chancellor’s who preceded Dr. Abdul Azis? Let Dr. Azis Saheb himself reply.
The Real Darkest Periods of AMU:
1. One of the darkest periods in the history of Aligarh was when the AMU Act was repealed in 1965 by an Ordinance and Government wanted to drop the word ‘Muslim’ from AMU and nationalize it on the pattern of the Osmania University, Hyderabad i.e. the Minority Character was in danger .
2. Another darkest period of the University is now when, i) the Visitor of the University, for the first time in history, has ordered an enquiry against the present Vice Chancellor, Dr. Abdul Azis for his alleged involvement in financial corruptions and when, ii) the Residential Character of the University is put to danger in the name of the so called Special Centers.
My sincere advice to Dr. P.K Abdul Azis is that it is still time for him to do mid-course correction in his self centered and autocratic style of functioning. He should come out clean of the serious charges of corruption against him. He should try to learn the knack of taking people along with him and should stop throwing mud at others.
I am extremely constrained to write these comments and making it public.
Waqif Hain Mukhalif Bhi Mizajon Se Hamare – Humlog Dua Dete Hain Gali Nahin Dete
I hope Dr. P.K Abdul Azis Saheb is listening.
Regretfully,
Dr. Nafees Ahmad,
Professor of Ophthalmic Biochem, Rtd.
G-2, Dream Homes, S.S. Nagar, Aligarh
Making such comments against his predecessor is in a very bad taste, unbecoming of a Vice Chancellor and against propriety. No officer in a sober and cultured society is expected to talk ill of his predecessor. I am sorry to say that he leaves no limits when it comes to vigorous publicizing, rather marketing, of his so called ‘achievements,’ completely forgetting that he is paid for precisely all he has done or undone so far. So where is the need for such an aggressive propaganda and that too at the cost of the university funds? Has any of his predecessors indulged in such an exercise of self–praise? To my knowledge, none.
Because all of them were sober, committed and quiet persons whose only agenda was serving the University in line with the dreams of Sir Syed. They shun all gimmicks of cheap publicity. What is worse about Dr. Azis is that in his over–drive for selling himself, he deliberately denigrates his predecessors to prove that he is the only shining star in the long list of the Vice Chancellors of AMU. I wish there was someone among his so called ‘advisors’ who could advise him that he should not indulge in malicious propaganda against the previous Vice Chancellors.
Here are a few interrogatories for the ‘greatest achiever’, Dr. Azis Saheb:
1. Was the University ever closed sine die during the tenure of Mr. Naseem Ahmad? Not even for a day, compared to two long spells of sine die closures during the tenure of Dr. Azis Saheb. The two murders, which Dr. Azis Saheb has referred to time and again , were committed after Mr. Naseem Ahmad had left the charge. Can Dr. Azis Saheb deny this fact which is in the common knowledge on the campus?
2. Who revived the AMU students’ union after a long gap? The answer is obvious. What about Dr. Azis Saheb?
3. Was there ever any delay in admissions, examinations and declaration of results during the tenure of Mr. Naseem Ahmad? Never
4. Who stopped the practice of arbitrary nominations in admissions and introduced the transparent system of nominations strictly on merit under various categories? On the other hand a very competent lady (Professor Imrana Naseem) was relinquished of her charge as OSD of Girls’ Sch. by Dr. Azis Saheb only because she refused to entertain an arbitrary admission of the recommendee of Mr. Fatmi, the then a Minister.
5. Were there any complaints regarding admissions or conduct of examinations and various entrance tests during Mr. Naseem Ahmad’s tenure? The reply is again in the negative.
6. Who submitted the proposals regarding the up-gradation of J.N Medical College and Z.H College of Engineering and Technology? Who started construction work of the Endocrinology Centre? Who initiated and almost completed the construction work of Dr. Ambedkar Hall for boys and Begum Sultan Jahan Hall for girls? Who started the restoration work of some of the heritage buildings like Victoria Gate wing of S.S Hall, Justice Mahmood’s bungalow (Pili Kothi) and PVC Lodge (It was renovated especially for the purpose of VIP guests and was attached to the Guest House, which has now been allotted to the “extraordinarily competent our illustrious Registrar” by the V.C., who enjoys a luxurious life there)? Who got completed the construction work of the building of Prof. K.A Nizami Centre for Quranic Studies? Who arranged for uninterrupted supply of electricity for the entire AMU campus and got constructed a separate Sub-station for the University? Who got almost all the University roads repaired and re-carpeted? Who ensured introduction of the UGC’s model curricula in almost all the courses? At whose initiative the Govt. of India approved the proposal for establishment of Urdu Academy in not only AMU but two other central universities? Can Dr. Azis deny that these initiatives were taken during the tenure of Mr. Naseem Ahmad?
7. Who raised the banner, though unsuccessfully, for the restoration of minority character of AMU? The reply is again obvious. During the tenure of Dr. Azis Saheb, the University Counsel absented himself on three consecutive hearing dates from Supreme Court without seeking adjournment and Dr. Azis Saheb has failed to take any action against the Counsel, why?
8. Who can deny that four University convocations were held during the tenure of Mr. Naseem Ahmad? Only one convocation could not be held due to the non availability of the VIP who had earlier given the consent to be the Chief Guest for the occasion?
9. Was he not Mr. Naseem Ahmad who raised a banner of successful revolt against the MHRD’s move for common entrance tests for various professional courses?
10. Did Mr. Naseem Ahmad control students’ discipline involving the Police or did he strengthen University’s own discipline system?
11. Lastly were there any allegations of corruption and financial bungling against Mr. Naseem Ahmad or against any of the other Vice Chancellor’s who preceded Dr. Abdul Azis? Let Dr. Azis Saheb himself reply.
The Real Darkest Periods of AMU:
1. One of the darkest periods in the history of Aligarh was when the AMU Act was repealed in 1965 by an Ordinance and Government wanted to drop the word ‘Muslim’ from AMU and nationalize it on the pattern of the Osmania University, Hyderabad i.e. the Minority Character was in danger .
2. Another darkest period of the University is now when, i) the Visitor of the University, for the first time in history, has ordered an enquiry against the present Vice Chancellor, Dr. Abdul Azis for his alleged involvement in financial corruptions and when, ii) the Residential Character of the University is put to danger in the name of the so called Special Centers.
My sincere advice to Dr. P.K Abdul Azis is that it is still time for him to do mid-course correction in his self centered and autocratic style of functioning. He should come out clean of the serious charges of corruption against him. He should try to learn the knack of taking people along with him and should stop throwing mud at others.
I am extremely constrained to write these comments and making it public.
Waqif Hain Mukhalif Bhi Mizajon Se Hamare – Humlog Dua Dete Hain Gali Nahin Dete
I hope Dr. P.K Abdul Azis Saheb is listening.
Regretfully,
Dr. Nafees Ahmad,
Professor of Ophthalmic Biochem, Rtd.
G-2, Dream Homes, S.S. Nagar, Aligarh
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
AMU Special Centres, Dr. Azis & Sir Shah Sulaiman
From: Nafees Ahmad
Date: Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 4:48 PM
Subject: AMU Special Centres, Dr. Azis & Sir Shah Sulaiman
To: alirizvi@aol.com
Mohtaram Ali Rizvi Saheb, ASAK,
I am sorry to reply to your mail a bit late as you raised several points which required some time. In a detailed telephonic conversation on the other day I think, after going through your mail, I could not make my points clear.
You said in this mail, “I just fail to understand how you (I) feel that the opening of the AMU Centres will adversely affect AMU”. I submit:
1. The University has expanded several fold compared to what it was fifty-sixty years ago but no major changes in its administrative system have been brought about so far, which has caused an overall deterioration both in academics and discipline. It will cause still more deterioration if it is expanded further without bringing necessary changes in its administrative system especially after creation of the said Special Centres. If the administration, at the helm of affairs, cannot handle the affairs at the mother university, how can it be expected to handle when more institutions are created thousands Km away. The V.C. would neither properly manage AMU nor the Centres. Standards of both are, therefore, bound to go down further. Though the Centres have not come into existence yet, the V.C. is not finding time for the University only because he is much more worried about the “Qaum” and busy in establishing these Centres. Files over files are piled up waiting for his action as I could gather from the offices. Condition of various Departments, Schools and Colleges is getting from bad to worse for delay in action.
2. The affection the Aligs have among themselves is a rare and unique quality, not found among those of other Institutions. Its main cause is the residential life they enjoy at Aligarh, an obvious outcome of the Residential Character of AMU. They eat together; they live together; they quarrel and compromise, all together. “Is Buzm Mein Taighain Khenchi Hain Is Buzm Mein Saghar Tore Hain – Is Buzm Mein Ankh Bichai Hai Is Buzm Mein Dil Tak Jore Hain”. I have witnessed so many Mahabharats followed by Bharat Milaps among AMU students in the past. The so called satellite campuses will develop their own culture that will be all together different from AMU. In Kerala you will find Keralite culture, eating Rasam, Idli and Sanber etc and in Bengal another culture. Yes, you may get a few good lawyers or management students (That too is not sure in the light of above mentioned administrative difficulties) but Aligarianism will surely become a “Qissa-e-Parina”.
3. You say, “Let us get the money, the land, help set up the campuses…., assist in their becoming centres of excellence”. No doubt this expresses your pious enthusiasm and very good sentiments. But may be good for a talk of idealism and for an effective sermon on Muslim educational uplift. But when it will come to giving practical shape for creating a Centre of Excellence one will find it too difficult, rather impossible to run the AMU and thousands mile away Centres together. You say, “Like you and many others, I do share the fear that the Governance of these Centres may be difficult, but not impossible”. In the light of the little administrative experience that I have, I reiterate that the governance of institutions situated so far away shall be rather impossible. In the words of Mr. S. Shahabuddin, “I personally see the impossibility of the AMU running Satellite Universities, even if, it becomes constitutionally & legally competent to do so. Given the record of the AMU, this will be an impossible task from a purely administrative and management point of view”.
4. You say, “Sir Syed did not visualize AMU as a physical campus at Aligarh itself. If his vision was to educate the Indian minorities and Muslims, then surely we are on the right path”. Sir Syed not only visualized but also he practically established the MAO College at Aligarh. He wished it to grow into a University of repute, to the status of and to be known as the Oxford and Cambridge of the east. This was his dream project, which he visualized only for Aligarh. Yes, Sir Syed, Syed Mahmood and his other colleagues also desired to propagate modern education all over India and, for the purpose, founded Muslim Educational Conference in order to establish such schools and colleges in the length and breath of the country, popularly known as Aligarh Movement. As a result, Shibli National College, Azamgarh, Gandhi Faiz-e-Aam College, Shahejahanpur and few other institutions came into existence due to this movement but under independent management. Nothing can be so contrary to the facts, rather absurd, than to say that they wanted to establish schools of modern education all over India under the management of MAO College or AMU and that this is the right path of Sir Syed. Sir Syed emphasized especially on Tarbiat of his students, for which he established the well known “English House” in order to train them in good manners, culture, etiquettes and English way of life. Slowly this responsibility was shifted to the wardens and the Seniors of the Halls of residence. I still remember that at the time of my “Introduction”, when I joined AMU as a student, one of the Seniors asked me, “Have you seen Bab-e-Ilm (a small door in between SM North and its Dinning Hall opening towards the Union Hall, that time it was between the Depts. of Persian and Law )”; I responded with Yes. He said; Sir Syed constructed Victoria Gate, Bab-e-Ishaq, Babe-Rahmat, Lawrence Gate and Zahoor Gate (all in S.S. Hall), all of these being much bigger in size than Bab-e-Ilm (Gate of knowledge); What message it gives? Then he himself replied, in a big laughter; that means you read less (the bookish knowledge) and learn more (I was known as mugging the books most of the time). It was, therefore, Tarbiat of students that, to Sir Syed, was most important.
5. You say, “If people feel that the AMU Act does not have the provision for creation of these centres in far flung areas, let us then involve and get the Act amended”.Yes, the Act needs so many amendments but, I am sorry, any amendment for the sake of these centres, which amounts to abolishing our Residential Character shall not at all be acceptable and we (the Aligarh fraternity as a whole) shall be the first to oppose this move tooth and nail. Till we are alive we shall not let the Residential Character destroyed and the University go down under in the name of the so called Mallappuram and Murshidabsad Centres for a few crores of Rupees. This is an ill conceived programme and one of the great mistakes of Dr. Azis from the very beginning. Now he is adamant to get it through by hook or by crook.
6. You say, “In our desire to discredit a person or a group, we are trying to kill such a great initiative”. Our intentions may not kindly be doubted. Opposition of the Centres is not for the sake of discrediting any individual. We are opposing the Centres with full sincerity and conviction. As far as discrediting Dr. Azis is concerned, he himself is responsible for that. The charges of financial bungling both at CUSAT, Kochi and AMU have reportedly been proved. Still he has not decided to mend his ways and probably he shall not. Can any body tell me why he has engaged CPWD for the University constructions involving crores of Rupees when there is a full fledged in house Building Department for the purpose. Is it because they reportedly pay “commission” very quietly and are known to have institutionalized it? Only God knows. He engaged CPWD in Kochi also. The same experiment he is successfully repeating in Aligarh. ‘Honesty should not only be practiced but also it should appear to have been practiced’. Every body knows but can do nothing. Tuk Tuk Deedum- Dum na Kashidum”. A Maulana, while explaining the ‘Shirk’ in a lecture said; if you add a drop of urine to a bucket full of milk, it will make the whole milk impure. Barring Murarji Desai as it might be an Amrit for him, it is Haram for Muslims. Likewise, we the Aligarh fraternity, cannot tolerate for a second to find the Head of this great seat of learning involved in corruption. Had he been noble, he would have quit this august office on his own after the above reports. What face has he, now, to talk about Muslim educational uplift or Special Centres, again where crores of Rupees are involved. How such a person can be relied upon?
