AMU:FRAUD PLAYED ON AMU & MUSLIMS
Important: On eve of the meeting of hand-picked eminent persons(Mr. Naseem Ahmad ex-VC, Mohd. Adeeb, M.P. names deleted, Mahmoodur-rehman and Prof. Nasim Farooqui ex-VC addresses tempered with and so on) at India international Center, on 30.5.2010 organized by Prof. Abdul Azis to feed them with twisted facts and half truths about the establishment of campuses/ Centers and non-existent reforms on the Campus.
Aligarh Muslim University Act enshrines ‘a teaching Residential Muslim University at Aligarh’ as its preamble.
In addition to Faculties and Departments of Studies and Centres, the Act envisages the establishment of Special Centres and Special Labs, Schools etc. but within the prescribed limit of 25 km from the University Mosque under Section 5(9A) and 12(1) of the University Act, as a guarantee to its cherished Residential character.
All policy decisions are taken by the Authorities of the University, the Court, Executive Council, Academic Council, Finance Committee and the Faculties in the spheres defined jointly or otherwise; V.C. is sub-ordinate to the Authorities and implements the decisions taken by them.
The Academic set-up is based on Faculties to which Departments of Studies/Centres are assigned and Centre is treated equivalent to a Department and Departments cannot be duplicated in the University. Creation of ‘Special Centres’ (Section 5(9A) and 12(2) shall be supplement to the existing Departments/ Centres and be not independent and self sufficient to impart training of their own, for obvious reasons. The ‘Special Centres’ shall be within 25 km of the University Mosque as provided under Section 5(9A). As such, no ‘Special Centres’ advocated by Prof. Azis can be established, any where in West Bengal, Bihar, Kerala etc.
The incessant pronouncements and claims, rather a vicious propaganda through the press (including press conferences) conventions and conferences including the present one costing the University lakhs of rupees without authorization, of the Vice-Chancellor, Prof. P.K. Abdul Azis about establishment of AMU Campuses/Centres/ Special Centres for the educational upliftment of the Muslims of India on the strength of the oft-repeated Section 5(2)(c) of the Act, is a legal impossibility (as pointed out above) administrative impracticability (impossible to exercise control from Aligarh thousands of miles away on day to day basis) and a fraud on Muslims (as no such decision to extend concession to Muslims was taken by the competent authorities, nor is the University so empowered as its Minority Status has been under suspension by the orders of the High Court (including powers under Section 5(2)(c). VC persistant claims of extending concession to Muslims under Section 5(2)(c), may attract Contempt of the Court proceedings. However, at the same time Prof. Azis himself categorically stated that there shall no quota and admissions shall be made on the basis of open All India Tests. Furthermore, the Authorities have not taken a formal decision about the establishment of AMU Campuses/Centers/ Special Centres and necessary amendments to the Statutes and/or Ordinances were not brought about, according to the procedures prescribed in the University Act.
There is no truth in the disclosure made by the Vice-Chancellor (T.I.O. dated 15.5.2010) that the Visitor has accorded sanction to establish two new ‘Special Centres’ at Murshidabad and Mallapuram. V.C. in his letter (19.3.2010) referred to in the Visitor’s communication (27.4.2010) does not even contain a request for the sanction. While the Visitor has only “agreed to approve in principle the establishment of . . .” and it fell short of passing the order/sanction. Advertently or inadvertently the Visitor’s communication mentioned ‘Centres’ and not ‘Special Centre’ which is not in the scope of provision, Section 12(2) of the Act, invoked.
AMU is neither empowered to establish its Campus/Centres like all other Universities in the Country, nor have the competent Authorities taken formal decisions and amended the relevant provisions to make away. The ‘Special Centres’ have very limited scope and purpose which cannot substitute Departments and take up teaching work independently.
Despite this, the responsible Ministry of HRD, Govt. of India under pressure from the powerful Finance Minister, (The Telegraph, Calcutta, 27. 3. 2010) released the budget grant of 25 crores for Murshidabad (Mr. Mukerjee’s constituency) and only 10 crores out 25 to Mallapuram.
Therefore, all the pronouncements and claims by Prof. Abdul Azis are his personal without the required force of law and authority.
It is an open secret as to what are the compelling reasons behind Prof. Azis’s indulgence in all the mis-adventures and rhetoric’s with such a reckless way and so brazenly;
i) The Inquiry reports, Cochin University establishing financial irregularities and corruption charges against Prof. Azis, when he was V.C. of CUSAT, Kochi;
ii) CAG, U.P., annual report, 2009 disclosing serious unprecedented financial irregularities, running in crores of rupees;
iii) Visitor’s Inquiry is on, against him on all sorts of allegations made by the members of the Executive Council and much more not yet been listed.
Serious note must be taken of the freedom Prof. Azis enjoyed in this very important matter despite the restrain imposed short of sending him on leave by MHRD to confine only to routine matters during the pending of the Visitor’s Inquiry.
Anyway, Prof. Azis, hoping against hope that he can wriggle out of the mess of his own creation by serving the Masters in Delhi , particularly, Mr. Pranab Mukerjee and be-fooling un-aware Muslim Community. Is not AMU paying too much a price for no fault of its own.
Prof. Azis has messed up everything and he has nothing to offer, except his resignation and quit gracefully, the early the better.
Senior Teachers and Old Boys
29.5.10
Courtesy:
voiceofaligs.yahoogroups.com
{The above message was posted on the above yahoo group by a very senior and respected retired faculty Prof. Ziauddin Ahmad (Retd), Department of Botany, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, India.}
Monday, May 31, 2010
AMU Special Centres: A Dispassionate Analysis of Legal Impossibility
Dear all, ASAK
I am responding with a sense of desperation regarding the sentiments expressed by Mr. Sajjad which are symptomatic of many other persons at AMU, that despite everything else 'the establishment of Centres is a big achievement of AMU'.This sentiment has dominated the web space but not the real world, where there is a gut feeling that something is not quite right but, there are not enough cogent arguments to articulate the feeling. I am worried about whom to address? and, Whom to focus on? As far as AMU Centres are concerned. There is total confusion on what has been done? Who has done what? What are we trying to do? There is no reason to doubt anybody's sincerety on either side of the divide except of course of politicians, those with a questionable past and their hangers on. Except for these everyone has the best interests of the institution at heart.
At the risk of being taken to be long winded, pedantic, heavy and also confused I would invite you to consider the following:
There are three main issues involved here, that may be asked as questions and whose answers may help in bringing clarity, the first issue is who benefits from these centers? The second is, is it beneficial or harmful for the university as an institution to go ahead with this endevour? And the final question (which is connected to the second) is do the existing laws make any provision to set up centers or shall we have to go in for amendment of the Act?
Let's start with a rhetorical question
"Who benefits from these Centers?"
Answer would be "Muslims obviously"
The next question should be 'How?'
This is where you do not have a glib response, you have to pause and ponder, because the University does not reserve seats for Muslims and, has never done so except a misadventure recently which is now in the Supreme Court of India, it does not give preferential admission to Muslims, it in fact is barred by law to practise any sort of discrimination.
So 'How?' still remains unanswered!
An additional weak argument that, these centers are in Muslim majority areas so more Muslims would get in, doesn't hold water as admission is by merit not by region or religion.
Additionally you only have to look at the statements made by Mr. Nitish Kumar and by the VC Prof Azis that these centers shall not have any reservation for Muslims and they are open to everyone. Similar statements regarding AMU in the context of minority colleges and institutions have also been made by the Minority affairs minister Mr. Salman Khursheed.
The logical corollary of the above would be ‘Then why this song and dance about the centers?’
This is where a little reflection would reveal the dirty business of politics, all political parties know that Muslims have been left behind on all fronts but there is a small increasingly vocal elite (comprising retired civil servants, professionals in various fields, NRIs , moulavis and caste leaders), which is articulating the sense of deprivation and demanding action and answers.
So politicians have resorted to tokenism, the lead as always being taken by the Congress party in states where elections are due, where Muslims are more aware of the lack of development in their areas and community. The ruling combine in these states also want Muslims to continue supporting them, so we have competitive populism where no one wants to be labeled a laggard or being perceived as grudging Muslims their place in the sun, so a university which world over is recognized as a beacon of hope for modern scientific outlook among Muslims is being projected to play a role which it never sought to play.
The Aligarh Muslim University was never intended or conceived to be the University Grants Commission of Indian Muslims, if any government or any governing party is serious about Muslim education then they should open colleges and universities which can cater to the Muslims. Why drag AMU into a role which would destroy whatever we have, whatever we have achieved. Let me clarify a bit:--
There are two broad types of university models in India (here universities, public funded and private can only be established by legislation) one is a unitary type with a bound and defined campus as well as properly demarcated areas of jurisdiction, these are generally residential universities;
The other is the affiliating type which has a broad area of jurisdiction extending over many districts and which have affiliated colleges that admit students independent of the University, but basic eligibility norm is set by the university concerned, they teach syllabi set by the university, students appear in exams decided by the university. Sometimes these universities also have post graduate departments but most of the time they are glorified examination boards, individual teachers especially in the colleges have no control over the syllabus, method of evaluation, evaluators etc, that are all decided by boards at the University level which also have some teacher representatives, in essence individual teachers have no autonomy.
On the other hand unitary universities like AMU, BHU and nearly all Central Universities, have a governance structure where teachers decide what is to be taught, how it is to be taught, how it is to be evaluated and who would evaluate it, similarly they decide who is to be admitted how they are to be admitted, and what is the eligibility condition(s). Here teachers also decide the creation, up gradation of teaching posts and their fields of specialization at the time of creation, teachers are also empowered to decide on topics for research and supervisors, we at AMU are also privileged to decide which conference to organize at Aligarh and on what theme/topic. All this is possible because our Act and other similar Acts have a provision of the Board of Studies at the lowest level which comprises of all the teachers of the Department along with certain other persons including those who are conducting research in the Department. This very significant provision is not properly understood by persons working or coming from non unitary universities such as most state universities, like B.R.Ambedkar University, Agra or Bundelkhand University, Jhansi or Kerala University.
The point to be understood here is that if a Center is established what kind of structure would we have there? Shall we have one Department in Aligarh? In that case what happens to the teachers teaching at these so called centers, what kind of control shall they have over the courses they would be teaching? Shall we have parallel Departments at these new places? But these are prohibited by law and even in Delhi University which also has powers of an affiliating University the South campus and the original North campus do not have duplicate departments. World over Residential Universities are accepted as better institutions for teaching and research.
The Government of the day understands all these niceties and intricacies as the passage of the Central Universities Act in 2009 shows, where all these sensibilities of jurisdiction and all India character are taken into account, around the same time the Delhi Government also realized the need for a residential University so a new university was proposed to be established in Delhi. It is interesting to note that all these new Central Universities and all the previously established Central Universities have a territorial jurisdiction. I.e. everywhere the respective Act gives the boundaries of their influence . Only a few Institutions have a pan India jurisdiction such as the Maulana Azad National Urdu University, Jawaharlal Nehru University, Indira Gandhi National Open University so they are in the true sense of the term, exceptions. This is so because we have borrowed our model from the British where the norm is the Residential system as it prevails in say Oxford and Cambridge.
What I am trying to prove is that even if you accept the concept of the so called “Centers, Special Centers, Advanced Centers, Campuses” nothing can be established without amending the University Act as it exists at present. It is all a political mirage which vested interests are interested to display till the next elections at least.
Now that the Muslim advantage/benefit mirage is out of the way let us see what the University has done under the existing provisions about setting up the so called centers:--
A suggestion was made by the University Court in Dec2007 to set up advanced centers ‘in principle’, in Jan 2008 the Executive Council of the University accepted the suggestion to establish, hold your breath, satellite campuses, now I don’t have to tell anyone that nomenclature is a very important thing, so did anyone have or still has clarity on what was/is being proposed, except that something was being set up. In Feb 2008 I.e., before any other authority of the University had considered the proposal a letter was sent to the President of India to accord ‘In principle’ approval of the so called special centers/parallel campuses/ centers of the AMU. What is the laid down procedure in the Act if something much smaller in scale is to be attempted such as a Department of Studies or a center like Women Studies or Career Planning Center or Cardiology Center or Endocrinology center is set up:
According to the Section 28(5) of the University Act any member of the University court may make any proposal which if approved shall be considered at its next meeting by the EC it reads (5) Any member of the Court may propose to the Court, the draft of any Statute and the Court may reject the proposal or refer such draft for consideration to the Executive Council, which may either reject the proposal or submit the draft to the Court in such form as the Executive Council may approve and…**This is then followed by a reference to Section28(3) which reads
(3) The Executive Council may propose to the Court the draft of any Statutes for its consideration and such draft shall be considered by the Court at its next meeting: Provided that the Executive Council shall not propose the draft of any Statute or of any amendment of a Statute affecting the status powers or constitution of any authority of the University until such authority has been given an opportunity of expressing an opinion in writing upon the proposal and any opinion so expressed shall be considered by the Court. This is the procedure referred to in the last part of the Subsection(5) which reads …**the provisions of this section shall apply in the case of any draft so submitted as they apply in the case of a draft proposed by the Executive Council. i.e. as given in subsection3.
Now in case you are getting confused permit me to lay down the procedure of any change in the university structure
1. A proposal for setting up a new department or centre can emanate from any of the Authorities of the University viz. the Faculty(ies), the Academic Council, the Executive Council and the University Court and sometimes also from the Board of Studies which is not an authority. All this however is subject to the following
1.1. Statute 20(2) which reads as follows (2) (a) Each Faculty shall consist of such Departments as may be assigned to it by the Ordinances.
(b) No Department shall be established or abolished except by the Statutes.
1.2. And Section 2(e) of the Act reads (e) “Department” means a Department of Studies and includes a Centre of Studies established by the Ordinances;
2. In both cases, whether the proposal came from the top or the bottom, it is first discussed in all democratic bodies and if it is accepted by all then the procedure of change in Statute or Ordinance is taken up which only starts at the lowest level of the BOS and goes up to the University Court.
2.1. At all places where powers are assigned the phrase “Subject to the Act, the Statutes and the Ordinances”is given this includes Section 12(2) of the Act which talks of sanction of the Visitor.
2.2.What should be understood by this phrase except that you can only do which is allowed, not that which is not allowed in the Act.
2.3. The Act very categorically says in the preamble the intention to set up a ‘Teaching and residential university at Aligarh’ it also says at Section 5(9A) “Twenty five Kilometers of the University Mosque” also “special centers”. The actual language at both 5(9A) and Section 12(2) is reproduced below
Section 5*(9A) to establish within a radius of twenty five kilometres of the University Mosque such special Centres, specialized Laboratories or other units for research and instruction as are, in the opinion of the University, necessary for the furtherance of its objects;
Section 12(2) The University may also, with the sanction of the Visitor and subject to the Statutes and Ordinances, *establish and maintain such Special Centres, Specialized Laboratories or such other institutions for research or instruction as are necessary for the furtherance of its objects either on its own or in cooperation or collaboration with any other institution.
Additionally even Section 12(1) which s concerned with schools also talks of 15 miles, so the intention of the lawmakers are obvious, no expansion beyond a physical limit.
2.4 An example from the past may be looked at. During the tenure of Prof Naseem Farooqui as VC 1990—1994, the then PVC Prof Abul Hasan Siddiqui had come up with a proposal to set up a new Medical College near Lucknow at Sitapur road for which land was also being made available. Then also many well meaning individuals had welcomed the proposal and had seen in it the future of the University, however there was disquiet on the campus because it was seen as opening the backdoor to a permanent harmful change to the University’s structure, but in keeping with our traditions very few were willing to make their disquiet known on record.
When the matter came up in the Academic Council it was passed by majority vote but there were three notes of dissent which spelt out the above provisions, stressed that ‘subject to…’ can only mean that which is allowed and; that before any further processing, the matter be referred to the Ministry of Law, Govt. of India. This was the end of the matter.
2.5 Similarly Centers set up during the tenure of Mr.Mahmoodur Rahman as VC 1995—2000, were wound up later, during Mr. Hamid Ansari’s tenure, as not being in consonance with the Act, Statutes and Ordinances.
3. What is a ‘Special Center’ or a ‘Specialised Laboratory’, this obviously is something which does not exist in the University but the University feels that this requirement/gap/ needs to be filled up, so a provision is made in the rules to fill up such a lacunae. It definitely does not allow the setting up of parallel departments or campuses anywhere.
3.1 The President is said to have given her consent ‘in principle’ for ‘Centers’ under Section 12(2), this section covers only special centers so what is this entity “Centers”? and what does “in Principle” mean? Does it mean the idea is prima facie acceptable but, a proper concrete proposal is required when a final view and decision shall be taken. It does not by any stretch of imagination allow for teaching to start in a makeshift manner. What happens to the ‘Brand AMU’ for which a high profile committee was set up? Even those who concede the basic principle of centers being setup are worried, is this how we shall provide degrees in a half baked manner and with makeshift faculty and facilities? Shall we have a different admission policy for these places? Who is an internal student here and who is not? Even if admission is offered to students currently studying here in the internal quota will they go there ? What shall be the final profile of the students and the teaches? These are the questions the supporters of the idea are asking but, don’t have the nerve to ask in public for fear of annoying the VC. Maybe this why in all elections held recently an overwhelming number, more than three fourths, voted against persons perceived to be supported by the administration. Why are we in such a tearing hurry to destroy everything? Just as that half baked idea of Muslim reservation destroyed decades of our quiet work in education.
4. It follows, therefore, that the proposal is bound by two limits; it should not breach the 25 Km limit and, it can only be within the existing system i.e. it should not tinker with the basic structure of the Institution which is at Aligarh and which is residential. I would like to draw your attention to the doctrine of the basic structure of the Constitution which has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, I suggest it is a similar case here at AMU.
4.1 How is the basic structure to be determined? A basic structure involves institutional goals and aspirations as well as methods and powers to achieve them, through a laid down system of academic and administrative information flow and decision making which has to be processed through certain authorities (bodies). All Government institutions including AMU have this system in place for anyone to analyse and discuss, for AMU it is ___ Teaching and residential at Aligarh along with the Department and Faculty system with local decision making.
I have it on the authority of one of the most distinguished scholars ever produced by this University, a name which has and still inspires awe in academia, that the AMU Act shall require amendments before any of the Centers(?) as conceived by the present administration see the light of the day. I had respectfully argued that this will change the university as we know it and, although we have not been brilliant and outstanding, except for notable exceptions, we may even be harmed and, loose whatever we have achieved and have come to stand for. I also raised questions of academic governance and administrative organisation which I have already spelt out above, we are not able to properly manage a bound campus, how would we manage a far flung atomized structure? His answer was illuminating. He said it is politics and it is the politics of governance and, every political party is making use of the opportunity being offered. He also mentioned that if the proposal is to work, separate universities shall have to be set up, in the present form it seems to be unworkable as regional feelings and aspirations shall come into play. As ours was an informal discussion it shall not be proper to mention names, but I hope readers shall get the general picture of disquiet that most of us have here.
I hope I have answered the third question I had posed at the beginning of this letter, that the present Act does not allow such centers to be set up.