This reminds me of Sir Shah Sulaiman. He was Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court and then moved to Federal Court (the Supreme Court) as also the Vice-Chancellor of AMU. He came on the week ends to Aligarh and worked for two days (Saturday and Sunday). Usually he used to come directly to the VC office from the Railway station. V.C. office was housed in a room, adjacent to Victoria Gate on the west wing of the upper floor. He himself used to put on lights of his office and worked for the whole day till late in night. Thereafter, some times he went to the Phoos Ka Bangla (The V.C. Lodge, which was a thatched cottage that time and was known as Phoos Ka Bangla) in the night but most often he used to sleep on the roof of S.S. Hall (west) itself in front of his office. He took his food from the S.S. Hall Dining Hall (Lunch and dinner both). The bearer of Sir Shah Sulaiman, who made his bed on the roof and served food to him, narrated this story to me whom I happened to see as he was alive when I was a student. When leaving for Allahabad or Delhi on the night of Sundays he religiously put off the lights. Dr. Azis Saheb must not feel happy that he is following the footsteps of Sir Shah Sulaiman as he took his food from the S.S. Hall Dining Hall and Dr. Azis is eating from the University Guest House because at the end of every month Sir Sulaiman paid for his food to S.S. Hall and electricity charges of his office. He worked honorary and did not charge salary from the University.
Bhai Ali Rizvi Saheb, now tell me where our Hon'ble V.C. finds himself fit in the galaxy of the Vice Chancellors like Sir Ross Masood, Sir Ziauddin, Sir Shah Sulaiman, Dr. Zakir Husain, Col. B.H. Zaidi, Mr. Tayyabji, Prof. Khusroo, Mr. S. Hamid, Mr. Hamid Ansari and lately Mr. Naseem Ahmad etc. What is his level? He has discredited himself by his own deeds. No body is responsible for that. Has he courage to compare his way of living like Nawabs with wasteful expenditures at the cost of the University with that of the most simple life of Sir Shah Sulaiman. Though there was the title 'Shah' in his name but he lived like a Gada. Sir Sulaiman and others are, and shall ever be known for their sacrifices they made for this great seat of learning and Dr. Azis shall be known for …..?
Wassalam, regards,
Nafees Ahmad,
Ph.D. (1968),
Professor of Ophthalmic Biochem. Rtd,
G-2, Dream Homes, S.S. Nagar, Aligarh.
Ph: 9319096230
Date: Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 4:48 PM
Subject: AMU Special Centres, Dr. Azis & Sir Shah Sulaiman
To: alirizvi@aol.com
Mohtaram Ali Rizvi Saheb, ASAK,
I am sorry to reply to your mail a bit late as you raised several points which required some time. In a detailed telephonic conversation on the other day I think, after going through your mail, I could not make my points clear.
You said in this mail, “I just fail to understand how you (I) feel that the opening of the AMU Centres will adversely affect AMU”. I submit:
1. The University has expanded several fold compared to what it was fifty-sixty years ago but no major changes in its administrative system have been brought about so far, which has caused an overall deterioration both in academics and discipline. It will cause still more deterioration if it is expanded further without bringing necessary changes in its administrative system especially after creation of the said Special Centres. If the administration, at the helm of affairs, cannot handle the affairs at the mother university, how can it be expected to handle when more institutions are created thousands Km away. The V.C. would neither properly manage AMU nor the Centres. Standards of both are, therefore, bound to go down further. Though the Centres have not come into existence yet, the V.C. is not finding time for the University only because he is much more worried about the “Qaum” and busy in establishing these Centres. Files over files are piled up waiting for his action as I could gather from the offices. Condition of various Departments, Schools and Colleges is getting from bad to worse for delay in action.
2. The affection the Aligs have among themselves is a rare and unique quality, not found among those of other Institutions. Its main cause is the residential life they enjoy at Aligarh, an obvious outcome of the Residential Character of AMU. They eat together; they live together; they quarrel and compromise, all together. “Is Buzm Mein Taighain Khenchi Hain Is Buzm Mein Saghar Tore Hain – Is Buzm Mein Ankh Bichai Hai Is Buzm Mein Dil Tak Jore Hain”. I have witnessed so many Mahabharats followed by Bharat Milaps among AMU students in the past. The so called satellite campuses will develop their own culture that will be all together different from AMU. In Kerala you will find Keralite culture, eating Rasam, Idli and Sanber etc and in Bengal another culture. Yes, you may get a few good lawyers or management students (That too is not sure in the light of above mentioned administrative difficulties) but Aligarianism will surely become a “Qissa-e-Parina”.
3. You say, “Let us get the money, the land, help set up the campuses…., assist in their becoming centres of excellence”. No doubt this expresses your pious enthusiasm and very good sentiments. But may be good for a talk of idealism and for an effective sermon on Muslim educational uplift. But when it will come to giving practical shape for creating a Centre of Excellence one will find it too difficult, rather impossible to run the AMU and thousands mile away Centres together. You say, “Like you and many others, I do share the fear that the Governance of these Centres may be difficult, but not impossible”. In the light of the little administrative experience that I have, I reiterate that the governance of institutions situated so far away shall be rather impossible. In the words of Mr. S. Shahabuddin, “I personally see the impossibility of the AMU running Satellite Universities, even if, it becomes constitutionally & legally competent to do so. Given the record of the AMU, this will be an impossible task from a purely administrative and management point of view”.
4. You say, “Sir Syed did not visualize AMU as a physical campus at Aligarh itself. If his vision was to educate the Indian minorities and Muslims, then surely we are on the right path”. Sir Syed not only visualized but also he practically established the MAO College at Aligarh. He wished it to grow into a University of repute, to the status of and to be known as the Oxford and Cambridge of the east. This was his dream project, which he visualized only for Aligarh. Yes, Sir Syed, Syed Mahmood and his other colleagues also desired to propagate modern education all over India and, for the purpose, founded Muslim Educational Conference in order to establish such schools and colleges in the length and breath of the country, popularly known as Aligarh Movement. As a result, Shibli National College, Azamgarh, Gandhi Faiz-e-Aam College, Shahejahanpur and few other institutions came into existence due to this movement but under independent management. Nothing can be so contrary to the facts, rather absurd, than to say that they wanted to establish schools of modern education all over India under the management of MAO College or AMU and that this is the right path of Sir Syed. Sir Syed emphasized especially on Tarbiat of his students, for which he established the well known “English House” in order to train them in good manners, culture, etiquettes and English way of life. Slowly this responsibility was shifted to the wardens and the Seniors of the Halls of residence. I still remember that at the time of my “Introduction”, when I joined AMU as a student, one of the Seniors asked me, “Have you seen Bab-e-Ilm (a small door in between SM North and its Dinning Hall opening towards the Union Hall, that time it was between the Depts. of Persian and Law )”; I responded with Yes. He said; Sir Syed constructed Victoria Gate, Bab-e-Ishaq, Babe-Rahmat, Lawrence Gate and Zahoor Gate (all in S.S. Hall), all of these being much bigger in size than Bab-e-Ilm (Gate of knowledge); What message it gives? Then he himself replied, in a big laughter; that means you read less (the bookish knowledge) and learn more (I was known as mugging the books most of the time). It was, therefore, Tarbiat of students that, to Sir Syed, was most important.
5. You say, “If people feel that the AMU Act does not have the provision for creation of these centres in far flung areas, let us then involve and get the Act amended”.Yes, the Act needs so many amendments but, I am sorry, any amendment for the sake of these centres, which amounts to abolishing our Residential Character shall not at all be acceptable and we (the Aligarh fraternity as a whole) shall be the first to oppose this move tooth and nail. Till we are alive we shall not let the Residential Character destroyed and the University go down under in the name of the so called Mallappuram and Murshidabsad Centres for a few crores of Rupees. This is an ill conceived programme and one of the great mistakes of Dr. Azis from the very beginning. Now he is adamant to get it through by hook or by crook.
6. You say, “In our desire to discredit a person or a group, we are trying to kill such a great initiative”. Our intentions may not kindly be doubted. Opposition of the Centres is not for the sake of discrediting any individual. We are opposing the Centres with full sincerity and conviction. As far as discrediting Dr. Azis is concerned, he himself is responsible for that. The charges of financial bungling both at CUSAT, Kochi and AMU have reportedly been proved. Still he has not decided to mend his ways and probably he shall not. Can any body tell me why he has engaged CPWD for the University constructions involving crores of Rupees when there is a full fledged in house Building Department for the purpose. Is it because they reportedly pay “commission” very quietly and are known to have institutionalized it? Only God knows. He engaged CPWD in Kochi also. The same experiment he is successfully repeating in Aligarh. ‘Honesty should not only be practiced but also it should appear to have been practiced’. Every body knows but can do nothing. Tuk Tuk Deedum- Dum na Kashidum”. A Maulana, while explaining the ‘Shirk’ in a lecture said; if you add a drop of urine to a bucket full of milk, it will make the whole milk impure. Barring Murarji Desai as it might be an Amrit for him, it is Haram for Muslims. Likewise, we the Aligarh fraternity, cannot tolerate for a second to find the Head of this great seat of learning involved in corruption. Had he been noble, he would have quit this august office on his own after the above reports. What face has he, now, to talk about Muslim educational uplift or Special Centres, again where crores of Rupees are involved. How such a person can be relied upon?
This reminds me of Sir Shah Sulaiman. He was Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court and then moved to Federal Court (the Supreme Court) as also the Vice-Chancellor of AMU. He came on the week ends to Aligarh and worked for two days (Saturday and Sunday). Usually he used to come directly to the VC office from the Railway station. V.C. office was housed in a room, adjacent to Victoria Gate on the west wing of the upper floor. He himself used to put on lights of his office and worked for the whole day till late in night. Thereafter, some times he went to the Phoos Ka Bangla (The V.C. Lodge, which was a thatched cottage that time and was known as Phoos Ka Bangla) in the night but most often he used to sleep on the roof of S.S. Hall (west) itself in front of his office. He took his food from the S.S. Hall Dining Hall (Lunch and dinner both). The bearer of Sir Shah Sulaiman, who made his bed on the roof and served food to him, narrated this story to me whom I happened to see as he was alive when I was a student. When leaving for Allahabad or Delhi on the night of Sundays he religiously put off the lights. Dr. Azis Saheb must not feel happy that he is following the footsteps of Sir Shah Sulaiman as he took his food from the S.S. Hall Dining Hall and Dr. Azis is eating from the University Guest House because at the end of every month Sir Sulaiman paid for his food to S.S. Hall and electricity charges of his office. He worked honorary and did not charge salary from the University.
Bhai Ali Rizvi Saheb, now tell me where our Hon'ble V.C. finds himself fit in the galaxy of the Vice Chancellors like Sir Ross Masood, Sir Ziauddin, Sir Shah Sulaiman, Dr. Zakir Husain, Col. B.H. Zaidi, Mr. Tayyabji, Prof. Khusroo, Mr. S. Hamid, Mr. Hamid Ansari and lately Mr. Naseem Ahmad etc. What is his level? He has discredited himself by his own deeds. No body is responsible for that. Has he courage to compare his way of living like Nawabs with wasteful expenditures at the cost of the University with that of the most simple life of Sir Shah Sulaiman. Though there was the title 'Shah' in his name but he lived like a Gada. Sir Sulaiman and others are, and shall ever be known for their sacrifices they made for this great seat of learning and Dr. Azis shall be known for …..?
Wassalam, regards,
Nafees Ahmad,
Ph.D. (1968),
Professor of Ophthalmic Biochem. Rtd,
G-2, Dream Homes, S.S. Nagar, Aligarh.
Ph: 9319096230
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
AMU Losing Minority Character?
AMU's Minority Character Case is in the Supreme Court of India. The next date of hearing in the Supreme Court is fixed for 3rd August, 2010. Do the Vice-Chancellor and Registrar have answers to following questions?
1. Is AMU going to continue with Mr. Ejaz Maqbool, the Advocate-on-Record? One may recall that Mr. Ejaz Maqbool had admitted his "fault" (if at all it could be called a fault), and despite it, the Deputy Registrar (Legal Affairs), has already been suspended, without any fault, is absolutely clear by now. Has his suspension been revoked?
2. Who is going to replace Mr Ejaz Maqbool? And, whether the replacement has been provided with all the literature (which runs in around 3000 pages, including 12 volumes of literature of the Government on the issue). After all, the new advocate (who will replace Mr Ejaz Maqbool) has to be given enough time to study and prepare the arguments.
There is a need of thorough and careful reading and re-reading of 72 cases of last four decades in relation to the minority educational institutions of the country. Besides, critical understanding of the two judgments of the Allahabad High Court in the light of the AMU Admission Policy and procedure are equally most important. Many original records are in Urdu, Arabic and Persian- a non-Muslim advocate requires more time to understand and grasp it.
3. Who will brief the new advocates about the technicalities and history of AMU? Is the present Registrar competent enough, at least to explain what the finer points of contentions in the civil appeals before them. He has already been asked by an alumnus, A.G. Danish to undergo rigorous Refresher Course. Thanks to the Registrar's remarkable abilities.
4. It has passed more than two months from the last hearing/ happening? Is it not showing another callous attitude of the Vice-Chancellor and Registrar in sitting over the matter and not a single announcement is coming to the public, except victimization in the name of the minority case? Again, are they planning for another adjournment with the new group of advocates due to lack of time and preparedness? In that case, will the VC suspend himself or his beloved and 'competent' Registrar?
5. As of now, the VC's sole frantic preoccupation is to hiring an advocate/ chartered accountant to defend himself before the ongoing two judge inquiry into the allegations of most outrageous and unprecedented financial and other irregularities in which the VC-Registrar-F.O. stand indicted at least by the Principal Accountant General (November 2009). Mr. Kamal Faruqi is 'paid' to act as messiah of the VC, whose own 'wonderful' credentials are well known to a good section of people in Delhi.
In short, the VC’s priority is to save himself, the AMU's minority character case is nowhere on his agenda, as of now? I may kindly be corrected.