Finally, after the third question let me try to answer the second question I posed earlier, let me try to do it without using the term Muslim as Mr. Hamid Ansari, during his tenure as VC here, was fond of asking us to do. The second question was ‘does it benefit AMU as an institution to go in for these changes’ meaning does the stature of AMU increase or as our present VC is fond of saying does ‘Brand AMU’ gain prestige ? The answer very categorically is NO. Why? Well because we as an institution have not contributed very much in pure academic terms except the individual brilliance of scholars who can be counted on our fingers. No doubt we have also had great litterateurs but they just happened to be here, they were creators, not interpreters or analysts or great teachers. So brand AMU is known more for the total individual it produces a strange mixture of a sardonic wit, an appreciator of all good things of life but, a person who retains a sense of belonging and so remembers that one should do something for society, a person who is simultaneously both religious as well as irreligious with a healthy dose of skepticism thrown in. This product is produced in Aligarh, in the hostels, library, classrooms here. It would not be produced in a Kishanganj and Murshidabad or Mallapuram or Bhopal or Pune, and I am not being snobbish or denigrating anyone or any place here. The individual who wants to do something for the deprived sections of society can be and is produced elsewhere also, but it is only here that you get an Aligarian which I fear you would not get elsewhere.
As I am writing this Aligarh is being lashed by a high intensity wind storm very soon electricity shall go off and we know that it will not be soon before it is restored.
Today is May 30,2010 the VC is in a high profile meeting in Delhi (all senior officers were asked to accompany him), this is to be followed by a press conference where we shall get to know the laurels AMU is earning, the new centers, the new courses we shall be having etc. This place which is said to contain a high concentration of educated persons of all communities, including the highest concentration of educated Muslims in India is being ignored. On the other hand, people who left India many years back, who are working in different systems with different models of education, where social justice has a different connotation and different solutions are being roped in to give advice. Why? Is it because they add glamour? It is not that these persons will not or cannot contribute, of course they will, with their differing experiences, bring a new perspective to the table, but the framework has to be according to our needs and requirements and drawn up by us, who live that reality, not someone who has a romaticised notion of the past, these experts should come in only after a basic plan has been agreed upon not earlier.
Here on the Campus there is no electricity since yesterday i.e more than 24 hours. Supply has been restored in the city, where we all know there is corruption all round, last night itself. In our great campus which is planning to open centers and what no, the students who are appearing in exams have been left to fend for themselves in this sweltering heat where there is no electricity in any Hall, MA Library, Department etc. They (students) are not making any hue and cry although they see that the central offices continue to have electricity for ACs, the VC’s lodge is lit up in total darkness all-round like always, unique like an oasis in a sea of sand, they are quietly preparing for their exams. These are the same ‘rowdy students’ for whom we require a continuous surveillance system with high tech cameras and all. Incidentally three camera towers including the control tower have come down; this is an indicator of the slipshod quality control we practice, even for things that we passionately espouse.
Today is May 31,2010 still no electricity still no change, the University has money to put in place a high tech security structure because it has played upon the latent muslim phobia of the security apparatus, it has no money to put up electricity poles, lack of the latter adversely affects research, teaching, learning ,exams; lack of the former only affects the pockets of the suppliers and the psychological state of the administration. The employees of the Electricity Department are working tirelessly to restore supply but the Land & Gardens office is sitting idle, it has not moved to remove the broken trees and their branches from the roads and electricity cables and poles. We do not have a disaster response system, every year we have storms, every year we have rains, every year we have recurring crises but we have knee jerk reactions; we are so involved in our support to the administration that we forget to tell the emperor about the clothes he is wearing.
I hope I have been able to put across a point of view which you would understand and respond to.
S. Mustafa Zaidi [s_mustafa_zaidi@yahoo.co.in]
Department of Library Sciences
Aligarh Muslim University
Aligarh-202002 (INDIA)
(The writer is a senior faculty member and the message was posted on worldofaligs@yahoogroups.com)
I am responding with a sense of desperation regarding the sentiments expressed by Mr. Sajjad which are symptomatic of many other persons at AMU, that despite everything else 'the establishment of Centres is a big achievement of AMU'.This sentiment has dominated the web space but not the real world, where there is a gut feeling that something is not quite right but, there are not enough cogent arguments to articulate the feeling. I am worried about whom to address? and, Whom to focus on? As far as AMU Centres are concerned. There is total confusion on what has been done? Who has done what? What are we trying to do? There is no reason to doubt anybody's sincerety on either side of the divide except of course of politicians, those with a questionable past and their hangers on. Except for these everyone has the best interests of the institution at heart.
At the risk of being taken to be long winded, pedantic, heavy and also confused I would invite you to consider the following:
There are three main issues involved here, that may be asked as questions and whose answers may help in bringing clarity, the first issue is who benefits from these centers? The second is, is it beneficial or harmful for the university as an institution to go ahead with this endevour? And the final question (which is connected to the second) is do the existing laws make any provision to set up centers or shall we have to go in for amendment of the Act?
Let's start with a rhetorical question
"Who benefits from these Centers?"
Answer would be "Muslims obviously"
The next question should be 'How?'
This is where you do not have a glib response, you have to pause and ponder, because the University does not reserve seats for Muslims and, has never done so except a misadventure recently which is now in the Supreme Court of India, it does not give preferential admission to Muslims, it in fact is barred by law to practise any sort of discrimination.
So 'How?' still remains unanswered!
An additional weak argument that, these centers are in Muslim majority areas so more Muslims would get in, doesn't hold water as admission is by merit not by region or religion.
Additionally you only have to look at the statements made by Mr. Nitish Kumar and by the VC Prof Azis that these centers shall not have any reservation for Muslims and they are open to everyone. Similar statements regarding AMU in the context of minority colleges and institutions have also been made by the Minority affairs minister Mr. Salman Khursheed.
The logical corollary of the above would be ‘Then why this song and dance about the centers?’
This is where a little reflection would reveal the dirty business of politics, all political parties know that Muslims have been left behind on all fronts but there is a small increasingly vocal elite (comprising retired civil servants, professionals in various fields, NRIs , moulavis and caste leaders), which is articulating the sense of deprivation and demanding action and answers.
So politicians have resorted to tokenism, the lead as always being taken by the Congress party in states where elections are due, where Muslims are more aware of the lack of development in their areas and community. The ruling combine in these states also want Muslims to continue supporting them, so we have competitive populism where no one wants to be labeled a laggard or being perceived as grudging Muslims their place in the sun, so a university which world over is recognized as a beacon of hope for modern scientific outlook among Muslims is being projected to play a role which it never sought to play.
The Aligarh Muslim University was never intended or conceived to be the University Grants Commission of Indian Muslims, if any government or any governing party is serious about Muslim education then they should open colleges and universities which can cater to the Muslims. Why drag AMU into a role which would destroy whatever we have, whatever we have achieved. Let me clarify a bit:--
There are two broad types of university models in India (here universities, public funded and private can only be established by legislation) one is a unitary type with a bound and defined campus as well as properly demarcated areas of jurisdiction, these are generally residential universities;
The other is the affiliating type which has a broad area of jurisdiction extending over many districts and which have affiliated colleges that admit students independent of the University, but basic eligibility norm is set by the university concerned, they teach syllabi set by the university, students appear in exams decided by the university. Sometimes these universities also have post graduate departments but most of the time they are glorified examination boards, individual teachers especially in the colleges have no control over the syllabus, method of evaluation, evaluators etc, that are all decided by boards at the University level which also have some teacher representatives, in essence individual teachers have no autonomy.
On the other hand unitary universities like AMU, BHU and nearly all Central Universities, have a governance structure where teachers decide what is to be taught, how it is to be taught, how it is to be evaluated and who would evaluate it, similarly they decide who is to be admitted how they are to be admitted, and what is the eligibility condition(s). Here teachers also decide the creation, up gradation of teaching posts and their fields of specialization at the time of creation, teachers are also empowered to decide on topics for research and supervisors, we at AMU are also privileged to decide which conference to organize at Aligarh and on what theme/topic. All this is possible because our Act and other similar Acts have a provision of the Board of Studies at the lowest level which comprises of all the teachers of the Department along with certain other persons including those who are conducting research in the Department. This very significant provision is not properly understood by persons working or coming from non unitary universities such as most state universities, like B.R.Ambedkar University, Agra or Bundelkhand University, Jhansi or Kerala University.
The point to be understood here is that if a Center is established what kind of structure would we have there? Shall we have one Department in Aligarh? In that case what happens to the teachers teaching at these so called centers, what kind of control shall they have over the courses they would be teaching? Shall we have parallel Departments at these new places? But these are prohibited by law and even in Delhi University which also has powers of an affiliating University the South campus and the original North campus do not have duplicate departments. World over Residential Universities are accepted as better institutions for teaching and research.
The Government of the day understands all these niceties and intricacies as the passage of the Central Universities Act in 2009 shows, where all these sensibilities of jurisdiction and all India character are taken into account, around the same time the Delhi Government also realized the need for a residential University so a new university was proposed to be established in Delhi. It is interesting to note that all these new Central Universities and all the previously established Central Universities have a territorial jurisdiction. I.e. everywhere the respective Act gives the boundaries of their influence . Only a few Institutions have a pan India jurisdiction such as the Maulana Azad National Urdu University, Jawaharlal Nehru University, Indira Gandhi National Open University so they are in the true sense of the term, exceptions. This is so because we have borrowed our model from the British where the norm is the Residential system as it prevails in say Oxford and Cambridge.
What I am trying to prove is that even if you accept the concept of the so called “Centers, Special Centers, Advanced Centers, Campuses” nothing can be established without amending the University Act as it exists at present. It is all a political mirage which vested interests are interested to display till the next elections at least.