Seriousness, sincerity, commitment, ability and intentions of the Vice Chancellor and the Registrar in the preparedness for fighting the case of AMU's Minority matter in the Supreme Court is satisfactory? Should not it be taken as a wake-up call? Time is running too short.
Dollar/ Pound earning enlightened, self-righteous, all-knowing alumni (now consultants on special centres) should be able to show their capabilities in making the VC alert on the issue. After all, they gave him a red-carpet welcome overlooking his credentials (of corruption, repression, plagiarism) in the CUSAT.
Hats-off to those insiders who empanelled such a man!
Hats-off to the bureaucracy of the Union Ministry of HRD and that of the Visitor!
AMU's minority character zindabad, and VC Azis ?????baad.
Rahey naam Allah ka
ZAFAR KHAN
H-104, Batla House, New Delhi-25.
1. Is AMU going to continue with Mr. Ejaz Maqbool, the Advocate-on-Record? One may recall that Mr. Ejaz Maqbool had admitted his "fault" (if at all it could be called a fault), and despite it, the Deputy Registrar (Legal Affairs), has already been suspended, without any fault, is absolutely clear by now. Has his suspension been revoked?
2. Who is going to replace Mr Ejaz Maqbool? And, whether the replacement has been provided with all the literature (which runs in around 3000 pages, including 12 volumes of literature of the Government on the issue). After all, the new advocate (who will replace Mr Ejaz Maqbool) has to be given enough time to study and prepare the arguments.
There is a need of thorough and careful reading and re-reading of 72 cases of last four decades in relation to the minority educational institutions of the country. Besides, critical understanding of the two judgments of the Allahabad High Court in the light of the AMU Admission Policy and procedure are equally most important. Many original records are in Urdu, Arabic and Persian- a non-Muslim advocate requires more time to understand and grasp it.
3. Who will brief the new advocates about the technicalities and history of AMU? Is the present Registrar competent enough, at least to explain what the finer points of contentions in the civil appeals before them. He has already been asked by an alumnus, A.G. Danish to undergo rigorous Refresher Course. Thanks to the Registrar's remarkable abilities.
4. It has passed more than two months from the last hearing/ happening? Is it not showing another callous attitude of the Vice-Chancellor and Registrar in sitting over the matter and not a single announcement is coming to the public, except victimization in the name of the minority case? Again, are they planning for another adjournment with the new group of advocates due to lack of time and preparedness? In that case, will the VC suspend himself or his beloved and 'competent' Registrar?
5. As of now, the VC's sole frantic preoccupation is to hiring an advocate/ chartered accountant to defend himself before the ongoing two judge inquiry into the allegations of most outrageous and unprecedented financial and other irregularities in which the VC-Registrar-F.O. stand indicted at least by the Principal Accountant General (November 2009). Mr. Kamal Faruqi is 'paid' to act as messiah of the VC, whose own 'wonderful' credentials are well known to a good section of people in Delhi.
In short, the VC’s priority is to save himself, the AMU's minority character case is nowhere on his agenda, as of now? I may kindly be corrected.
Seriousness, sincerity, commitment, ability and intentions of the Vice Chancellor and the Registrar in the preparedness for fighting the case of AMU's Minority matter in the Supreme Court is satisfactory? Should not it be taken as a wake-up call? Time is running too short.
Dollar/ Pound earning enlightened, self-righteous, all-knowing alumni (now consultants on special centres) should be able to show their capabilities in making the VC alert on the issue. After all, they gave him a red-carpet welcome overlooking his credentials (of corruption, repression, plagiarism) in the CUSAT.
Hats-off to those insiders who empanelled such a man!
Hats-off to the bureaucracy of the Union Ministry of HRD and that of the Visitor!
AMU's minority character zindabad, and VC Azis ?????baad.
Rahey naam Allah ka
ZAFAR KHAN
H-104, Batla House, New Delhi-25.
AMU Centres “stand established forthwith” (PRO).
Buk raha hoon junon may kya kya
Kuch na samjhe khuda kare koi
The press note from the Public Relations Office dated June 8, 2010 in exact consonance with the Registrar’s notification (D.No ©/ 702 dated 7-6-10) (could be an exercise to preempt the Stay granted by the Hon’ble Kerala High Court on 7-6-10 is the most shameless exhibition of the misuse of official position and misinterpretation of laws and twisted facts to please the Masters in Delhi, in total disregard of the interests of the Aligarh Muslim University and a jolt to the hopes and aspirations of the Muslim Community.
The undeniable fact that the recent communication of the Visitor (27-4-10) was in response to the request of the VC (not authorized by the Competent Authorities of the University) but to Mr. Sunil Kumar, Joint Secretary, MHRD to release 50 crores earmarked in the Union Budget of 2009 for Murshidabad and Mallapuram. There was no request from the VC at all to accord sanction for Special Centres under Section 12 (2) of the University Act.
The episode has also exposed the Ministry of Human Resource Development thoroughly and brings to light that the letter of the Visitor containing her ‘approval in principle’ for the new Centres, was manipulated and appears to have not been processed through the prescribed channels nor the Visitor apprised of the facts. Govt. should take serious note of this.
In his eagerness to cover up the blunder on the part of the Ministry of Human Resource Development, the Registrar vainly tried to link up the Visitor’s letter with the VC’s communication of 13-2-2008 to Shri Arjun Singh but got caught on the wrong foot- this VC’s communication claims the so called approval of the Court, Executive council and Academic Council on the basis of which the present Visitor’s sanction was purported to have been accorded, is a lie. In doing so, the Registrar lost sight of the fact that the meeting of the said AC was held on 5-12.1-09 and letter to the Visitor was sent on 13-2-2008.
Moreover, in the absence of the approval of AC till 13-2-2008 and the fact that the Vice Chancellor’s letter did not mention the approval of the AC, where was the possibility for the Visitor to accord sanction and this letter incidentally referred for the creation of AMU Campuses not Special Centres and the letter was not responded to by the MHRD leave alone the Visitor’s sanction as claimed by the Registrar of the Aligarh Muslim University, a deliberate mis-statement. The Registrar has tried to hoodwink the public by furnishing false information on several counts which certainly is a penal offence.
Not only this, the Visitor cannot and should not consider according sanction to any plan or scheme unless the concerned Statute/Ordinance is amended by the relevant Authorities of the University. The manner in which the VC and his Office have placed the matter before the public, media, the President of India (who is also the Visitor of the university) is extremely deplorable and warrants strong disciplinary action and condemnation to stop this persistent irresponsible behavior.
The often repeated claims of Prof. Azis that Special Centres have the approval of the relevant Authorities of the University are quite misleading. The truth is that the University Court suggested four Centres for Muslims( 2-12-2007); Executive Council approved five Centres for Advanced Studies and Research (17-1-2008) and the Academic Council approved Special Centres (5-12,1,2009) for Muslims. There was no agreement on whether there should be Centres, Advance Centres or Special Centres. It ought to be pointed out here that these three categories are totally different from each other in their nature, content and objectives. Besides, Campuses were also frequently bandied about to make the confusion worse confounded. The number and locations were never finally approved by the relevant Authorities. The Vice Chancellor, who is not competent to take a decision on his own in this regard, had the audacity to decide not only about these Centres but also had the insolence to change the location, from Katihar to Kishenganj. More importantly, the prescribed procedure contained under Section 28 and 29 (2) of initiating the matter from Faculty to AC, EC and the Court (strictly in this order), incorporating the necessary amendments in the Statutes/ Ordinances to be passed on to the Visitor for approval and then to place it before both Houses of Parliament for approval (Section 31 (4) and (5)) has not been followed at all; rendering the entire exercise, claims and pronouncements of the Vice Chancellor and the recent decisions of the Board of Studies of two departments and the meeting of the Academic Council of 8-6-2010, as exercises in futility. Seen in this context, the release of Rs. 35 crores to the Vice Chancellor without the approval of the Authorities and necessary amendments to the rules is extremely objectionable and the MHRD owes an explanation and should act fast enough to retrieve the situation from getting out of hands.
In the light of the above, no sane person can agree with the insane assertion of the Registrar that “these Centres stand established forthwith”. Surprisingly, in the very next breath, the Registrar admits that ‘required modifications will be made in the relevant Statutes and Ordinances and notified separately’. This, besides refuting the claim of establishment of Centres also contradicts the assertion of Prof. Azis (The Hindu, Kerala, 18-1-2009) that amendments of Statutes is not required, the sanction of the Visitor would be sufficient.
The misleading of the University Community in particular and the public in general, by spreading lies, half truths, concealment of facts and generation of avoidable controversies, call for the removal of the incompetent Registrar forthwith, even if the notification in reference was issued at the behest of the Vice Chancellor. The Vice Chancellor cannot escape vicarious responsibility for the said notification. In fact, he has forfeited the right to continue in Office long back.
One can understand the concerns, pressures, agony and mental imbalance of person faced with an adverse report by the Cochin University Inquiry, CAG report, 2009 and the ongoing Visitor’s Inquiry. The allegations coupled with determined opposition and strong public opinion further added to his miseries closing all routes to escape. Under these circumstances, the only course open to a sensible, self respecting and educated person, is to call it a day and quit gracefully instead of pulling strings, day in and day out, to get out of the mess ( which is his own creation) with the help of the political bosses, who are nobody’s friends when the tides turn against.
Prof. Ziauddin Ahmad (Retd.)
Dept of Botany
AMU, Aligarh
Kuch na samjhe khuda kare koi
The press note from the Public Relations Office dated June 8, 2010 in exact consonance with the Registrar’s notification (D.No ©/ 702 dated 7-6-10) (could be an exercise to preempt the Stay granted by the Hon’ble Kerala High Court on 7-6-10 is the most shameless exhibition of the misuse of official position and misinterpretation of laws and twisted facts to please the Masters in Delhi, in total disregard of the interests of the Aligarh Muslim University and a jolt to the hopes and aspirations of the Muslim Community.
The undeniable fact that the recent communication of the Visitor (27-4-10) was in response to the request of the VC (not authorized by the Competent Authorities of the University) but to Mr. Sunil Kumar, Joint Secretary, MHRD to release 50 crores earmarked in the Union Budget of 2009 for Murshidabad and Mallapuram. There was no request from the VC at all to accord sanction for Special Centres under Section 12 (2) of the University Act.
The episode has also exposed the Ministry of Human Resource Development thoroughly and brings to light that the letter of the Visitor containing her ‘approval in principle’ for the new Centres, was manipulated and appears to have not been processed through the prescribed channels nor the Visitor apprised of the facts. Govt. should take serious note of this.
In his eagerness to cover up the blunder on the part of the Ministry of Human Resource Development, the Registrar vainly tried to link up the Visitor’s letter with the VC’s communication of 13-2-2008 to Shri Arjun Singh but got caught on the wrong foot- this VC’s communication claims the so called approval of the Court, Executive council and Academic Council on the basis of which the present Visitor’s sanction was purported to have been accorded, is a lie. In doing so, the Registrar lost sight of the fact that the meeting of the said AC was held on 5-12.1-09 and letter to the Visitor was sent on 13-2-2008.
Moreover, in the absence of the approval of AC till 13-2-2008 and the fact that the Vice Chancellor’s letter did not mention the approval of the AC, where was the possibility for the Visitor to accord sanction and this letter incidentally referred for the creation of AMU Campuses not Special Centres and the letter was not responded to by the MHRD leave alone the Visitor’s sanction as claimed by the Registrar of the Aligarh Muslim University, a deliberate mis-statement. The Registrar has tried to hoodwink the public by furnishing false information on several counts which certainly is a penal offence.
Not only this, the Visitor cannot and should not consider according sanction to any plan or scheme unless the concerned Statute/Ordinance is amended by the relevant Authorities of the University. The manner in which the VC and his Office have placed the matter before the public, media, the President of India (who is also the Visitor of the university) is extremely deplorable and warrants strong disciplinary action and condemnation to stop this persistent irresponsible behavior.
The often repeated claims of Prof. Azis that Special Centres have the approval of the relevant Authorities of the University are quite misleading. The truth is that the University Court suggested four Centres for Muslims( 2-12-2007); Executive Council approved five Centres for Advanced Studies and Research (17-1-2008) and the Academic Council approved Special Centres (5-12,1,2009) for Muslims. There was no agreement on whether there should be Centres, Advance Centres or Special Centres. It ought to be pointed out here that these three categories are totally different from each other in their nature, content and objectives. Besides, Campuses were also frequently bandied about to make the confusion worse confounded. The number and locations were never finally approved by the relevant Authorities. The Vice Chancellor, who is not competent to take a decision on his own in this regard, had the audacity to decide not only about these Centres but also had the insolence to change the location, from Katihar to Kishenganj. More importantly, the prescribed procedure contained under Section 28 and 29 (2) of initiating the matter from Faculty to AC, EC and the Court (strictly in this order), incorporating the necessary amendments in the Statutes/ Ordinances to be passed on to the Visitor for approval and then to place it before both Houses of Parliament for approval (Section 31 (4) and (5)) has not been followed at all; rendering the entire exercise, claims and pronouncements of the Vice Chancellor and the recent decisions of the Board of Studies of two departments and the meeting of the Academic Council of 8-6-2010, as exercises in futility. Seen in this context, the release of Rs. 35 crores to the Vice Chancellor without the approval of the Authorities and necessary amendments to the rules is extremely objectionable and the MHRD owes an explanation and should act fast enough to retrieve the situation from getting out of hands.
In the light of the above, no sane person can agree with the insane assertion of the Registrar that “these Centres stand established forthwith”. Surprisingly, in the very next breath, the Registrar admits that ‘required modifications will be made in the relevant Statutes and Ordinances and notified separately’. This, besides refuting the claim of establishment of Centres also contradicts the assertion of Prof. Azis (The Hindu, Kerala, 18-1-2009) that amendments of Statutes is not required, the sanction of the Visitor would be sufficient.
The misleading of the University Community in particular and the public in general, by spreading lies, half truths, concealment of facts and generation of avoidable controversies, call for the removal of the incompetent Registrar forthwith, even if the notification in reference was issued at the behest of the Vice Chancellor. The Vice Chancellor cannot escape vicarious responsibility for the said notification. In fact, he has forfeited the right to continue in Office long back.