Now that the Muslim advantage/benefit mirage is out of the way let us see what the University has done under the existing provisions about setting up the so called centers:--
A suggestion was made by the University Court in Dec2007 to set up advanced centers ‘in principle’, in Jan 2008 the Executive Council of the University accepted the suggestion to establish, hold your breath, satellite campuses, now I don’t have to tell anyone that nomenclature is a very important thing, so did anyone have or still has clarity on what was/is being proposed, except that something was being set up. In Feb 2008 I.e., before any other authority of the University had considered the proposal a letter was sent to the President of India to accord ‘In principle’ approval of the so called special centers/parallel campuses/ centers of the AMU. What is the laid down procedure in the Act if something much smaller in scale is to be attempted such as a Department of Studies or a center like Women Studies or Career Planning Center or Cardiology Center or Endocrinology center is set up:
According to the Section 28(5) of the University Act any member of the University court may make any proposal which if approved shall be considered at its next meeting by the EC it reads (5) Any member of the Court may propose to the Court, the draft of any Statute and the Court may reject the proposal or refer such draft for consideration to the Executive Council, which may either reject the proposal or submit the draft to the Court in such form as the Executive Council may approve and…**This is then followed by a reference to Section28(3) which reads
(3) The Executive Council may propose to the Court the draft of any Statutes for its consideration and such draft shall be considered by the Court at its next meeting: Provided that the Executive Council shall not propose the draft of any Statute or of any amendment of a Statute affecting the status powers or constitution of any authority of the University until such authority has been given an opportunity of expressing an opinion in writing upon the proposal and any opinion so expressed shall be considered by the Court. This is the procedure referred to in the last part of the Subsection(5) which reads …**the provisions of this section shall apply in the case of any draft so submitted as they apply in the case of a draft proposed by the Executive Council. i.e. as given in subsection3.
Now in case you are getting confused permit me to lay down the procedure of any change in the university structure
1. A proposal for setting up a new department or centre can emanate from any of the Authorities of the University viz. the Faculty(ies), the Academic Council, the Executive Council and the University Court and sometimes also from the Board of Studies which is not an authority. All this however is subject to the following
1.1. Statute 20(2) which reads as follows (2) (a) Each Faculty shall consist of such Departments as may be assigned to it by the Ordinances.
(b) No Department shall be established or abolished except by the Statutes.
1.2. And Section 2(e) of the Act reads (e) “Department” means a Department of Studies and includes a Centre of Studies established by the Ordinances;
2. In both cases, whether the proposal came from the top or the bottom, it is first discussed in all democratic bodies and if it is accepted by all then the procedure of change in Statute or Ordinance is taken up which only starts at the lowest level of the BOS and goes up to the University Court.
2.1. At all places where powers are assigned the phrase “Subject to the Act, the Statutes and the Ordinances”is given this includes Section 12(2) of the Act which talks of sanction of the Visitor.
2.2.What should be understood by this phrase except that you can only do which is allowed, not that which is not allowed in the Act.
2.3. The Act very categorically says in the preamble the intention to set up a ‘Teaching and residential university at Aligarh’ it also says at Section 5(9A) “Twenty five Kilometers of the University Mosque” also “special centers”. The actual language at both 5(9A) and Section 12(2) is reproduced below
Section 5*(9A) to establish within a radius of twenty five kilometres of the University Mosque such special Centres, specialized Laboratories or other units for research and instruction as are, in the opinion of the University, necessary for the furtherance of its objects;
Section 12(2) The University may also, with the sanction of the Visitor and subject to the Statutes and Ordinances, *establish and maintain such Special Centres, Specialized Laboratories or such other institutions for research or instruction as are necessary for the furtherance of its objects either on its own or in cooperation or collaboration with any other institution.
Additionally even Section 12(1) which s concerned with schools also talks of 15 miles, so the intention of the lawmakers are obvious, no expansion beyond a physical limit.
2.4 An example from the past may be looked at. During the tenure of Prof Naseem Farooqui as VC 1990—1994, the then PVC Prof Abul Hasan Siddiqui had come up with a proposal to set up a new Medical College near Lucknow at Sitapur road for which land was also being made available. Then also many well meaning individuals had welcomed the proposal and had seen in it the future of the University, however there was disquiet on the campus because it was seen as opening the backdoor to a permanent harmful change to the University’s structure, but in keeping with our traditions very few were willing to make their disquiet known on record.
When the matter came up in the Academic Council it was passed by majority vote but there were three notes of dissent which spelt out the above provisions, stressed that ‘subject to…’ can only mean that which is allowed and; that before any further processing, the matter be referred to the Ministry of Law, Govt. of India. This was the end of the matter.
2.5 Similarly Centers set up during the tenure of Mr.Mahmoodur Rahman as VC 1995—2000, were wound up later, during Mr. Hamid Ansari’s tenure, as not being in consonance with the Act, Statutes and Ordinances.
3. What is a ‘Special Center’ or a ‘Specialised Laboratory’, this obviously is something which does not exist in the University but the University feels that this requirement/gap/ needs to be filled up, so a provision is made in the rules to fill up such a lacunae. It definitely does not allow the setting up of parallel departments or campuses anywhere.
3.1 The President is said to have given her consent ‘in principle’ for ‘Centers’ under Section 12(2), this section covers only special centers so what is this entity “Centers”? and what does “in Principle” mean? Does it mean the idea is prima facie acceptable but, a proper concrete proposal is required when a final view and decision shall be taken. It does not by any stretch of imagination allow for teaching to start in a makeshift manner. What happens to the ‘Brand AMU’ for which a high profile committee was set up? Even those who concede the basic principle of centers being setup are worried, is this how we shall provide degrees in a half baked manner and with makeshift faculty and facilities? Shall we have a different admission policy for these places? Who is an internal student here and who is not? Even if admission is offered to students currently studying here in the internal quota will they go there ? What shall be the final profile of the students and the teaches? These are the questions the supporters of the idea are asking but, don’t have the nerve to ask in public for fear of annoying the VC. Maybe this why in all elections held recently an overwhelming number, more than three fourths, voted against persons perceived to be supported by the administration. Why are we in such a tearing hurry to destroy everything? Just as that half baked idea of Muslim reservation destroyed decades of our quiet work in education.
4. It follows, therefore, that the proposal is bound by two limits; it should not breach the 25 Km limit and, it can only be within the existing system i.e. it should not tinker with the basic structure of the Institution which is at Aligarh and which is residential. I would like to draw your attention to the doctrine of the basic structure of the Constitution which has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, I suggest it is a similar case here at AMU.
4.1 How is the basic structure to be determined? A basic structure involves institutional goals and aspirations as well as methods and powers to achieve them, through a laid down system of academic and administrative information flow and decision making which has to be processed through certain authorities (bodies). All Government institutions including AMU have this system in place for anyone to analyse and discuss, for AMU it is ___ Teaching and residential at Aligarh along with the Department and Faculty system with local decision making.
I have it on the authority of one of the most distinguished scholars ever produced by this University, a name which has and still inspires awe in academia, that the AMU Act shall require amendments before any of the Centers(?) as conceived by the present administration see the light of the day. I had respectfully argued that this will change the university as we know it and, although we have not been brilliant and outstanding, except for notable exceptions, we may even be harmed and, loose whatever we have achieved and have come to stand for. I also raised questions of academic governance and administrative organisation which I have already spelt out above, we are not able to properly manage a bound campus, how would we manage a far flung atomized structure? His answer was illuminating. He said it is politics and it is the politics of governance and, every political party is making use of the opportunity being offered. He also mentioned that if the proposal is to work, separate universities shall have to be set up, in the present form it seems to be unworkable as regional feelings and aspirations shall come into play. As ours was an informal discussion it shall not be proper to mention names, but I hope readers shall get the general picture of disquiet that most of us have here.
I hope I have answered the third question I had posed at the beginning of this letter, that the present Act does not allow such centers to be set up.
Finally, after the third question let me try to answer the second question I posed earlier, let me try to do it without using the term Muslim as Mr. Hamid Ansari, during his tenure as VC here, was fond of asking us to do. The second question was ‘does it benefit AMU as an institution to go in for these changes’ meaning does the stature of AMU increase or as our present VC is fond of saying does ‘Brand AMU’ gain prestige ? The answer very categorically is NO. Why? Well because we as an institution have not contributed very much in pure academic terms except the individual brilliance of scholars who can be counted on our fingers. No doubt we have also had great litterateurs but they just happened to be here, they were creators, not interpreters or analysts or great teachers. So brand AMU is known more for the total individual it produces a strange mixture of a sardonic wit, an appreciator of all good things of life but, a person who retains a sense of belonging and so remembers that one should do something for society, a person who is simultaneously both religious as well as irreligious with a healthy dose of skepticism thrown in. This product is produced in Aligarh, in the hostels, library, classrooms here. It would not be produced in a Kishanganj and Murshidabad or Mallapuram or Bhopal or Pune, and I am not being snobbish or denigrating anyone or any place here. The individual who wants to do something for the deprived sections of society can be and is produced elsewhere also, but it is only here that you get an Aligarian which I fear you would not get elsewhere.
As I am writing this Aligarh is being lashed by a high intensity wind storm very soon electricity shall go off and we know that it will not be soon before it is restored.
Today is May 30,2010 the VC is in a high profile meeting in Delhi (all senior officers were asked to accompany him), this is to be followed by a press conference where we shall get to know the laurels AMU is earning, the new centers, the new courses we shall be having etc. This place which is said to contain a high concentration of educated persons of all communities, including the highest concentration of educated Muslims in India is being ignored. On the other hand, people who left India many years back, who are working in different systems with different models of education, where social justice has a different connotation and different solutions are being roped in to give advice. Why? Is it because they add glamour? It is not that these persons will not or cannot contribute, of course they will, with their differing experiences, bring a new perspective to the table, but the framework has to be according to our needs and requirements and drawn up by us, who live that reality, not someone who has a romaticised notion of the past, these experts should come in only after a basic plan has been agreed upon not earlier.
Here on the Campus there is no electricity since yesterday i.e more than 24 hours. Supply has been restored in the city, where we all know there is corruption all round, last night itself. In our great campus which is planning to open centers and what no, the students who are appearing in exams have been left to fend for themselves in this sweltering heat where there is no electricity in any Hall, MA Library, Department etc. They (students) are not making any hue and cry although they see that the central offices continue to have electricity for ACs, the VC’s lodge is lit up in total darkness all-round like always, unique like an oasis in a sea of sand, they are quietly preparing for their exams. These are the same ‘rowdy students’ for whom we require a continuous surveillance system with high tech cameras and all. Incidentally three camera towers including the control tower have come down; this is an indicator of the slipshod quality control we practice, even for things that we passionately espouse.
Today is May 31,2010 still no electricity still no change, the University has money to put in place a high tech security structure because it has played upon the latent muslim phobia of the security apparatus, it has no money to put up electricity poles, lack of the latter adversely affects research, teaching, learning ,exams; lack of the former only affects the pockets of the suppliers and the psychological state of the administration. The employees of the Electricity Department are working tirelessly to restore supply but the Land & Gardens office is sitting idle, it has not moved to remove the broken trees and their branches from the roads and electricity cables and poles. We do not have a disaster response system, every year we have storms, every year we have rains, every year we have recurring crises but we have knee jerk reactions; we are so involved in our support to the administration that we forget to tell the emperor about the clothes he is wearing.
I hope I have been able to put across a point of view which you would understand and respond to.
S. Mustafa Zaidi [s_mustafa_zaidi@yahoo.co.in]
Department of Library Sciences
Aligarh Muslim University
Aligarh-202002 (INDIA)
(The writer is a senior faculty member and the message was posted on worldofaligs@yahoogroups.com)
Another Death in AMU: Callous Response from Administration
A Student Died: Questionable Response from AMU administration
I am sitting now at Morison Court Hostel. The CCTV tower behind me is kissing the ground after the semi-cyclone hit AMU yesterday causing much destruction. Trees uprooted, electric towers fell, major roads blocked with all this thing and yes the much praised CCTV towers of Library and Begum Sultan Jahan Hall( 2 main receptors among 3, other at Registrar Office is however safe), Abdullah Hall, Sir Syed House ( It seems Sir Syed's soul also cursed it) are now destroyed. It seems they were poorly installed leaving the scope to repair them again sanctioning more money.
I am here talking with some of my old hostelmates like Shavez Raza, Kasim Khan, Mafaz Khan, Faisal Zahid, Syed Nehal Wajid, Faizan Shahid, Zeeshan Malik, Afnan Khan, Mirza Hasan Beg et all( Classmates of the student died day before yesterday at Railway Station) who are seething with anger with the mismanaged and callous response of the administration in the wake of unfortunate death of Aijaz Khan, B.A Political Science(II Year) who hailed from Siwan, Bihar. May Allah rest his soul in peace! As they are stating me, Aijaz went to railway station last night at 9 pm around to see off his friend along with Zafeer & Ghaus. He was crossing Platform No. 3 to 2 when all of a sudden a train hit him from the back which caused lethal injury to him. Nobody came to help. GRP & RPF around contacted to send the injured student to Medical they showed utter callousness and refused to send the student without informing the Proctor. They did not try at all. Students tried to contact the telephone no. printed on I-Card as the student was still alive then but in vain, it did not work. No one helped. The body lied there without any help for 20 minutes, unattended by all. Zafeer & Gaus then took a "TIRRI" and at a moment when the body of that student was half-cut from the waist, with all the blood spilling around they reached the Emergency of JNMC only to know he was already dead. These facts are published in most of the local Hindi newspapers.
As these students are stating me, when the time came to send this deceased body of this AMU student to his home the AMU administration present there i.e Proctor, Asst Proctors, Provost Dr.Suhail Sabir ( Registrar came and went soon) showed utmost insensitive approach. A "Khatara Ambulence"( In their words) was selected with no light inside( it would be boiling in this hot summer, students challenged that if any1 4m administration can stay inside 5 minutes) by them to send that deceased body without properly packing it( they said just a white sheet was on him, shoes were not taken off, later these students took care of that) and placing it on single ice cube. The students protested that this way the body could not reach his hometown, and body may fell and shake gravely on the potholed roads, and after 2 hours the Ice Cubes would get melted. The administration said that the hospital staff of Ambulance can take care of that body as they are habituated with it who when asked by the students denied that this way would be sufficient for that body and they (administration) also said more ice cubes can be bought on the way( I don't know why minimum common sense they did not have, Siwan is 900 km from Aligarh, How many time Ice Cubes can be bought?). The students insisted on more ice cubes then administration said students may themselves arrange that. According to the students, the administration consisting abovementioned people were just in hurry to send that body as soon as possible without thinking how it would be sent. What was the motive is unknown. Vice-Chancellor Sir on the other side was in Delhi and busy in publishing his achievements and busy with AMU branch thing.
As per his classmates around me, when one student proposed that LIFELINE ambulance with air-conditioned and other special facilities can be called at Rs.40000 to send that body properly to his hometown, the Proctor said they don't carry dead bodies and they can't arrange Lifeline Ambulance then. Students unknown of the funds( Later I told them under Miscellaneous fund collected from students University already have 2 Crores now, apart from that many other emergency funds are there) proposed to the Proctors and others, that later on University can charge in their hall dues if they do not have required amount then( What a shame!). The Proctor agreed but said that the students may arrange Lifeline Ambulance themselves. A student Hasnat had their number and they called Lifeline Ambulance, they agreed and said if Rs.40000 is deposited to their Office at GT Road, they have no problem to send that deceased student to his hometown). However as per the students though they agreed and LIFELINE AMBULANCE was on their way to JNMC but did not reach for long and made lame excuses. In the meantime C.O Civil Lines Omprakash Singh heard the facts from the students and he himself called LIFELINE Ambulance Office and I must held him in high regards for the thing he said to them that their fee may be adjusted later , he assure them of that but they must reach JNMC immediately. When LIFELINE AMBULANCE reached there, the Proctor that moment insisted that now more ice cubes need to be packed with body else University administration won't send it with this LIFELINE ambulance. Shavez (Morison Court) asked the driver if they have any problem with it and he said they have no problem with anything if Rs.40000 is given to them.
Now Shavez and Mafaz, while riding on their bike to search for Ice Cubes in the market( Proctor said that students may themselves arrange the ice cubes. I don't know why so many staff are there and whether university have no responsibility?), C.O Civil Lines O.P.Singh saw them and advised them to take the Police Geep ( I must praise him for his help again. Proctor Office people were mute spectator to it. Their vehicles were not for students as if.) He asked the police driver and that arrange the Ice Cubes from anywhere and help those students. So after the Ice Cubes were arranged by the students themselves and adjusted with the body, then the student bid farewell to their deceased friend in that LIFELINE AMBULANCE along with one his relative and friend.
However I would praise about the Proctor on one point as I heard from the students that he advised that FIR can be lodged against the GRP/RPF for negligence if the post mortem would be done of that student but his relatives seemed not to agree with post mortem thing. All of the above facts of negligence and callousness was accepted by one former Senior Proctorial Monitor today to me.
However may be there would be some biasness in presenting this story to me by the students who were hurt to see all this going on, but I would expect that people should know what administration say in their defence of their actions regarding this deceased student. I hope someone amongst them would reply to my questions.
But above all this incident left many question for the administration:
1. They apparently installed the CCTV cameras for the security of the students and for the safety of their lives are of 2.1 Crore. As I heard from Shadab Bhai, Research Scholar, Department of Computer Science, Aftab Hostel that even in the case of Mazhar Naeem( Who was murdered and followed a sine die in 2007), even after so many calls made by the him and others at Proctor Office and other places the university vehicle reached the spot to take him only after 20 minutes. This time students carried the body in a TIRRI when no help came. University can think of CCTV cameras but cant they think of any emergency Ambulance or line one of LIFELINE AMBULANCES to be purchased of worth Rs. 10-20 lacks with all the emergency facilities, air-conditioned, shock absorbers( APOLLO have this) with any special number popularized among the students which can reach any spot immediately to attend any seriously injured student and save his life. No! They have no time to think about the lives of the student but they want projects worth crores so that some fill their pocket.
2. Well though I agree there was a need to send that body soon to his hometown but why University authorities did not care earlier to send him properly in a way that his body would be properly preserved and won't be affected in the potholed roads. Why this much callousness? Had their relatives faced this thing would have they acted this way?
3. When students advised the administration (Why they need it I don't know) about the LIFELINE AMBULANCE why there was so much hesitation even University have enough funds for such facilities. University have no problem when Vice-Chancellor's kins travel by Air, but they can't arrange themselves and pay for proper vehicle to send a deceased AMU student. Why? Why only after student insisted they arranged that?
4. I remember when my friend Mulla Sabit Ali died in 2007( the first death in 2007), Naseem Ahmad, Former Vice-Chancellor arranged to send his dead body packed properly by Air to his hometown in Orissa and next day issued a notice pasted everywhere stating the expenditure made for this purpose and the Head of Account( Miscellaneous Fund) may be. But Mulla Sabit's relatives denied accepting that amount. Why now the university administration shows no responsibility and care to their students and Police and District Administration shows the same thing more than them? O.P.Singh, C.O Civil Lines in this case as students said helped them a lot.
We know it very well, if we protest even peacefully about such callousness and insensitiveness the AMU administration would immediately suspend some 20 of us and some Old Boys would start competition among them in rallying behind the administration saying "some elements are against the interest of the university and peace must be kept at any cost. Throw them out of our beloved alma mater" but won't ever ask the administration to think about us. And they know merely by asking for anything nothing helped us till date . This time the University administration is morally responsible for this death again as they could not provide any emergency help to the students.
I never justify violence as a form of protest, never been associated with it. But sometime the amount of insensitiveness and callousness I see here these days, I believe as things are not like Old days when University administration showed much more care to the students, now AMU students without love and care would be unruly and violent only. It's their actions that are responsible, not us.
Md. Adil Hossain [adilhossain43@yahoo.in] M.A(Previous) Mass Communication AMU, Aligarh
Courtesy: TheAligarhForum@yahoogroups.com
I am sitting now at Morison Court Hostel. The CCTV tower behind me is kissing the ground after the semi-cyclone hit AMU yesterday causing much destruction. Trees uprooted, electric towers fell, major roads blocked with all this thing and yes the much praised CCTV towers of Library and Begum Sultan Jahan Hall( 2 main receptors among 3, other at Registrar Office is however safe), Abdullah Hall, Sir Syed House ( It seems Sir Syed's soul also cursed it) are now destroyed. It seems they were poorly installed leaving the scope to repair them again sanctioning more money.