One can understand the concerns, pressures, agony and mental imbalance of person faced with an adverse report by the Cochin University Inquiry, CAG report, 2009 and the ongoing Visitor’s Inquiry. The allegations coupled with determined opposition and strong public opinion further added to his miseries closing all routes to escape. Under these circumstances, the only course open to a sensible, self respecting and educated person, is to call it a day and quit gracefully instead of pulling strings, day in and day out, to get out of the mess ( which is his own creation) with the help of the political bosses, who are nobody’s friends when the tides turn against.
Prof. Ziauddin Ahmad (Retd.)
Dept of Botany
AMU, Aligarh
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Ploy Against AMU
I must be thankful to "AMUNetwork", for having aired my submissions regarding AMU Special Centres in Murshidabad and Malapuram. I am also thankful to all of my friends, AMU Alumni and some very senior and respectable personalities who have responded to my mail very positively.
It is time I must inform you all that I sent the above referred mail to the V.C., Dr. P.K. Abdul Azis and Dr. Rahat Abrar in the very beginning in order to listen to their comments before making it public but I am sorry that none of them could get time to respond.
In this mail I would like to draw your kind attention towards another important issue. I suppose all of you know that there was a project of three independent universities for the Muslim minority respectively in Bangalore, Kishanganj and Ajmer planned by Mr. Antulay with the help of a high powered committee appointed by Maulana Azad Foundation, Govt. of India. These Universities may be brought into existence as practicable and modern streamlined projects. As far I know, this project has been submitted to the Prime Minister long back and has his prima facie approval. This shall be better alternative to the so called AMU Special Centres. These universities will obviously be under independent administration without hampering AMU's administration, residential character and without involving any legal issues either. Coming up of these Universities shall have far reaching consequences and shall indeed change the scenario in the times to come Insh'Allah but the Govt. is sleeping on this important issue.
I have two humble submissions, A) one to our Hon'ble V.C. and the other B) to our fellow AMU Alumni.
A) I shall very humbly request our V.C. kindly to concentrate on and find time for the University's betterment if he is really sincere to the University for which has he been appointed, drawing handsome salary and utilizing all kinds of facilities. Few months before a patient of head injury died in Medical College, whom I knew, because of non-availability of a ventilator. When enquired I was told that only four out of eight instruments available in the entire Medical college were in working order and all of those were in use. I do not know how many such patients are dying in our Medical College for the lack of facilities. One day I wanted to visit old periodicals section in the Azad Library, which is situated on the fourth floor. The lift was not working. I was told that it could not be repaired for the last several years for want of funds. A number of Departments in the University, Hostels, Schools and various Colleges etc. are deprived of basic requirements. You will find thousands of such deficiencies in the University for which our V.C. has no funds and has no time either. Yes he has crores of Rupees for the repair of V.C.'s lodge (facilities like Nawabs and kings), his T.A. bills, calling unnecessary conventions in Delhi, Aligarh, Lucknow etc and spending lacs from the Univ. funds only for the sake of publicity, unnecessary huge construction of boundary walls with the steel bar tops (These may be required for the outer boundaries of the University, but not at all inside the University campus), fixing CCTV cameras even in the girls' college and hostels (AMU is probably the only University having such arrangements on which the staff in the Control-room is sitting and watching the girls) etc. This must be an eye opener to all of us as to what are the priorities before our academician V.C. Of course one must be feeling satisfaction that there are at least no discipline problems in the University at the moment. But, having a little experience in this field, I can say with confidence that it is superficial & temporary phase. Having peace with dissolution of the Students' Union and with suppressing, rather crushing the voice of dissent is no achievement. Moreover relying on Police and CCTV cameras for controlling discipline in an academic institution especially in AMU is a mistake, rather blunder. Surely it is not a healthy sign. I feel proud that there is a well defined comprehensive internal system for that in AMU but alas! The VC has failed to strengthen it. It is growing weaker and weaker. He probably doesn't even understand. Our own system must be revived and strengthened. Instead, he is relying only on police. I shall, therefore, request the V.C. again that he give more time to the Univ. than running after the politicians beseechingly, calling conventions and wasting his precious time and Univ. funds which he could have used for the University's betterment. I also know that this request will go unheeded by the VC for the following reasons:
I am posing certain questions to explain:
1. Why Mr. Parnab Mukharji-Dr. Azis duo does not come forward to get the scheme of the above universities implemented? Is it because no University has been recommended for Murshidabad and Mr. Pranabji would not get electoral benefit out of it? Mr. Mulayam Singh won the elections on "Urdu Teachers" and Parnabji on "AMU Centres" as there are a lot of Muslim voters in his constituency.
2. Why Dr. Azis is in so hurry to implement this scheme from July, even without any infrastructure, whatsoever, for the courses he wants to start. Parnabji and UPA Govt., frightened of Mamtaji (She has swept the recent polls with full support of Muslims), has to win this and other seats for Congress in the forthcoming Assembly elections with Muslim support? This Centre has therefore to be started as quickly as possible and our V.C. is faithfully implementing this scheme. Is it because he has to appease Parnabji and UPA Govt to have their sympathy in the enquiry going on against him?
3. Why has Murshidabad got Rupees twenty five crores whereas Malapuram only ten crores? It is understood that the Ministry of HRD was not convinced with both of the projects because of the legalities involved yet it sanctioned twenty five crore for Murshidabad under the pressure of Mr. Parnabji but for Malapuram there was no such pressure. Though not in agreement yet the Ministry of HRD sanctioned Rupees ten crore to Malapuram also in order to balance, to some extent, the decision taken for Murshidabad project.
4. Dr. Azis has chosen Murshidabad, may be because Muslims there are educationally backward, but why has he chosen Malapuram where Muslims are most educated (having 100% literacy), economically very well off and who are already running a number of colleges of Management, Law, Engineering and Medicine etc. Muslim Education Society of Kerala alone is running more than two hundred and fifty such schools and colleges. The V.C. could have proposed this Centre in an educationally backward Muslim area. Is it because Dr. Azis has to appease the Kerala Govt. to have its favour in the enquiry report pending against him for action to be taken by Kerala Govt?
It must therefore be clear in our minds that the interest of these persons in the Special Centres is other than that of Muslim education. Dr. Azis is misusing the august position of the VC for his personal ends and Parnabji for his objectives. It is sad and highly deplorable that the entire game in the name of Muslim education is being played at the cost of the University interest. How simple community we the Muslims are? How long shall they continue this game? We the AMU Alumni are an educated lot. We should, with open and cool mind, sit together and decide the future course of action to stop this menace. No body should be allowed to play with our University. I may be wrong in my analysis. I am writing this with open mind.
B) In the light of the above it is obvious that both Mr. Pranabji and our V.C. shall be least interested in the above said Universities. It is we who have to raise a strong voice in this regard. I have a humble submission therefore to all fellow Alumni that while opposing the said controversial AMU Centres we must raise a forceful, unanimous voice and put our foot down to I) establish immediately the proposed Muslim Minority Universities and II) declare AMU a Minority institution with necessary amendments in the Act to be governed under Article 30 of the Constitution of India..
I had earlier decided not to write against our V.C. in future anymore. But I am not at all sorry to write these words again for I am extremely pained and every Alumnas and well wisher of the University must be pained to see the ploy, our University is being trapped in, not by Sangh Parivar but by the Chief Executive Officer of this great seat of learning himsrelf and that too in the name of Muslim education. Some body has rightly written in an email posting "Is Ghar Ko Aag Lag Gai Ghar Ke Charagh Se".
Aein-e-Jawan Mardan Haq Goi-o-Bebaki
Allah Ke Sheron Ko Aati Nahein Roobahi
I remotely deserve for this verse of Iqbal but I wish that it must refer to each and every AMU Alumnus if he finds the interest of his/her Alma Mater at stake.
Nafees Ahmad,
Ph.D. 1968,
Professor of Ophthalmic Biochemistry, Rtd.
Formerly: Proctor, Aligarh Muslim University
Member, All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB)
Member, The Markazi Majlis-e-mushawarat
Address:
G-2, Dream Homes, S.S. Nagar, Aligarh.
Ph: 09319096230, 09868482176, Fax: 0571-2700687
It is time I must inform you all that I sent the above referred mail to the V.C., Dr. P.K. Abdul Azis and Dr. Rahat Abrar in the very beginning in order to listen to their comments before making it public but I am sorry that none of them could get time to respond.
In this mail I would like to draw your kind attention towards another important issue. I suppose all of you know that there was a project of three independent universities for the Muslim minority respectively in Bangalore, Kishanganj and Ajmer planned by Mr. Antulay with the help of a high powered committee appointed by Maulana Azad Foundation, Govt. of India. These Universities may be brought into existence as practicable and modern streamlined projects. As far I know, this project has been submitted to the Prime Minister long back and has his prima facie approval. This shall be better alternative to the so called AMU Special Centres. These universities will obviously be under independent administration without hampering AMU's administration, residential character and without involving any legal issues either. Coming up of these Universities shall have far reaching consequences and shall indeed change the scenario in the times to come Insh'Allah but the Govt. is sleeping on this important issue.
I have two humble submissions, A) one to our Hon'ble V.C. and the other B) to our fellow AMU Alumni.
A) I shall very humbly request our V.C. kindly to concentrate on and find time for the University's betterment if he is really sincere to the University for which has he been appointed, drawing handsome salary and utilizing all kinds of facilities. Few months before a patient of head injury died in Medical College, whom I knew, because of non-availability of a ventilator. When enquired I was told that only four out of eight instruments available in the entire Medical college were in working order and all of those were in use. I do not know how many such patients are dying in our Medical College for the lack of facilities. One day I wanted to visit old periodicals section in the Azad Library, which is situated on the fourth floor. The lift was not working. I was told that it could not be repaired for the last several years for want of funds. A number of Departments in the University, Hostels, Schools and various Colleges etc. are deprived of basic requirements. You will find thousands of such deficiencies in the University for which our V.C. has no funds and has no time either. Yes he has crores of Rupees for the repair of V.C.'s lodge (facilities like Nawabs and kings), his T.A. bills, calling unnecessary conventions in Delhi, Aligarh, Lucknow etc and spending lacs from the Univ. funds only for the sake of publicity, unnecessary huge construction of boundary walls with the steel bar tops (These may be required for the outer boundaries of the University, but not at all inside the University campus), fixing CCTV cameras even in the girls' college and hostels (AMU is probably the only University having such arrangements on which the staff in the Control-room is sitting and watching the girls) etc. This must be an eye opener to all of us as to what are the priorities before our academician V.C. Of course one must be feeling satisfaction that there are at least no discipline problems in the University at the moment. But, having a little experience in this field, I can say with confidence that it is superficial & temporary phase. Having peace with dissolution of the Students' Union and with suppressing, rather crushing the voice of dissent is no achievement. Moreover relying on Police and CCTV cameras for controlling discipline in an academic institution especially in AMU is a mistake, rather blunder. Surely it is not a healthy sign. I feel proud that there is a well defined comprehensive internal system for that in AMU but alas! The VC has failed to strengthen it. It is growing weaker and weaker. He probably doesn't even understand. Our own system must be revived and strengthened. Instead, he is relying only on police. I shall, therefore, request the V.C. again that he give more time to the Univ. than running after the politicians beseechingly, calling conventions and wasting his precious time and Univ. funds which he could have used for the University's betterment. I also know that this request will go unheeded by the VC for the following reasons:
I am posing certain questions to explain:
1. Why Mr. Parnab Mukharji-Dr. Azis duo does not come forward to get the scheme of the above universities implemented? Is it because no University has been recommended for Murshidabad and Mr. Pranabji would not get electoral benefit out of it? Mr. Mulayam Singh won the elections on "Urdu Teachers" and Parnabji on "AMU Centres" as there are a lot of Muslim voters in his constituency.
2. Why Dr. Azis is in so hurry to implement this scheme from July, even without any infrastructure, whatsoever, for the courses he wants to start. Parnabji and UPA Govt., frightened of Mamtaji (She has swept the recent polls with full support of Muslims), has to win this and other seats for Congress in the forthcoming Assembly elections with Muslim support? This Centre has therefore to be started as quickly as possible and our V.C. is faithfully implementing this scheme. Is it because he has to appease Parnabji and UPA Govt to have their sympathy in the enquiry going on against him?
3. Why has Murshidabad got Rupees twenty five crores whereas Malapuram only ten crores? It is understood that the Ministry of HRD was not convinced with both of the projects because of the legalities involved yet it sanctioned twenty five crore for Murshidabad under the pressure of Mr. Parnabji but for Malapuram there was no such pressure. Though not in agreement yet the Ministry of HRD sanctioned Rupees ten crore to Malapuram also in order to balance, to some extent, the decision taken for Murshidabad project.
4. Dr. Azis has chosen Murshidabad, may be because Muslims there are educationally backward, but why has he chosen Malapuram where Muslims are most educated (having 100% literacy), economically very well off and who are already running a number of colleges of Management, Law, Engineering and Medicine etc. Muslim Education Society of Kerala alone is running more than two hundred and fifty such schools and colleges. The V.C. could have proposed this Centre in an educationally backward Muslim area. Is it because Dr. Azis has to appease the Kerala Govt. to have its favour in the enquiry report pending against him for action to be taken by Kerala Govt?
It must therefore be clear in our minds that the interest of these persons in the Special Centres is other than that of Muslim education. Dr. Azis is misusing the august position of the VC for his personal ends and Parnabji for his objectives. It is sad and highly deplorable that the entire game in the name of Muslim education is being played at the cost of the University interest. How simple community we the Muslims are? How long shall they continue this game? We the AMU Alumni are an educated lot. We should, with open and cool mind, sit together and decide the future course of action to stop this menace. No body should be allowed to play with our University. I may be wrong in my analysis. I am writing this with open mind.
B) In the light of the above it is obvious that both Mr. Pranabji and our V.C. shall be least interested in the above said Universities. It is we who have to raise a strong voice in this regard. I have a humble submission therefore to all fellow Alumni that while opposing the said controversial AMU Centres we must raise a forceful, unanimous voice and put our foot down to I) establish immediately the proposed Muslim Minority Universities and II) declare AMU a Minority institution with necessary amendments in the Act to be governed under Article 30 of the Constitution of India..
I had earlier decided not to write against our V.C. in future anymore. But I am not at all sorry to write these words again for I am extremely pained and every Alumnas and well wisher of the University must be pained to see the ploy, our University is being trapped in, not by Sangh Parivar but by the Chief Executive Officer of this great seat of learning himsrelf and that too in the name of Muslim education. Some body has rightly written in an email posting "Is Ghar Ko Aag Lag Gai Ghar Ke Charagh Se".
Aein-e-Jawan Mardan Haq Goi-o-Bebaki
Allah Ke Sheron Ko Aati Nahein Roobahi
I remotely deserve for this verse of Iqbal but I wish that it must refer to each and every AMU Alumnus if he finds the interest of his/her Alma Mater at stake.
Nafees Ahmad,
Ph.D. 1968,
Professor of Ophthalmic Biochemistry, Rtd.
Formerly: Proctor, Aligarh Muslim University
Member, All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB)
Member, The Markazi Majlis-e-mushawarat
Address:
G-2, Dream Homes, S.S. Nagar, Aligarh.
Ph: 09319096230, 09868482176, Fax: 0571-2700687
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
AMU Targets Student for Freedom of Speech & Expression
From: Adil Hossain
Subject: [AMUNetwork] AMU: No Dissent, Vengeance on students & LIU mystery
To: AMUNetwork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, 9 June, 2010, 7:22 AM
The present AMU administration has shown a despicable record in terms of respecting the freedom of speech and expression of the AMU students who as Indian Citizens must enjoy their right under article 19(1)(a) of Indian Constitution. In the recent Press Release the AMU authorities are only shedding crocodile tears about their care for girls students of I.G and Abdullah Hall as if they never did anything to expose the AMU girls towards “outside vulnerability”. In a RTI reply vide D.No.972/IGH dated 22.05.2010 (http://www.scribd. com/doc/32729541 /Ig-Provost- Rti-Reply) Provost, I.G.Hall reply to query no.4 as “Only one student of M.A(English) Ms. Samina Parveen was transferred by the order of the Vice-Chancellor from Halls of Residence to NRSC since she indulged in an argument with the Vice-Chancellor”. So our dear AMU administration very happily exposed a girl to outside “vulnerability” in 24 hours by transferring her to NRSC (simply throwing out of hostel) as she committed a grievous crime in a democratic country like India that she argued with the Vice-Chancellor.
In the recent times, another Mass Communication student Mr.Afaq Ahmad, who brought unimaginable development in the Dining Hall functioning at AMU and suspended since April 22, 2010 for shooting a documentary inside the Hall premises on his experience with the Dining Hall system at V.M.Hall was also denied of his fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression. I filed an RTI to the CAPIO of AMU which was received with vide Ref No. 98/CAPIO/F/10- 11 dated 28/04/2010 about the grounds for arbitrary suspension of Mr.Afaq Ahmad, M.Phil, Mass Comm by Vice-Chancellor, AMU. In reply to my question where I asked whether a student need permission from Provost or not to shoot a video inside a Hall, Provost, B.R.Ambedkar Hall in the RTI reply vide D.No 93/BRH dated 29.05.2010 accepted (which is applicable to all Halls of Residences also), “ As per record there is no Rule/Ordinances/ Regulation explicitly prohibiting making of video clip of Hall without the permission of the Provost.”
In the most blunt confession about snatching the fundamental right of students of freedom of speech and expression, the Proctor Office in reply to same RTI vide D.No 139/Proc dated 01.06.2010 accepted that peaceful democratic protest like signature campaign is seen as pressure tactic by the University authorities and thereby it is a punishable offence considered by them. Please see the reply to the Question no.4 in the RTI reply by Proctor Office. The Proctor Office in the same RTI in reply to Question No.5 also accepted that pasting of news paper cuttings/posters on the walls of the Hall and other premises of the university would also be dealt harshly with the students( they may face severe punishment). Now there is no specific board arranged by the university authorities in the whole university where student can paste their posters or any other items, the earlier one present at the entrance of Moulana Azad Library was also removed so that student cant convey any message through this medium. So it is a usual practices in this Vice-Chancellor’s regime that student paste their materials near the place Office Notifications get pasted (as if they don’t disfigure the walls). So systematically this AMU administration has also robbed off the students their fundamental right of freedom of expression by making it punishable to paste any poster/pamphlets in the whole university. See the Afaq Bhai RTI and the Reply by CPIO, Proctors Office and CPIO, BR Ambedkar Hall here- http://www.scribd. com/doc/32732927 /AFAQ-Bhai- RTI-Mockery- of-Justice.
Now the question is, in a situation where we do not agree to a decision made by the AMU authorities what are the options available to us to register our dissent? If we participate in signature campaign leave alone any rally or procession we would be punished for no reason. If we paste any poster/ news papers cutting we would be punished for no reason. Where is the place for dissent then? Should we become suicide bomber to register our protest? This AMU has no difference with Hitlers Nazi Regime where dissent was not tolerated at any cost.
LOCAL INTELLIGENCE UNIT, DREADED OFFICIAL SPY AGENCY OF AMU
The first story of Local Intelligence Unit was published in the March 8 edition of Outlook with the headline “Class Monitors” on the basis of a RTI reply (http://www.scribd. com/doc/32733386 /Proctor- Office-Accepts- LIU-Exist) procured by a RTI Activist Mr.Mohd. Chaman, a 4th grade AMU employee and Former AMU Court Member(http://www.outlooki ndia.com/ article.aspx? 264463). In this article Vice-Chancellor AMU defended its presence at the campus by stating that, “It helps maintain campus peace and security. There’s nothing secretive about the LIU and it is not policing.” After Dr.Siras controversy rocked the AMU administration and LIU’s involvement in the sting operation was exposed, this dreaded Local Intelligence Unit was covered in the articles published in India Today, Frontline and all national media. Till then LIU was known to be teemed with salaried employees but Proctor, AMU went on record in the Indian Express news published in the first page on April 11, 2010 “Shadow of AMU’s spy wing in Siras Sting” stating that students are also employed by the Proctor Office as spy in the campus. Proctor Md Zubair Khan confirmed: “There is such a proctorial team on the university. You can call it a local intelligence unit where students give information about campus activities and unwanted elements. http://www.indianex press.com/ news/shadow- of-amus-spy- wing-on-siras- sting/604027/. But after a huge public outcry over the presence of a spy agency first time in any educational institution in India the entire AMU administration started denying its presence including the Vice-Chancellor and started calling it mere “watch and ward” team but LIU remained active in the campus and performed their spy activities. Then came the news on LIU “Is there a spy wing in Aligarh Muslim University” (http://timesofindia .indiatimes. com/india/ Is-there- a-spy-wing- in-Aligarh- Muslim-Universit y/articleshow/ 5885083.cms) that was published by most of the news agency which alleged that LIU was involved in suspending Mr.Afaq Ahmad, M.Phil, Dept. of Mass Communication, A.M.U. In continuation to Mr.Afaq’s story, after his suspension Indian Express published news called “Now, AMU suspends student for ‘threatening’ V-C” where they stated that though Proctor denied the presence of LIU and called it “Watch and Ward” yet the suspension order of Mr. Afaq Ahmad mentioned it(http://www.indianex press.com/ news/now- amu-suspends- student-for- threatening- vc/610761/ 0).
I had always been a strong critic of such a spy agency maintained by Proctor Office,AMU where students and people are employed for the purpose for keeping an eye on students and teachers of the university as it should not exist in any democratic institution. Secondly in the RTI, where Proctor Office accepted LIU exist in AMU and that they spend 1.2 lack/month in paying the salaries to LIU people, the CPIO/Budget of AMU in the letter vide D.No.990/FO dated 30.10.09 stated AMU doesn’t have any fund meant for LIU or anything. So the question arrives who pays for the 14 lack/annum spend on this spy agency? Is it the Miscellaneous fund of the students or any other fund meant for development?
To know the history and involvement of students in Local Intelligence Unit, I filed an RTI received at Proctor Office vide R.No 191/Proc dated 17.04.2010 asking 7 points in detail. When already in an RTI reply vide D.No 91/Proc dated 17.11.2009 Proctor Office not only accepted Local Intelligence Unit exist at Aligarh Muslim University but also provided the name of those persons employed as LIU, their salaries etc to my utter surprise the Proctors Office informed me in reply to my RTI application vide D.No 130/Proc dated 12.05.2010 (http://www.scribd. com/doc/32734673 /Proctor- Office-Denies- LIU-Exists- RTI-Reply that, “there is no LIU Unit at the Proctors Office”.
In the meantime, I received in reply to the RTI application regarding Afaq Bhai’s case the copy of “Confidential” letter sent by the Provost, V.M.Hall vide D.No 29/VMH dated 6th April, 2010 to the Vice-Chancellor where he mentioned that “some resident members of VM Hall, belonging to a particular ideology”( it speaks a volume how AMU administration works for the dissenters) especially Mr. Afaq Ahmad, M.Phil Mass Communication “ have really created a lot of mess” and “it may be confirmed from the LIU report” clearly mentioned on the 2nd page of the same letter. The letter itself states how in a democratic institution like AMU students are handpicked and butchered.
So now the question is, if LIU don’t exist as per the latest RTI reply by the Proctors Office, AMU, then why
Provost, VM Hall of AMU mentioned about the “LIU Report” to the Vice-Chancellor so that he may rely on what he is stating?
Prof.Irfan Habib, Professor Emeritus, Dept of History in the Telelka Hindi(UP edition) of 30th April, 2010 stated that the culture of employing spies exist here since 1981? We can’t deny his authority on AMU administration. So if AMU Proctors Office in 7 months vanish the LIU in two contradicting RTI replies then for the last 30 years who paid the salaries of these LIU people? Is it students who were made to pay through different funds for this LIU?
My suspension and campus ban has come at a time when I was very close in my first stint as Investigative Journalist to reveal the cloudy and mysterious history of employing and funding spooks at the Aligarh Muslim University which is sponsored by many influential administrators of my alma mater. I had already filed the First Appeal to the Appellate Authority on 31.05.2010 as I found the answer from the CPIO, Proctor Office “misleading and incomplete” and next I would have proceeded against the Central Information Commission, New Delhi which will for sure appoint a committee to get all the information about such mysterious undemocratic agencies.
The reason for my suspension as writing on yahoogroups or blocking an empty road at dead night at AMU is just an eyewash. As I said earlier, not only my anti-administration stand on Dr.Siras issue, CCTV and above all LIU but also with all these RTI exercises which exposed the moral bankruptcy of the AMU administrators and their desperate and undemocratic attitude to crush any student’s voice of dissent has led to my suspension and such unseen campus ban. But truth shall prevail in the end. I dream so, I believe so, I feel so.
Md. Adil Hossain
M.A(Prev) Mass Communication
AMU, Aligarh
Mobile- +91-9997447287
Subject: [AMUNetwork] AMU: No Dissent, Vengeance on students & LIU mystery
To: AMUNetwork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, 9 June, 2010, 7:22 AM
The present AMU administration has shown a despicable record in terms of respecting the freedom of speech and expression of the AMU students who as Indian Citizens must enjoy their right under article 19(1)(a) of Indian Constitution. In the recent Press Release the AMU authorities are only shedding crocodile tears about their care for girls students of I.G and Abdullah Hall as if they never did anything to expose the AMU girls towards “outside vulnerability”. In a RTI reply vide D.No.972/IGH dated 22.05.2010 (http://www.scribd. com/doc/32729541 /Ig-Provost- Rti-Reply) Provost, I.G.Hall reply to query no.4 as “Only one student of M.A(English) Ms. Samina Parveen was transferred by the order of the Vice-Chancellor from Halls of Residence to NRSC since she indulged in an argument with the Vice-Chancellor”. So our dear AMU administration very happily exposed a girl to outside “vulnerability” in 24 hours by transferring her to NRSC (simply throwing out of hostel) as she committed a grievous crime in a democratic country like India that she argued with the Vice-Chancellor.
In the recent times, another Mass Communication student Mr.Afaq Ahmad, who brought unimaginable development in the Dining Hall functioning at AMU and suspended since April 22, 2010 for shooting a documentary inside the Hall premises on his experience with the Dining Hall system at V.M.Hall was also denied of his fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression. I filed an RTI to the CAPIO of AMU which was received with vide Ref No. 98/CAPIO/F/10- 11 dated 28/04/2010 about the grounds for arbitrary suspension of Mr.Afaq Ahmad, M.Phil, Mass Comm by Vice-Chancellor, AMU. In reply to my question where I asked whether a student need permission from Provost or not to shoot a video inside a Hall, Provost, B.R.Ambedkar Hall in the RTI reply vide D.No 93/BRH dated 29.05.2010 accepted (which is applicable to all Halls of Residences also), “ As per record there is no Rule/Ordinances/ Regulation explicitly prohibiting making of video clip of Hall without the permission of the Provost.”
In the most blunt confession about snatching the fundamental right of students of freedom of speech and expression, the Proctor Office in reply to same RTI vide D.No 139/Proc dated 01.06.2010 accepted that peaceful democratic protest like signature campaign is seen as pressure tactic by the University authorities and thereby it is a punishable offence considered by them. Please see the reply to the Question no.4 in the RTI reply by Proctor Office. The Proctor Office in the same RTI in reply to Question No.5 also accepted that pasting of news paper cuttings/posters on the walls of the Hall and other premises of the university would also be dealt harshly with the students( they may face severe punishment). Now there is no specific board arranged by the university authorities in the whole university where student can paste their posters or any other items, the earlier one present at the entrance of Moulana Azad Library was also removed so that student cant convey any message through this medium. So it is a usual practices in this Vice-Chancellor’s regime that student paste their materials near the place Office Notifications get pasted (as if they don’t disfigure the walls). So systematically this AMU administration has also robbed off the students their fundamental right of freedom of expression by making it punishable to paste any poster/pamphlets in the whole university. See the Afaq Bhai RTI and the Reply by CPIO, Proctors Office and CPIO, BR Ambedkar Hall here- http://www.scribd. com/doc/32732927 /AFAQ-Bhai- RTI-Mockery- of-Justice.