I am here talking with some of my old hostelmates like Shavez Raza, Kasim Khan, Mafaz Khan, Faisal Zahid, Syed Nehal Wajid, Faizan Shahid, Zeeshan Malik, Afnan Khan, Mirza Hasan Beg et all( Classmates of the student died day before yesterday at Railway Station) who are seething with anger with the mismanaged and callous response of the administration in the wake of unfortunate death of Aijaz Khan, B.A Political Science(II Year) who hailed from Siwan, Bihar. May Allah rest his soul in peace! As they are stating me, Aijaz went to railway station last night at 9 pm around to see off his friend along with Zafeer & Ghaus. He was crossing Platform No. 3 to 2 when all of a sudden a train hit him from the back which caused lethal injury to him. Nobody came to help. GRP & RPF around contacted to send the injured student to Medical they showed utter callousness and refused to send the student without informing the Proctor. They did not try at all. Students tried to contact the telephone no. printed on I-Card as the student was still alive then but in vain, it did not work. No one helped. The body lied there without any help for 20 minutes, unattended by all. Zafeer & Gaus then took a "TIRRI" and at a moment when the body of that student was half-cut from the waist, with all the blood spilling around they reached the Emergency of JNMC only to know he was already dead. These facts are published in most of the local Hindi newspapers.
As these students are stating me, when the time came to send this deceased body of this AMU student to his home the AMU administration present there i.e Proctor, Asst Proctors, Provost Dr.Suhail Sabir ( Registrar came and went soon) showed utmost insensitive approach. A "Khatara Ambulence"( In their words) was selected with no light inside( it would be boiling in this hot summer, students challenged that if any1 4m administration can stay inside 5 minutes) by them to send that deceased body without properly packing it( they said just a white sheet was on him, shoes were not taken off, later these students took care of that) and placing it on single ice cube. The students protested that this way the body could not reach his hometown, and body may fell and shake gravely on the potholed roads, and after 2 hours the Ice Cubes would get melted. The administration said that the hospital staff of Ambulance can take care of that body as they are habituated with it who when asked by the students denied that this way would be sufficient for that body and they (administration) also said more ice cubes can be bought on the way( I don't know why minimum common sense they did not have, Siwan is 900 km from Aligarh, How many time Ice Cubes can be bought?). The students insisted on more ice cubes then administration said students may themselves arrange that. According to the students, the administration consisting abovementioned people were just in hurry to send that body as soon as possible without thinking how it would be sent. What was the motive is unknown. Vice-Chancellor Sir on the other side was in Delhi and busy in publishing his achievements and busy with AMU branch thing.
As per his classmates around me, when one student proposed that LIFELINE ambulance with air-conditioned and other special facilities can be called at Rs.40000 to send that body properly to his hometown, the Proctor said they don't carry dead bodies and they can't arrange Lifeline Ambulance then. Students unknown of the funds( Later I told them under Miscellaneous fund collected from students University already have 2 Crores now, apart from that many other emergency funds are there) proposed to the Proctors and others, that later on University can charge in their hall dues if they do not have required amount then( What a shame!). The Proctor agreed but said that the students may arrange Lifeline Ambulance themselves. A student Hasnat had their number and they called Lifeline Ambulance, they agreed and said if Rs.40000 is deposited to their Office at GT Road, they have no problem to send that deceased student to his hometown). However as per the students though they agreed and LIFELINE AMBULANCE was on their way to JNMC but did not reach for long and made lame excuses. In the meantime C.O Civil Lines Omprakash Singh heard the facts from the students and he himself called LIFELINE Ambulance Office and I must held him in high regards for the thing he said to them that their fee may be adjusted later , he assure them of that but they must reach JNMC immediately. When LIFELINE AMBULANCE reached there, the Proctor that moment insisted that now more ice cubes need to be packed with body else University administration won't send it with this LIFELINE ambulance. Shavez (Morison Court) asked the driver if they have any problem with it and he said they have no problem with anything if Rs.40000 is given to them.
Now Shavez and Mafaz, while riding on their bike to search for Ice Cubes in the market( Proctor said that students may themselves arrange the ice cubes. I don't know why so many staff are there and whether university have no responsibility?), C.O Civil Lines O.P.Singh saw them and advised them to take the Police Geep ( I must praise him for his help again. Proctor Office people were mute spectator to it. Their vehicles were not for students as if.) He asked the police driver and that arrange the Ice Cubes from anywhere and help those students. So after the Ice Cubes were arranged by the students themselves and adjusted with the body, then the student bid farewell to their deceased friend in that LIFELINE AMBULANCE along with one his relative and friend.
However I would praise about the Proctor on one point as I heard from the students that he advised that FIR can be lodged against the GRP/RPF for negligence if the post mortem would be done of that student but his relatives seemed not to agree with post mortem thing. All of the above facts of negligence and callousness was accepted by one former Senior Proctorial Monitor today to me.
However may be there would be some biasness in presenting this story to me by the students who were hurt to see all this going on, but I would expect that people should know what administration say in their defence of their actions regarding this deceased student. I hope someone amongst them would reply to my questions.
But above all this incident left many question for the administration:
1. They apparently installed the CCTV cameras for the security of the students and for the safety of their lives are of 2.1 Crore. As I heard from Shadab Bhai, Research Scholar, Department of Computer Science, Aftab Hostel that even in the case of Mazhar Naeem( Who was murdered and followed a sine die in 2007), even after so many calls made by the him and others at Proctor Office and other places the university vehicle reached the spot to take him only after 20 minutes. This time students carried the body in a TIRRI when no help came. University can think of CCTV cameras but cant they think of any emergency Ambulance or line one of LIFELINE AMBULANCES to be purchased of worth Rs. 10-20 lacks with all the emergency facilities, air-conditioned, shock absorbers( APOLLO have this) with any special number popularized among the students which can reach any spot immediately to attend any seriously injured student and save his life. No! They have no time to think about the lives of the student but they want projects worth crores so that some fill their pocket.
2. Well though I agree there was a need to send that body soon to his hometown but why University authorities did not care earlier to send him properly in a way that his body would be properly preserved and won't be affected in the potholed roads. Why this much callousness? Had their relatives faced this thing would have they acted this way?
3. When students advised the administration (Why they need it I don't know) about the LIFELINE AMBULANCE why there was so much hesitation even University have enough funds for such facilities. University have no problem when Vice-Chancellor's kins travel by Air, but they can't arrange themselves and pay for proper vehicle to send a deceased AMU student. Why? Why only after student insisted they arranged that?
4. I remember when my friend Mulla Sabit Ali died in 2007( the first death in 2007), Naseem Ahmad, Former Vice-Chancellor arranged to send his dead body packed properly by Air to his hometown in Orissa and next day issued a notice pasted everywhere stating the expenditure made for this purpose and the Head of Account( Miscellaneous Fund) may be. But Mulla Sabit's relatives denied accepting that amount. Why now the university administration shows no responsibility and care to their students and Police and District Administration shows the same thing more than them? O.P.Singh, C.O Civil Lines in this case as students said helped them a lot.
We know it very well, if we protest even peacefully about such callousness and insensitiveness the AMU administration would immediately suspend some 20 of us and some Old Boys would start competition among them in rallying behind the administration saying "some elements are against the interest of the university and peace must be kept at any cost. Throw them out of our beloved alma mater" but won't ever ask the administration to think about us. And they know merely by asking for anything nothing helped us till date . This time the University administration is morally responsible for this death again as they could not provide any emergency help to the students.
I never justify violence as a form of protest, never been associated with it. But sometime the amount of insensitiveness and callousness I see here these days, I believe as things are not like Old days when University administration showed much more care to the students, now AMU students without love and care would be unruly and violent only. It's their actions that are responsible, not us.
Md. Adil Hossain [adilhossain43@yahoo.in] M.A(Previous) Mass Communication AMU, Aligarh
Courtesy: TheAligarhForum@yahoogroups.com
Monday, May 24, 2010
Beyond Rafi Relief:Moral Ambiguities of AMU
Big educational and cultural institutions, sports organizations, etc. are increasingly earning disrepute for mis-utilising/ (diverting illegally) funds. In fact, there seems to be a competitive spirit in this kind of degeneration. The allegations are most often against the best of scholars, and most suave of the politicians. P. Vijayan, Shahshi Tharoor, NMML Director (See, The Hindu, 24 May 2010), quite a few Vice Chancellors, and God knows who else.
O. Ravi (IAS), Lalit Modi and other such names are not as much outrageous, because of their "low" stature.
Dr Mohsin Raza sb, Mr Adil or few more people like them may (or may not) come out with embarrassing truths. That won't be surprising. Still some highly accomplished alumni (self-righteous ones, some of them based in overseas) will display most disgusting kind of flattery. Even if Dr Mohsin Raza sb or Mr Adil come to know of irregularities and succeed in obtaining evidences to that effect, what difference will it make? How many self-righteous, overseas alumni have shown their outrage against Principal Accountant General's Report (November 2009) on huge financial irregularities in AMU? How many of them have spoken forthrightly against Justice Mathew Report? There is a long history of corruption in AMU. One of the reasons for saddening and depressing last days of Sir Syed was corruption in MAO College. Many more evidences collected in various inquiry reports like Sheikh Abdullah Report(1926), Ibrahim Rahimatoola Report (1927), G.C. Chatterji Report (1961),...further testify it.
So much of Tehzeeb and Tamaddun of Aligarh.
Reports of corruption in higher judiciary are no secret. Arundhati Roy's essay, "Scandal in the Palace" is only one such brave "report". Dinakaran and many more are already increasingly becoming sources of embarrassment for the Indian judiciary.
We are living in an age of moral ambiguities. The distinction between heroes and villains, honest and dishonest, moral and immoral are increasingly getting blurred. Popular Bollywood Hindi movies are best articulations/ representations of such ambiguities.