Now the question is, in a situation where we do not agree to a decision made by the AMU authorities what are the options available to us to register our dissent? If we participate in signature campaign leave alone any rally or procession we would be punished for no reason. If we paste any poster/ news papers cutting we would be punished for no reason. Where is the place for dissent then? Should we become suicide bomber to register our protest? This AMU has no difference with Hitlers Nazi Regime where dissent was not tolerated at any cost.
LOCAL INTELLIGENCE UNIT, DREADED OFFICIAL SPY AGENCY OF AMU
The first story of Local Intelligence Unit was published in the March 8 edition of Outlook with the headline “Class Monitors” on the basis of a RTI reply (http://www.scribd. com/doc/32733386 /Proctor- Office-Accepts- LIU-Exist) procured by a RTI Activist Mr.Mohd. Chaman, a 4th grade AMU employee and Former AMU Court Member(http://www.outlooki ndia.com/ article.aspx? 264463). In this article Vice-Chancellor AMU defended its presence at the campus by stating that, “It helps maintain campus peace and security. There’s nothing secretive about the LIU and it is not policing.” After Dr.Siras controversy rocked the AMU administration and LIU’s involvement in the sting operation was exposed, this dreaded Local Intelligence Unit was covered in the articles published in India Today, Frontline and all national media. Till then LIU was known to be teemed with salaried employees but Proctor, AMU went on record in the Indian Express news published in the first page on April 11, 2010 “Shadow of AMU’s spy wing in Siras Sting” stating that students are also employed by the Proctor Office as spy in the campus. Proctor Md Zubair Khan confirmed: “There is such a proctorial team on the university. You can call it a local intelligence unit where students give information about campus activities and unwanted elements. http://www.indianex press.com/ news/shadow- of-amus-spy- wing-on-siras- sting/604027/. But after a huge public outcry over the presence of a spy agency first time in any educational institution in India the entire AMU administration started denying its presence including the Vice-Chancellor and started calling it mere “watch and ward” team but LIU remained active in the campus and performed their spy activities. Then came the news on LIU “Is there a spy wing in Aligarh Muslim University” (http://timesofindia .indiatimes. com/india/ Is-there- a-spy-wing- in-Aligarh- Muslim-Universit y/articleshow/ 5885083.cms) that was published by most of the news agency which alleged that LIU was involved in suspending Mr.Afaq Ahmad, M.Phil, Dept. of Mass Communication, A.M.U. In continuation to Mr.Afaq’s story, after his suspension Indian Express published news called “Now, AMU suspends student for ‘threatening’ V-C” where they stated that though Proctor denied the presence of LIU and called it “Watch and Ward” yet the suspension order of Mr. Afaq Ahmad mentioned it(http://www.indianex press.com/ news/now- amu-suspends- student-for- threatening- vc/610761/ 0).
I had always been a strong critic of such a spy agency maintained by Proctor Office,AMU where students and people are employed for the purpose for keeping an eye on students and teachers of the university as it should not exist in any democratic institution. Secondly in the RTI, where Proctor Office accepted LIU exist in AMU and that they spend 1.2 lack/month in paying the salaries to LIU people, the CPIO/Budget of AMU in the letter vide D.No.990/FO dated 30.10.09 stated AMU doesn’t have any fund meant for LIU or anything. So the question arrives who pays for the 14 lack/annum spend on this spy agency? Is it the Miscellaneous fund of the students or any other fund meant for development?
To know the history and involvement of students in Local Intelligence Unit, I filed an RTI received at Proctor Office vide R.No 191/Proc dated 17.04.2010 asking 7 points in detail. When already in an RTI reply vide D.No 91/Proc dated 17.11.2009 Proctor Office not only accepted Local Intelligence Unit exist at Aligarh Muslim University but also provided the name of those persons employed as LIU, their salaries etc to my utter surprise the Proctors Office informed me in reply to my RTI application vide D.No 130/Proc dated 12.05.2010 (http://www.scribd. com/doc/32734673 /Proctor- Office-Denies- LIU-Exists- RTI-Reply that, “there is no LIU Unit at the Proctors Office”.
In the meantime, I received in reply to the RTI application regarding Afaq Bhai’s case the copy of “Confidential” letter sent by the Provost, V.M.Hall vide D.No 29/VMH dated 6th April, 2010 to the Vice-Chancellor where he mentioned that “some resident members of VM Hall, belonging to a particular ideology”( it speaks a volume how AMU administration works for the dissenters) especially Mr. Afaq Ahmad, M.Phil Mass Communication “ have really created a lot of mess” and “it may be confirmed from the LIU report” clearly mentioned on the 2nd page of the same letter. The letter itself states how in a democratic institution like AMU students are handpicked and butchered.
So now the question is, if LIU don’t exist as per the latest RTI reply by the Proctors Office, AMU, then why
Provost, VM Hall of AMU mentioned about the “LIU Report” to the Vice-Chancellor so that he may rely on what he is stating?
Prof.Irfan Habib, Professor Emeritus, Dept of History in the Telelka Hindi(UP edition) of 30th April, 2010 stated that the culture of employing spies exist here since 1981? We can’t deny his authority on AMU administration. So if AMU Proctors Office in 7 months vanish the LIU in two contradicting RTI replies then for the last 30 years who paid the salaries of these LIU people? Is it students who were made to pay through different funds for this LIU?
My suspension and campus ban has come at a time when I was very close in my first stint as Investigative Journalist to reveal the cloudy and mysterious history of employing and funding spooks at the Aligarh Muslim University which is sponsored by many influential administrators of my alma mater. I had already filed the First Appeal to the Appellate Authority on 31.05.2010 as I found the answer from the CPIO, Proctor Office “misleading and incomplete” and next I would have proceeded against the Central Information Commission, New Delhi which will for sure appoint a committee to get all the information about such mysterious undemocratic agencies.
The reason for my suspension as writing on yahoogroups or blocking an empty road at dead night at AMU is just an eyewash. As I said earlier, not only my anti-administration stand on Dr.Siras issue, CCTV and above all LIU but also with all these RTI exercises which exposed the moral bankruptcy of the AMU administrators and their desperate and undemocratic attitude to crush any student’s voice of dissent has led to my suspension and such unseen campus ban. But truth shall prevail in the end. I dream so, I believe so, I feel so.
Md. Adil Hossain
M.A(Prev) Mass Communication
AMU, Aligarh
Mobile- +91-9997447287
Monday, June 7, 2010
Saving the 'State' called Aligarh Muslim University
"We must keep loving our cowardice, greed and self-promotion; there is no greater virtue than cowardice. Obsequious allegiance and slavish sycophancy are the biggest ingredients of our being. Mohammad Sajjad"
Dr.Sajjad & all,
ASAK,
Yes that is true. Perhaps our dear campus, at least presently, resembles General Ziaul Haq's regime, where all democratic norms and civic laws were put aside in the name of "saving the State". That kind of extreme and super-autocracy led that State into ruins, and established a culture of un-ending dictatorial and corrupt rule. The State could never recover from those kind of high handedness. There too were many cowards, greedy and self-promoting selfish souls, who were instrumental in the process of destruction, all in the name of protection and integrity.
It is ironic that the largest institution of India is functioning under such undemocratic and autocratic manner, and run and supported by a bunch of incompetent and corrupt officials ,who have least level of understanding of the basic norms, codes and ethos of a civil society. The government of india, the civil institutions and other higher authorities should know the pathetic state in which our dear alma mater is under siege.
It really is puzzling why so much high handedness is so easily tolerated in this campus;
a suspension of 150 students,
accusation and intimidation to anyone without any proper findings
arbitrary and provocative actions
I wish they have had a list of achievements showing the following;
addition of newer facilities, new departments
more resources for staff and students
improvements in the infra-structure, particularly for research and in the Halls of residence
more projects, more grants.
Instead;
What we hear is only shutting of campus,
suspension of students
suspension of teachers
accusations and charges on any
They have not SPARED even the alumni - and their forums. We live in a state of infamy.
Thanks and regards.
wa-as-salam,
Razi Raziuddin [razi24.AT.hotmail.com]
Picked up from amuoba.yahoogroups.com
Dr.Sajjad & all,
ASAK,
Yes that is true. Perhaps our dear campus, at least presently, resembles General Ziaul Haq's regime, where all democratic norms and civic laws were put aside in the name of "saving the State". That kind of extreme and super-autocracy led that State into ruins, and established a culture of un-ending dictatorial and corrupt rule. The State could never recover from those kind of high handedness. There too were many cowards, greedy and self-promoting selfish souls, who were instrumental in the process of destruction, all in the name of protection and integrity.
It is ironic that the largest institution of India is functioning under such undemocratic and autocratic manner, and run and supported by a bunch of incompetent and corrupt officials ,who have least level of understanding of the basic norms, codes and ethos of a civil society. The government of india, the civil institutions and other higher authorities should know the pathetic state in which our dear alma mater is under siege.
It really is puzzling why so much high handedness is so easily tolerated in this campus;
a suspension of 150 students,
accusation and intimidation to anyone without any proper findings
arbitrary and provocative actions
I wish they have had a list of achievements showing the following;
addition of newer facilities, new departments
more resources for staff and students
improvements in the infra-structure, particularly for research and in the Halls of residence
more projects, more grants.
Instead;
What we hear is only shutting of campus,
suspension of students
suspension of teachers
accusations and charges on any
They have not SPARED even the alumni - and their forums. We live in a state of infamy.
Thanks and regards.
wa-as-salam,
Razi Raziuddin [razi24.AT.hotmail.com]
Picked up from amuoba.yahoogroups.com
AMU's Democratic Credentials
We, Aligs are extremely disgusted of ourselves. We are not as courageous as Fatima Bhutto, who can afford writing against the sitting president, despite the fact that the President is alleged to have murdered Fatima Bhutto's father. Mr Zardari/ the Pakistani state is at least this much democratic. We are not a Noam Chomsky who can write against the President of the USA, the country he lives in. USA is democratic enough. Even though it props up so many autocratic regimes across the world. We are not Arundhati Roy, who can write against her own Home Minister and a Chief Justice. The Indian state is democratic enough.
AMU is probably having worse democratic credentials than the ones given by the military dictators of Pakistan to their fircest enemy citizens.
I hope USA based admirers of the AMU administration and its style of functioning will speak something. Nay, I must not hope, they along with many more Aligs, extended their support even to the VC who said, "AMU is bristling with ISI agents".
We must keep loving our cowardice, greed and self-promotion; there is no greater virtue than cowardice. Obsequious allegiance and slavish sycophancy are the biggest ingredients of our being.
All the above words are being said by a few teachers of AMU. I hope not all of them would be suspended, if at all they are identified.
Regards,
Dr Mohammad Sajjad
Lecturer
Centre of Advanced Study in History
Aligarh Muslim University (India)
{The above post have been picked up from fdr_amu@yahoogroups.com}
AMU is probably having worse democratic credentials than the ones given by the military dictators of Pakistan to their fircest enemy citizens.
I hope USA based admirers of the AMU administration and its style of functioning will speak something. Nay, I must not hope, they along with many more Aligs, extended their support even to the VC who said, "AMU is bristling with ISI agents".
We must keep loving our cowardice, greed and self-promotion; there is no greater virtue than cowardice. Obsequious allegiance and slavish sycophancy are the biggest ingredients of our being.
All the above words are being said by a few teachers of AMU. I hope not all of them would be suspended, if at all they are identified.
Regards,
Dr Mohammad Sajjad
Lecturer
Centre of Advanced Study in History
Aligarh Muslim University (India)
{The above post have been picked up from fdr_amu@yahoogroups.com}
Sunday, June 6, 2010
"I do want support, I do not want sympathy" Says Suspended AMU Student
Respected Aligs!
There are few points I want to make very much clear. Probably first time in any quasi-judicial process the name of two AMU related forums are dragged in official document by the authorities of AMU. I have no role in drafting my own Suspension Order. I can understand the Janab Zubair Sahab apprehension where he emphasized that it is individual responsibility and not yahoogroups or its moderators for all the matters some1 is writing on which he may face the consequences. But I am afraid I do not agree with Zubair Sahab here that the onus of proof lies on me. This is a famous principle in legal system that the onus of proof lies on the accuser i.e AMU Proctor now. The fact is that both individual and the yahoogroups who allow them to express their views and concerns are targeted here.
Now I know by criticising AMU administration for ignoring the needs and plight of the students through a public discussion forum at a time when Students Union is not active I have made many enemies. If raising such issues by writing which is my job as Mass Communication student is politics to some people I am proud of my actions. Mr.Shah Faisal, the IAS topper is known RTI activist and a `whistle blower' and I've also filed numerous RTI applications exercising the right as Indian Citizen along with my studies. I believe that if media ask me on my opinion about the episode on Dr.Siras, CCTV or Local Intelligence Unit whose illegal presence I exposed here officially( another principle of journalism) as everybody have their individual opinion, I have mine and I can voice it as my right. Secondly, till now no one can ever blame me of financial bungling at AMU, or engaged with any violence, or that even I slapped, abused any single student or teacher at AMU till date. I have always followed the rule of law and in dissent followed the democratic principles to lodge my protest. I have neither pointed a gun towards any official nor do I hold the collar of anybody while I register my disagreement with any official. So the brand of my politics if it is at all is harmless writing and expressing my thoughts with facts and logics and sometime substantial proofs. Now the University administration also suspends and impose campus ban those who burn the VC lodge and also on people like me who just simply write. Ask yourselves and tell is this justice? If my writings are wrong, politically motivated etc as people blame why not answer me in my way i.e simply you may reply in writing whatever you feel like. And if any reader don't like my writings, don't read me, delete my posts, who have forced them? I don't want to be a hero rather than to be listened. But yes they are unnecessarily making me a hero by taking stupid decisions by going against the spirit of Indian Constitution. I have no issues if University suspend me for valid reasons, but they have to make the context right and follow the proper legal steps. They can't be desperate to suspend me if they find me doing nothing illegal. I tried to change the face of student activism at AMU after a long time which was marred with student violence, regionalism, factionalism etc by simply writing only but my detractors even find fault with peaceful ways also. As far I have read a little history of AMU I think I have chosen the Moulana Hasrat Mohani's way to raise my concerns and facing the same fate i.e suspension and campus ban. AMU has not changed at all in the last 100 years. They do not know to respect the non-violent ways of protest by students which only push them further towards violence.