The whistle blowers are the most hated elements among the sections of Aligs. They would ask you to leave the sacred/ holy place like AMU, as according to them, it is above criticism; it is a question of faith (Aqeeda/ Aastha- Much like the Sangh Pariwar’s argument that the Ramjanma Bhoomi is a matter of their aastha hence Supreme Court, Parliament, Constitution, scientific history, all are irrelevant and redundant). They wantonly refuse to realize that those who make such exposes are the greater friends/ well-wishers of AMU, as they are mobilizing opinion for the systemic corrective.
Shahryar’s poem, “Muslim University ki Fariyaad” is worth recalling:
MujaawiroN ki bheerh ney
Mujhey phir ek qabr mein badal diya
MaiN kah raha hooN der sey
MaiN zinda hooN
Meri sada mein baaz gasht kyoN nahiN
Merey Khuda
Mujhey sazaaeiN jitni dey
Pe yooN nahiN
Beware of these “Mujaawirs”.
There are many, ever increasing, and they are the moral custodians of the institution.
Should not we scratch the various layers of meanings embedded in this brilliant metaphor, “Mujaawir”?
I hope, "amunetwork" won't censor it.
Regards,
Dr Mohammad Sajjad
Lecturer
Centre of Advanced Study in History
Aligarh Muslim University (India)
fdr_amu@yahoogroups.com
O. Ravi (IAS), Lalit Modi and other such names are not as much outrageous, because of their "low" stature.
Dr Mohsin Raza sb, Mr Adil or few more people like them may (or may not) come out with embarrassing truths. That won't be surprising. Still some highly accomplished alumni (self-righteous ones, some of them based in overseas) will display most disgusting kind of flattery. Even if Dr Mohsin Raza sb or Mr Adil come to know of irregularities and succeed in obtaining evidences to that effect, what difference will it make? How many self-righteous, overseas alumni have shown their outrage against Principal Accountant General's Report (November 2009) on huge financial irregularities in AMU? How many of them have spoken forthrightly against Justice Mathew Report? There is a long history of corruption in AMU. One of the reasons for saddening and depressing last days of Sir Syed was corruption in MAO College. Many more evidences collected in various inquiry reports like Sheikh Abdullah Report(1926), Ibrahim Rahimatoola Report (1927), G.C. Chatterji Report (1961),...further testify it.
So much of Tehzeeb and Tamaddun of Aligarh.
Reports of corruption in higher judiciary are no secret. Arundhati Roy's essay, "Scandal in the Palace" is only one such brave "report". Dinakaran and many more are already increasingly becoming sources of embarrassment for the Indian judiciary.
We are living in an age of moral ambiguities. The distinction between heroes and villains, honest and dishonest, moral and immoral are increasingly getting blurred. Popular Bollywood Hindi movies are best articulations/ representations of such ambiguities.
The whistle blowers are the most hated elements among the sections of Aligs. They would ask you to leave the sacred/ holy place like AMU, as according to them, it is above criticism; it is a question of faith (Aqeeda/ Aastha- Much like the Sangh Pariwar’s argument that the Ramjanma Bhoomi is a matter of their aastha hence Supreme Court, Parliament, Constitution, scientific history, all are irrelevant and redundant). They wantonly refuse to realize that those who make such exposes are the greater friends/ well-wishers of AMU, as they are mobilizing opinion for the systemic corrective.
Shahryar’s poem, “Muslim University ki Fariyaad” is worth recalling:
MujaawiroN ki bheerh ney
Mujhey phir ek qabr mein badal diya
MaiN kah raha hooN der sey
MaiN zinda hooN
Meri sada mein baaz gasht kyoN nahiN
Merey Khuda
Mujhey sazaaeiN jitni dey
Pe yooN nahiN
Beware of these “Mujaawirs”.
There are many, ever increasing, and they are the moral custodians of the institution.
Should not we scratch the various layers of meanings embedded in this brilliant metaphor, “Mujaawir”?
I hope, "amunetwork" won't censor it.
Regards,
Dr Mohammad Sajjad
Lecturer
Centre of Advanced Study in History
Aligarh Muslim University (India)
fdr_amu@yahoogroups.com
Rafi Relief Society, AMUSU, Student Activism and Current Administration
Janab Dr. Mohsin Raza Sahab, Moderator of WorldofAligs and Former President, Aligarh Muslim University Students Union rightly mentioned about the Philanthropic Rafi Relief Society associated with AMUSU. This is also a glaring truth pointed by him that University authorities are still charging the students some amount under this head ( Code 50206 in the PAYEE's COPY) even in the absence of AMU Students Union.
In one of the RTI reply received by me vide D.No 134/Stud dated 07.10.2009 from the Asst Finance Officer( Students) it was mentioned that AMU authorities collected Rs. 64,153 in the session 2006-07, Rs. 83,466 in the session 2007-08 and Rs. 69, 568 in 2008-09 as Rafi Relief Fund.
Well, I am not aware of the rules and regulation at place that whether Rafi Relief fund can be spent in the absence of AMU Students Union or not but in another RTI reply vide D.No 141/Stud dated 10.10.2009 it was stated that in the session 2007-08 Rs. 49, 213 was spent by the AMU authorities. However AMUSU was dissolved in September, 2007 by the AMU authorities. Janab Mohsin Raza Sahab may throw light on this issue as being Former AMUSU President he might know that whether AMU authorities can spend from this fund or not in the absence of AMUSU.
AMU students are always ahead in the philanthropic activities and as I often compare it with other universities I feel proud about my alma mater on this front. AMUSU has always taken the lead in recognizing the problems and issues of the distress lot of the society and to come up with any measure which can help them. The presence of Students Union bolsters such activities as then such activity becomes more organized and more students participate in bringing a major change. Even the worst Students Unions has shown great contribution in the philanthropic activities.
During my stay at AMU I remember the AMUSU's role in the Tsunami relief work going on in Tamilnadu for which I felt really proud. They sent a relief team consisting of 11 doctors to the Tsunami ravaged areas of Nagapattinam where they distributed medicines and organized health camps. They also contributed Rs.2, 32, 480 in the PM's relief fund which was highly appreciated. AMUSU also created a "Benevolent Fund" during that time so that subsidy can be provided to the poor students in meeting the expenditure of toward treatment of disease/traumas for which the requisite facilities are not available at JNMC and they are referred to other reputed hospitals for specialized treatment outside Aligarh. The fact is that a process of sensitization about such issues affecting our society was a commonplace during that time.
But what actually make me highly disappointed and angry about the current administration of AMU that systematically they are creating such environment here that students are becoming naive and nonchalant about the issues and problems inflicting in our society.
However students of AMU are still more helpful than others but in the absence of any organization and systematic crushing of any leadership (Our Vice-Chancellor often say at the functions he doesn't want any leader here) I think we are creating a dead society here where individuals are trained to be concerned about themselves only. We know this way we cant think of helping the beleaguered Muslim Community.
Md. Adil Hossain <adilhossain43(AT)yahoo.in>
M.A(Previous) Mass Communication
AMU, Aligarh
Monday, May 10, 2010
Falling Standard of Debate?: AMUTA-GBM, 6 May 2010
Quite often I don’t attend the General Body Meetings (GBM) of the AMU Teachers’ Association (AMUTA). The degree of my reluctance to attend these has increased manifold since it willfully failed to have a quorum in August-Sept 2008, when it was forced to address the issue of ravaging flood in eastern Bihar. Besides raising a fund for relief, it was supposed to mount a pressure of ideas on the ruling elites of the nation to address the issue of horrific regional imbalance, and terrible negligence of the Union govt (in disgusting connivance with the regional elites) in controlling the recurrence of flood.
I am often told about deep-seated anti-Bihar prejudice of AMU. This has got almost confirmed when it has repeatedly refused to have Patna as a venue of its entrance tests. Thanks to the sycophant silence of Bihar’s elites in AMU.
This brief digression apart, this time I decided to attend the GBM, more as an onlooker. One of the reasons why did I do so was that I did not have a clear idea about the merits or demerits of having a large number of CCTV towers for intrusive video-graphic (round the clock) surveillance of the campus. I could only recall/surmise that probably a former VC’s press statement [that “AMU is bristling with ISI agents” (Times of India, 15 April 1997)] has been taken by the Union Home ministry too seriously. Groping for definite answers in justification and/or rejection of the already installed cameras, I felt it necessary to attend the GBM on 6th may 2010.
I am leaving apart the meritorious points that came forward in the GBM, for or against the motion. In an assembly of academicians, what makes news, and what needs attention are the poorly argued points, as they raise questions about our professional abilities as well.
The debate started with the arguments of those who are on the side of the administration. The first speaker was no less a person than the Proctor, who is a senior professor of Mathematics, and I am told, he is a PhD from the prestigious IISc, Bangalore. His articulations however only made me learn that longer association with the establishment might lead to intellectual degeneration. I may be wrong, but this is what came out of the event. The proctor, a valuable ally of the pious Islamic group called the Tablighi Jamaa’t (hence expected to be more conscientious), made two kinds of factual statements, one in absolute contradiction with the other, a volte face. First he persuaded us to believe him that he did not see the video clip filmed into the absolute privacy of the late Dr Siras. After few speakers, he again rushed to the dais to rectify himself, and made a frank and unambiguous confession of having actually seen at least a flash of the film (Should I call it a killer film, as it ultimately led to the death of Dr Siras?). This senior professor, looking after the law & order and security of the campus (if AMU could be called a state, proctor would be the home minister), demonstrated his innocence, naivette, inexcusable ignorance of and insensitivity to the fundamental right to privacy guaranteed by the Indian Constitution, i.e. both Constitutional and Islamic morality abhor infringing privacy.
Now the question arises: Could a citizen (that too a high paid senior professor and very high administrative functionary of a historic, centrally funded university) be excused for having committed, by his own admission, the crime of invading somebody’s privacy? I am afraid, a good number of the Aligs might naively say a forceful YES. That is what is at serious stake putting AMU to indefensible embarrassment.