Few days back I wrote a post defining the yahoogroups as a new form of media which have their own impact. But the suspension of a student on account of writing in it is the dangerous development ever on the freedom of speech and expression. If we justify and do not protest against this action then tomorrow Dr.Sajjad Sahab or other teachers may not express themselves freely on such forums and University administration may take revenge on them by suspending them for writing in it. Tomorrow teachers can be charged with same sentences and we will only fight on the onus lies. The fact is simple and crystal clear. University has no right to charge anybody for writing on internet. With me two student, Tanveer of B.Tech & Syed Asad, BSC(Hons) Physics also voiced their criticism on CCTV or closing of gates of Sulaiman Hall, but if I am prosecuted for writing only today the yahoogroups, which is the last resort by the students these days to write freely about their life here in a time when student get punished for asking the Provost why they had not been served Chicken for two weeks would be discussion board for the Old Boys only where present teachers and students have no voice. If that is what Moderators want I have no problem. And who knows tomorrow student may face suspension for `baseless allegations against AMU' made on their twitter, facebook or orkut account for comments written inadvertently. AMU authorities cant impose thought control like in China.
I do want support, I do not want sympathy. All I want that Aligs must stand at this crucial juncture on the right of an individual to express himself freely in writing without the fear of subjugation.
Md. Adil Hossain [adilhossain43@yahoo.in]
M.A(Prev) Mass Communication
AMU, Aligarh
The posting has been taken from TheAligarhForum@yahoogroups.com
There are few points I want to make very much clear. Probably first time in any quasi-judicial process the name of two AMU related forums are dragged in official document by the authorities of AMU. I have no role in drafting my own Suspension Order. I can understand the Janab Zubair Sahab apprehension where he emphasized that it is individual responsibility and not yahoogroups or its moderators for all the matters some1 is writing on which he may face the consequences. But I am afraid I do not agree with Zubair Sahab here that the onus of proof lies on me. This is a famous principle in legal system that the onus of proof lies on the accuser i.e AMU Proctor now. The fact is that both individual and the yahoogroups who allow them to express their views and concerns are targeted here.
Now I know by criticising AMU administration for ignoring the needs and plight of the students through a public discussion forum at a time when Students Union is not active I have made many enemies. If raising such issues by writing which is my job as Mass Communication student is politics to some people I am proud of my actions. Mr.Shah Faisal, the IAS topper is known RTI activist and a `whistle blower' and I've also filed numerous RTI applications exercising the right as Indian Citizen along with my studies. I believe that if media ask me on my opinion about the episode on Dr.Siras, CCTV or Local Intelligence Unit whose illegal presence I exposed here officially( another principle of journalism) as everybody have their individual opinion, I have mine and I can voice it as my right. Secondly, till now no one can ever blame me of financial bungling at AMU, or engaged with any violence, or that even I slapped, abused any single student or teacher at AMU till date. I have always followed the rule of law and in dissent followed the democratic principles to lodge my protest. I have neither pointed a gun towards any official nor do I hold the collar of anybody while I register my disagreement with any official. So the brand of my politics if it is at all is harmless writing and expressing my thoughts with facts and logics and sometime substantial proofs. Now the University administration also suspends and impose campus ban those who burn the VC lodge and also on people like me who just simply write. Ask yourselves and tell is this justice? If my writings are wrong, politically motivated etc as people blame why not answer me in my way i.e simply you may reply in writing whatever you feel like. And if any reader don't like my writings, don't read me, delete my posts, who have forced them? I don't want to be a hero rather than to be listened. But yes they are unnecessarily making me a hero by taking stupid decisions by going against the spirit of Indian Constitution. I have no issues if University suspend me for valid reasons, but they have to make the context right and follow the proper legal steps. They can't be desperate to suspend me if they find me doing nothing illegal. I tried to change the face of student activism at AMU after a long time which was marred with student violence, regionalism, factionalism etc by simply writing only but my detractors even find fault with peaceful ways also. As far I have read a little history of AMU I think I have chosen the Moulana Hasrat Mohani's way to raise my concerns and facing the same fate i.e suspension and campus ban. AMU has not changed at all in the last 100 years. They do not know to respect the non-violent ways of protest by students which only push them further towards violence.
Few days back I wrote a post defining the yahoogroups as a new form of media which have their own impact. But the suspension of a student on account of writing in it is the dangerous development ever on the freedom of speech and expression. If we justify and do not protest against this action then tomorrow Dr.Sajjad Sahab or other teachers may not express themselves freely on such forums and University administration may take revenge on them by suspending them for writing in it. Tomorrow teachers can be charged with same sentences and we will only fight on the onus lies. The fact is simple and crystal clear. University has no right to charge anybody for writing on internet. With me two student, Tanveer of B.Tech & Syed Asad, BSC(Hons) Physics also voiced their criticism on CCTV or closing of gates of Sulaiman Hall, but if I am prosecuted for writing only today the yahoogroups, which is the last resort by the students these days to write freely about their life here in a time when student get punished for asking the Provost why they had not been served Chicken for two weeks would be discussion board for the Old Boys only where present teachers and students have no voice. If that is what Moderators want I have no problem. And who knows tomorrow student may face suspension for `baseless allegations against AMU' made on their twitter, facebook or orkut account for comments written inadvertently. AMU authorities cant impose thought control like in China.
I do want support, I do not want sympathy. All I want that Aligs must stand at this crucial juncture on the right of an individual to express himself freely in writing without the fear of subjugation.
Md. Adil Hossain [adilhossain43@yahoo.in]
M.A(Prev) Mass Communication
AMU, Aligarh
The posting has been taken from TheAligarhForum@yahoogroups.com
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Study Centres: A step towards commercial exploitation of AMU
All Aligs
ASAK
Apropos Ziauddin sahab’s article, as I expressed in my earlier letter that consequent upon the clarification from the Supreme Court the matter has been settled once and for all, and now the test has also been conducted successfully, therefore it is no use to keep on crying on spelt milk unnecessarily.
However, the issue of Study Centres is again raked up. Lots of debate has already been taken place about the proposal of Study Centres and their locations in Bihar or West Bengal and Kerala etc., the real tribute to the great Sayyed is that we need a Study Centre in each and every corner of muslim denominated pockets of the country, but my question is that should we do it at the cost of our self respect? In my opinion the role, position, and honour of Aligarh Muslim University would be put to stake if the proposal of Study Centres is accepted in its present form.
The alig community and the University authorities have always shown great wisdom, balance, and objectivity, and this is the strongest reason that my optimism has not deserted me and I am placing the entire issue before you as the sole judge and I invite the opinion in any form including criticism of each individual reader.
Study Centres: A step towards commercial exploitation of AMU
This story starts five and a half years ago when the former VC Mr. Naseem Ahmad agreed on establishing off campus on the proposal of the then CM of Madhya Pradesh Mr. Digvijay Singh as the Chief Guest in the Sir Sayyed’s Day function on October 17, 2002. Mr. Singh on July 21, 2003 also offered 100 Acres of land for this purpose to the Gharib Nawaz Fopundation (GNF) on the occasion of foundation stone laying ceremony by the Mr. Naseem Ahmad of its Institute in village Kurana near Bhopal. Mr. S.H. Khan the Secretary of GNF visited AMU and met with the VC etc on Sept 11, 2003 and then GNF on July 24, 2004 submitted its proposal of a second campus of AMU to Shri Arjun Singh, Union HRD Minister. The UGC on Jan 28, 2005 wrote a letter to GNF informing that it has asked AMU to submit a proposal. On March 13, 2005 the GNF again requested (read complained) Arjun Singh about the AMU off campus and requested him to “promulgate an ordinance in order to expedite the process as a first step in this direction” (copy to Mr. Naseem Ahmad, VC, AMU). The Under Secretary MHRD Mr. K.C. Nandwani wrote a letter to UGC on April 21, 2005 on the same line and then on August 28, 2006 Mr. R.D. Sahay, Dy. Secretary, MHRD, wrote to the VC, complaining about delay on it and suggested to establish the said Study Centre u/s 12(2) of the AMU Act.
The initial concept of Study Centres in minority-dominated areas is a very catchy idea, since it is a step towards fulfillment of Sir Sayyed’s dream of furtherance of education among Muslims. However, the moment the above details came to me, there was a surge of queries, doubts, apprehensions and uneasiness besieged my mind. The obvious questions cropped up are; why GNF submitted any proposal without any MOU with the AMU? How the former VC Mr. Naseem Ahmad gave his assurance without taking any consent from the authorities of the University? It is different that thanks God he did not approve it under section 19(3), since he has the dubious distinction of establishing a Research Institute under this notorious section. The most obnoxious action is the request of GNF to promulgate an ordinance, who is this GNF and what locus it did posses to ask such promulgation about us? If it is so enthusiastic about this, why it does not establish a deemed University on its own? And if they are so impatient and undisciplined now, what they will do in future? And see their impudence, letter asking for ordinance was marked to the then VC, and above all the insensibility of the then VC on it and on the arm twisting tactics of the MHRD.
The story does not end here, it has another episode also. On April 30, 2007, Shri Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee, CM of West Bengal requested the Prime Minister to establish a new campus of AMU at Murshidabad, at the same time on April 25, 2007 the Belgachia Education Trust (BET) also requested the PM to establish an institution in WB on the model of AMU. The MHRD on 3 rd May wrote to AMU to establish a centre u/s 12(2) of the AMU Act. The BET complained to PM on the basis of a news in the Akhbar-e-Mashriq that the Registrar AMU refused the proposal on account of no such provision in the AMU Act to open any branch outside UP. In response, the MHRD on 8 th June wrote, “I would also request you to apprise us of your comments on the above quoted statement attributed to you in Akhbar-e-Mashriq.” Not satisfied with it the MHRD on 13 th July repeated it, but on the complained of trust by Mosharref Husain, Secretary BET.
Look at the behaviour of the office bearer of Belgachia Education Trust, he complained to the PM about our Registrar. Let me ask the credentials of these trusts. No information is available on internet except the address of BET in yellow pages, yes, the website of GNF provides its board; consists of one Professor from DU, three policemen (IPS), two Sajjada Nashins, two builders, one College teacher, one retired College Principal and above all the uncle of actor Salman Khan.
The Chief Secretary of Kerala Mr. P.J. Thomas in his letter dated Nov 21, 2007 (much before the approval of Study Centres by the EC on Jan 17, 2008) communicated that Union Minister of State of HRD Mr. Fatmi had agreed to the proposal of an Off Campus of AMU with all courses. What propriety did Mr. Fatmi posses to give his agreement without any acceptance by University bodies?
Now, I have unfolded the whole behind the scene story. In principle the establishment of Study Centres in the minority dominated areas is a crisp idea, but the above details is a glaring reference to possibilities of exploitation of AMU by the corrupt practices of private academic institutions and to subvert its unique character and autonomy. Whatever the reason may be, a moment’s reflection will show that giving nod to this sensitive subject in such a cynical haste will have implications that go far far beyond the confines of academic expansion. It in fact be a tacit acceptance by the EC of the MHRD’s right to rule the University as its empire. It is a double edged sword, these Centres of the University would go beyond the close watch of the central authority of the University and the teachers by way of punishment transfers could be controlled for ever, which always stood tall (off course with the alumni) in defeating the agenda of the Congress in the past and BJP / RSS now. It is a pity that the University has not learnt any lesson from the misadventures of the past; be it tinkering with our Act in 1951, 1965, 1972 or CET and Mr. Naseem Ahmed is the only exception other than teachers and alumni who offered strong resistance to Common Entrance Test.
In the event of regular meetings by the present Vice-Chancellor, I will not prefer to ask the Vice-Chancellor about it, but I demand a clarification from each member of the Executive Council and I would prefer to start from the teachers in the EC under any capacity followed by the Court’s representative and then the officers of the University on this issue. I expect that each member should clarify by writing in the AMU network that how an item with such nasty details was approved in the EC. And in case of no suitable reply, the only conclusion is that the present representation in EC has created a unique breed of councilors; largely uninterested in the day to day affairs of the University without realizing the powers and domain of this highest executive authority (it is always a common demand to finish the meeting quickly to catch the train) and indecisiveness despite its quasi-judicial nature, always consider the role of the EC as a supervisory council and they sought its membership to wield influence and power. As a result, in the last two decades EC has produced a system more skilled in politics than at policies or performance. Thus, leaving the most important decisions in the hands of officers, they always not concentrate on good governance but on lowest common denominator of staying in office. And the EC members are fighting on paltry issues.
The way MHRD is handling this issue is inconsistent with the present government policies based on institutionalization of affirmative actions to overcome discrimination against minorities. The same has recently been corroborated by the UGC Chairman Prof. Sukhdeo Thorat and Mr. Paul Attewell in a study entitled “The legacy of social exclusions,” which include establishment of institute in minority-dominated areas. The XI th plan envisages a target Gross Enrolment Ratio (GER) of 15% by 2012 from existing level of 10% by establishing 30 new Universities.
Originally it is not our idea instead it is the brainchild of private organizations in connivance with MHRD; therefore it deserves rejection in its present form. We should rather demand just 5 of the proposed Universities in minority areas and AMU may be the focal point of it. There should be no truck with any private organization and the statues should be clear that each centre / campus/ university shall have separate and non-transferable legal provisions of staff and funding. I hope that the Vice-Chancellor and the authorities of the University will take cognizance.
Otherwise, it is a question of surrender or sacrifice, in Sarmad (RA) words, a Sufi saint whose philosophy was Wahdat-e-Deen:
Sarmad Gila Ikhtesar Mi Bayad Kard Yak Kar Az Ein Do Kaar Mi Bayad Kard.
Ya tan Be Raza-e-Dost Mi Bayad Daad Ya Jaan Barahash Nisar Mi Bayad.
(O Sarmad ! shorten your complaint of two choices take one
Either put your body to the will of friend or offer to sacrifice your soul.)
Anwar Khursheed
Former Member University Court and EC
AMU, Aligarh.
ASAK,
At least I don’t expect such a reply from Arif ul Islam Bhai, he has sidetracked the entire issue perhaps in an apprehension that it is against the present Vice-Chancellor. Let me clarify that the present VC has already clarified that every proposal is that of the University and its people and not his personal one. However, if a wrong decision is taken than it will hound the present VC forever. I reiterate that the idea of study centres is a good idea but there should be no involvement of any private organization or trust etc. and it will ultimately be in the interest of the University as well as Prof. P.K. Abdul Azis, who no doubt has good intentions. The letters of the MHRD, office bearers of Gharib Nawaz Foundation, Belgachia Educational Trust, expression of MHRD to open centres under section 12 (2) of AMU Act, demand of Gharib Nawaz Foundation to promulgate an ordinance in this regard and still approving it in the EC, if this is not impudence and insensitivity and playing with the self respect for few pennies, then in what category you would place it? Moreover how would you stop MHRD if it would allocate funds and ask you to open a study centre in a branch any where in the country of Bharat Shiksha Parishad (a frontal organization of RSS) under section 12 (2)?
I have not mentioned any thing about the game of politics of principal political groups of the campus, every one knows that on the garb of test centres the entire tussle is to grab the VC, and this is not something new. I have also not used the term “rebellion”; the problem is that without going into the details of my article you have drawn self-conclusions. It is similar to the unfortunate fact that the General body of the AMUTA rejected the proposal of test centres and PG entrance test and accepted the proposal of Study centres without even a glimpse of item no. 20 approved by the EC in its meeting on Jan 17, 2008. It is a sad reflection on part of the Association of the teachers that except Mr. Jamshed Siddiqui and me no one bothers to go through the details before favour or opposition to these important issues.
Arif Bhai requisitioned a meeting of the General Body of AMUTA on two items; first in favour of Study Centres and second in opposition to Methew’s Commission, without knowing any thing about these, he has neither seen the approved item of EC on Study Centres nor the enquiry report of Justice Mathew’s, this only exhibits that his priorities are misplaced.
Jo Dekh Sakte Hain Unki Zuban Pe Taale Hain
Jo Bolte Hain Who Andhe Hain Kya Kiya Jaye.
Anwar Khursheed [akhursheed_alig@yahoo.co.in]
B.Sc. Engg Civil (1983)
AMU, Aligarh.
(The writer is a senior faculty member of AMU and presently on Study Leave at IIT-Roorkee)
ASAK
Apropos Ziauddin sahab’s article, as I expressed in my earlier letter that consequent upon the clarification from the Supreme Court the matter has been settled once and for all, and now the test has also been conducted successfully, therefore it is no use to keep on crying on spelt milk unnecessarily.
However, the issue of Study Centres is again raked up. Lots of debate has already been taken place about the proposal of Study Centres and their locations in Bihar or West Bengal and Kerala etc., the real tribute to the great Sayyed is that we need a Study Centre in each and every corner of muslim denominated pockets of the country, but my question is that should we do it at the cost of our self respect? In my opinion the role, position, and honour of Aligarh Muslim University would be put to stake if the proposal of Study Centres is accepted in its present form.
The alig community and the University authorities have always shown great wisdom, balance, and objectivity, and this is the strongest reason that my optimism has not deserted me and I am placing the entire issue before you as the sole judge and I invite the opinion in any form including criticism of each individual reader.
Study Centres: A step towards commercial exploitation of AMU
This story starts five and a half years ago when the former VC Mr. Naseem Ahmad agreed on establishing off campus on the proposal of the then CM of Madhya Pradesh Mr. Digvijay Singh as the Chief Guest in the Sir Sayyed’s Day function on October 17, 2002. Mr. Singh on July 21, 2003 also offered 100 Acres of land for this purpose to the Gharib Nawaz Fopundation (GNF) on the occasion of foundation stone laying ceremony by the Mr. Naseem Ahmad of its Institute in village Kurana near Bhopal. Mr. S.H. Khan the Secretary of GNF visited AMU and met with the VC etc on Sept 11, 2003 and then GNF on July 24, 2004 submitted its proposal of a second campus of AMU to Shri Arjun Singh, Union HRD Minister. The UGC on Jan 28, 2005 wrote a letter to GNF informing that it has asked AMU to submit a proposal. On March 13, 2005 the GNF again requested (read complained) Arjun Singh about the AMU off campus and requested him to “promulgate an ordinance in order to expedite the process as a first step in this direction” (copy to Mr. Naseem Ahmad, VC, AMU). The Under Secretary MHRD Mr. K.C. Nandwani wrote a letter to UGC on April 21, 2005 on the same line and then on August 28, 2006 Mr. R.D. Sahay, Dy. Secretary, MHRD, wrote to the VC, complaining about delay on it and suggested to establish the said Study Centre u/s 12(2) of the AMU Act.
The initial concept of Study Centres in minority-dominated areas is a very catchy idea, since it is a step towards fulfillment of Sir Sayyed’s dream of furtherance of education among Muslims. However, the moment the above details came to me, there was a surge of queries, doubts, apprehensions and uneasiness besieged my mind. The obvious questions cropped up are; why GNF submitted any proposal without any MOU with the AMU? How the former VC Mr. Naseem Ahmad gave his assurance without taking any consent from the authorities of the University? It is different that thanks God he did not approve it under section 19(3), since he has the dubious distinction of establishing a Research Institute under this notorious section. The most obnoxious action is the request of GNF to promulgate an ordinance, who is this GNF and what locus it did posses to ask such promulgation about us? If it is so enthusiastic about this, why it does not establish a deemed University on its own? And if they are so impatient and undisciplined now, what they will do in future? And see their impudence, letter asking for ordinance was marked to the then VC, and above all the insensibility of the then VC on it and on the arm twisting tactics of the MHRD.
The story does not end here, it has another episode also. On April 30, 2007, Shri Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee, CM of West Bengal requested the Prime Minister to establish a new campus of AMU at Murshidabad, at the same time on April 25, 2007 the Belgachia Education Trust (BET) also requested the PM to establish an institution in WB on the model of AMU. The MHRD on 3 rd May wrote to AMU to establish a centre u/s 12(2) of the AMU Act. The BET complained to PM on the basis of a news in the Akhbar-e-Mashriq that the Registrar AMU refused the proposal on account of no such provision in the AMU Act to open any branch outside UP. In response, the MHRD on 8 th June wrote, “I would also request you to apprise us of your comments on the above quoted statement attributed to you in Akhbar-e-Mashriq.” Not satisfied with it the MHRD on 13 th July repeated it, but on the complained of trust by Mosharref Husain, Secretary BET.
Look at the behaviour of the office bearer of Belgachia Education Trust, he complained to the PM about our Registrar. Let me ask the credentials of these trusts. No information is available on internet except the address of BET in yellow pages, yes, the website of GNF provides its board; consists of one Professor from DU, three policemen (IPS), two Sajjada Nashins, two builders, one College teacher, one retired College Principal and above all the uncle of actor Salman Khan.
The Chief Secretary of Kerala Mr. P.J. Thomas in his letter dated Nov 21, 2007 (much before the approval of Study Centres by the EC on Jan 17, 2008) communicated that Union Minister of State of HRD Mr. Fatmi had agreed to the proposal of an Off Campus of AMU with all courses. What propriety did Mr. Fatmi posses to give his agreement without any acceptance by University bodies?
Now, I have unfolded the whole behind the scene story. In principle the establishment of Study Centres in the minority dominated areas is a crisp idea, but the above details is a glaring reference to possibilities of exploitation of AMU by the corrupt practices of private academic institutions and to subvert its unique character and autonomy. Whatever the reason may be, a moment’s reflection will show that giving nod to this sensitive subject in such a cynical haste will have implications that go far far beyond the confines of academic expansion. It in fact be a tacit acceptance by the EC of the MHRD’s right to rule the University as its empire. It is a double edged sword, these Centres of the University would go beyond the close watch of the central authority of the University and the teachers by way of punishment transfers could be controlled for ever, which always stood tall (off course with the alumni) in defeating the agenda of the Congress in the past and BJP / RSS now. It is a pity that the University has not learnt any lesson from the misadventures of the past; be it tinkering with our Act in 1951, 1965, 1972 or CET and Mr. Naseem Ahmed is the only exception other than teachers and alumni who offered strong resistance to Common Entrance Test.
In the event of regular meetings by the present Vice-Chancellor, I will not prefer to ask the Vice-Chancellor about it, but I demand a clarification from each member of the Executive Council and I would prefer to start from the teachers in the EC under any capacity followed by the Court’s representative and then the officers of the University on this issue. I expect that each member should clarify by writing in the AMU network that how an item with such nasty details was approved in the EC. And in case of no suitable reply, the only conclusion is that the present representation in EC has created a unique breed of councilors; largely uninterested in the day to day affairs of the University without realizing the powers and domain of this highest executive authority (it is always a common demand to finish the meeting quickly to catch the train) and indecisiveness despite its quasi-judicial nature, always consider the role of the EC as a supervisory council and they sought its membership to wield influence and power. As a result, in the last two decades EC has produced a system more skilled in politics than at policies or performance. Thus, leaving the most important decisions in the hands of officers, they always not concentrate on good governance but on lowest common denominator of staying in office. And the EC members are fighting on paltry issues.
The way MHRD is handling this issue is inconsistent with the present government policies based on institutionalization of affirmative actions to overcome discrimination against minorities. The same has recently been corroborated by the UGC Chairman Prof. Sukhdeo Thorat and Mr. Paul Attewell in a study entitled “The legacy of social exclusions,” which include establishment of institute in minority-dominated areas. The XI th plan envisages a target Gross Enrolment Ratio (GER) of 15% by 2012 from existing level of 10% by establishing 30 new Universities.
Originally it is not our idea instead it is the brainchild of private organizations in connivance with MHRD; therefore it deserves rejection in its present form. We should rather demand just 5 of the proposed Universities in minority areas and AMU may be the focal point of it. There should be no truck with any private organization and the statues should be clear that each centre / campus/ university shall have separate and non-transferable legal provisions of staff and funding. I hope that the Vice-Chancellor and the authorities of the University will take cognizance.
Otherwise, it is a question of surrender or sacrifice, in Sarmad (RA) words, a Sufi saint whose philosophy was Wahdat-e-Deen:
Sarmad Gila Ikhtesar Mi Bayad Kard Yak Kar Az Ein Do Kaar Mi Bayad Kard.
Ya tan Be Raza-e-Dost Mi Bayad Daad Ya Jaan Barahash Nisar Mi Bayad.
(O Sarmad ! shorten your complaint of two choices take one
Either put your body to the will of friend or offer to sacrifice your soul.)
Anwar Khursheed
Former Member University Court and EC
AMU, Aligarh.
ASAK,
At least I don’t expect such a reply from Arif ul Islam Bhai, he has sidetracked the entire issue perhaps in an apprehension that it is against the present Vice-Chancellor. Let me clarify that the present VC has already clarified that every proposal is that of the University and its people and not his personal one. However, if a wrong decision is taken than it will hound the present VC forever. I reiterate that the idea of study centres is a good idea but there should be no involvement of any private organization or trust etc. and it will ultimately be in the interest of the University as well as Prof. P.K. Abdul Azis, who no doubt has good intentions. The letters of the MHRD, office bearers of Gharib Nawaz Foundation, Belgachia Educational Trust, expression of MHRD to open centres under section 12 (2) of AMU Act, demand of Gharib Nawaz Foundation to promulgate an ordinance in this regard and still approving it in the EC, if this is not impudence and insensitivity and playing with the self respect for few pennies, then in what category you would place it? Moreover how would you stop MHRD if it would allocate funds and ask you to open a study centre in a branch any where in the country of Bharat Shiksha Parishad (a frontal organization of RSS) under section 12 (2)?
I have not mentioned any thing about the game of politics of principal political groups of the campus, every one knows that on the garb of test centres the entire tussle is to grab the VC, and this is not something new. I have also not used the term “rebellion”; the problem is that without going into the details of my article you have drawn self-conclusions. It is similar to the unfortunate fact that the General body of the AMUTA rejected the proposal of test centres and PG entrance test and accepted the proposal of Study centres without even a glimpse of item no. 20 approved by the EC in its meeting on Jan 17, 2008. It is a sad reflection on part of the Association of the teachers that except Mr. Jamshed Siddiqui and me no one bothers to go through the details before favour or opposition to these important issues.
Arif Bhai requisitioned a meeting of the General Body of AMUTA on two items; first in favour of Study Centres and second in opposition to Methew’s Commission, without knowing any thing about these, he has neither seen the approved item of EC on Study Centres nor the enquiry report of Justice Mathew’s, this only exhibits that his priorities are misplaced.
Jo Dekh Sakte Hain Unki Zuban Pe Taale Hain
Jo Bolte Hain Who Andhe Hain Kya Kiya Jaye.
Anwar Khursheed [akhursheed_alig@yahoo.co.in]
B.Sc. Engg Civil (1983)
AMU, Aligarh.
(The writer is a senior faculty member of AMU and presently on Study Leave at IIT-Roorkee)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)