The “Deputies” and “Assistants” of the Proctor were equally deficient in oratory. Apart from grammatical errors they made, and refused to acknowledge the audience’s corrective promptings, they also failed miserably in pleading the defense of the administration.
May I appeal to the honourable Vice Chancellor to kindly re-assess the abilities of such functionaries in articulating the positions taken by the administration. The way they mis-handled the issue of Dr Siras (from 8th February to 8th April 2010 and even beyond), has brought massive embarrassment for AMU across the globe. Arguably, they owe the major responsibility of this irreversible embarrassment to both our honourable VC and our alma mater.
Did this mis-handling emanate from incompetent and un-wise:
(a) Proctorial management,
(b) Media management, manned arguably by illegally recruited teacher(s),
(c) functionaries oblivious of : (i) the law of the land, and (ii) basic senses of morality?
If yes, then how could these teachers (functionaries) act as role models for the students, and for the society at large? If they failed to articulate the relevant points of the administration in the GBM, are they failing in the class-rooms as well? Or am I stretching the things too far?
I am groping towards answers. Will I succeed in getting the answers? Is academics, and therefore politics (in best sense of the word) in AMU moving towards “death throes”- to use the expression of Upendra Baxi, a former VC of Delhi University? Or has AMU become, “intellectual and social slum”, as put by Amrik Singh?
On raising such pertinent questions, if a naïve/ moron asks me to shift to another university, then a reply has to be slapped into his/her mailbox- “far from shifting elsewhere I must ask for and debate about improvement of my alma mater”. This must be an unceasing exercise. That is what, I suppose, is the spirit of the Aligarh Movement.
In other words, we must be perpetually self-critical, as suggested by Edward Said. Who said that the role of intellectuals is ‘to understand the role of authority and learning, to remain constantly engaged in search for knowledge, endless investigation, ceaseless searching, interminable doubts, to raise a challenge (to the students and to themselves) to continue their investigation, questioning, and to discover what is wrong around us. Dialogue, tolerance, skepticism and eternal quest are the essence of human exchange, so that critical consciousness is raised to new heights. Intellectuals should try to understand truth from among many conflicting ideas. They must have the courage to speak uncomfortable and embarrassing truths. The universities must not produce court intellectuals sitting at the feet of Sultan’.
Postscript: Meanwhile construction work of a private house in Jamalpur is in rapid progress, truck-loads of the construction material are put inside the AMU campus, in front of the transit houses of the Medical Colony, and these materials are being used by the masons by making a big hole into the boundary wall of AMU. The CCTV videographic camera, and proctorial patrolling mobile van are preferring to look the other way. Somebody must listen.
09 May'10
Regards,
Dr Mohammad Sajjad www.cas-historydeptt-amu.com/dr-mohammad-sajjad
Lecturer
Centre of Advanced Study in History
Aligarh Muslim University (India)
I am often told about deep-seated anti-Bihar prejudice of AMU. This has got almost confirmed when it has repeatedly refused to have Patna as a venue of its entrance tests. Thanks to the sycophant silence of Bihar’s elites in AMU.
This brief digression apart, this time I decided to attend the GBM, more as an onlooker. One of the reasons why did I do so was that I did not have a clear idea about the merits or demerits of having a large number of CCTV towers for intrusive video-graphic (round the clock) surveillance of the campus. I could only recall/surmise that probably a former VC’s press statement [that “AMU is bristling with ISI agents” (Times of India, 15 April 1997)] has been taken by the Union Home ministry too seriously. Groping for definite answers in justification and/or rejection of the already installed cameras, I felt it necessary to attend the GBM on 6th may 2010.
I am leaving apart the meritorious points that came forward in the GBM, for or against the motion. In an assembly of academicians, what makes news, and what needs attention are the poorly argued points, as they raise questions about our professional abilities as well.
The debate started with the arguments of those who are on the side of the administration. The first speaker was no less a person than the Proctor, who is a senior professor of Mathematics, and I am told, he is a PhD from the prestigious IISc, Bangalore. His articulations however only made me learn that longer association with the establishment might lead to intellectual degeneration. I may be wrong, but this is what came out of the event. The proctor, a valuable ally of the pious Islamic group called the Tablighi Jamaa’t (hence expected to be more conscientious), made two kinds of factual statements, one in absolute contradiction with the other, a volte face. First he persuaded us to believe him that he did not see the video clip filmed into the absolute privacy of the late Dr Siras. After few speakers, he again rushed to the dais to rectify himself, and made a frank and unambiguous confession of having actually seen at least a flash of the film (Should I call it a killer film, as it ultimately led to the death of Dr Siras?). This senior professor, looking after the law & order and security of the campus (if AMU could be called a state, proctor would be the home minister), demonstrated his innocence, naivette, inexcusable ignorance of and insensitivity to the fundamental right to privacy guaranteed by the Indian Constitution, i.e. both Constitutional and Islamic morality abhor infringing privacy.
Now the question arises: Could a citizen (that too a high paid senior professor and very high administrative functionary of a historic, centrally funded university) be excused for having committed, by his own admission, the crime of invading somebody’s privacy? I am afraid, a good number of the Aligs might naively say a forceful YES. That is what is at serious stake putting AMU to indefensible embarrassment.
The “Deputies” and “Assistants” of the Proctor were equally deficient in oratory. Apart from grammatical errors they made, and refused to acknowledge the audience’s corrective promptings, they also failed miserably in pleading the defense of the administration.
May I appeal to the honourable Vice Chancellor to kindly re-assess the abilities of such functionaries in articulating the positions taken by the administration. The way they mis-handled the issue of Dr Siras (from 8th February to 8th April 2010 and even beyond), has brought massive embarrassment for AMU across the globe. Arguably, they owe the major responsibility of this irreversible embarrassment to both our honourable VC and our alma mater.
Did this mis-handling emanate from incompetent and un-wise:
(a) Proctorial management,
(b) Media management, manned arguably by illegally recruited teacher(s),
(c) functionaries oblivious of : (i) the law of the land, and (ii) basic senses of morality?
If yes, then how could these teachers (functionaries) act as role models for the students, and for the society at large? If they failed to articulate the relevant points of the administration in the GBM, are they failing in the class-rooms as well? Or am I stretching the things too far?
I am groping towards answers. Will I succeed in getting the answers? Is academics, and therefore politics (in best sense of the word) in AMU moving towards “death throes”- to use the expression of Upendra Baxi, a former VC of Delhi University? Or has AMU become, “intellectual and social slum”, as put by Amrik Singh?
On raising such pertinent questions, if a naïve/ moron asks me to shift to another university, then a reply has to be slapped into his/her mailbox- “far from shifting elsewhere I must ask for and debate about improvement of my alma mater”. This must be an unceasing exercise. That is what, I suppose, is the spirit of the Aligarh Movement.
In other words, we must be perpetually self-critical, as suggested by Edward Said. Who said that the role of intellectuals is ‘to understand the role of authority and learning, to remain constantly engaged in search for knowledge, endless investigation, ceaseless searching, interminable doubts, to raise a challenge (to the students and to themselves) to continue their investigation, questioning, and to discover what is wrong around us. Dialogue, tolerance, skepticism and eternal quest are the essence of human exchange, so that critical consciousness is raised to new heights. Intellectuals should try to understand truth from among many conflicting ideas. They must have the courage to speak uncomfortable and embarrassing truths. The universities must not produce court intellectuals sitting at the feet of Sultan’.
Postscript: Meanwhile construction work of a private house in Jamalpur is in rapid progress, truck-loads of the construction material are put inside the AMU campus, in front of the transit houses of the Medical Colony, and these materials are being used by the masons by making a big hole into the boundary wall of AMU. The CCTV videographic camera, and proctorial patrolling mobile van are preferring to look the other way. Somebody must listen.
09 May'10
Regards,
Dr Mohammad Sajjad www.cas-historydeptt-amu.com/dr-mohammad-sajjad
Lecturer
Centre of Advanced Study in History
Aligarh Muslim University (India)
Saturday, May 8, 2010
AMU Campuses vs Special Centres vs Visitor’s Permission
Prof. Azis declared that the according of the permission by the Visitor to establish Centres (under Section 12[2] of AMU Act) at Murshidabad (the constituency of the very powerful Shri Pranab Mukherjee, believed to be the force behind it) and Mallapuram (Prof. Azis’s home State) is the happiest moment of his life.
Because he has served the Congress bosses well or served the AMU, Aligarh movement and Muslims at large - Having made no secret of the admission policy by Prof. Azis (though not authorized) that there shall be no quota and admissions shall be made on the basis of All India Entrance test, and status of the proposed Centres is not known as the Minority Status of AMU itself is not known (case pending in Supreme Court) where is the confusion. These Centres have nothing to do with Muslims the way AMU has. It is a different matter that Prof. Azis, the AMU, VC has preferred to sit on the other side of the fence.
Legality and Academic aspects:
Under Section 12(2) the Visitor is empowered to permit establishment of’ Special Centres’, ‘Special Labs’, etc and not Centres. ‘Special Centre’ and Centre are not synonymous as Centre is treated equivalent to department (rightly or wrongly) while ‘Special Centre’ is only a supplementary facility to an existing department.
Furthermore, if a Centre (i.e. a department) is intended, the amendment of the Statutes is a must [Statutes 20(2)(b)]
Therefore, if the Visitor intended to accord permission for a ‘Centre’ it is clearly beyond her powers and a blunder, and the error or the oversight needs to be rectified forthwith, before the President is dragged into controversies.
If we recall, it was till yesterday and all the way, ‘AMU Campuses’ and the VC was making all the tall claims and has even taken several step (unauthorized). But this turn around has a very strong reason- no University can establish two identical departments/ Centres, leave alone Campuses.
Finally but undeniably AMU is debarred from establishing a Campus/ a department/ a Centre/ Special Centre, whatever, beyond 25kms of the University Mosque under the Section 5(9A) of the AMU, Act, so that the Residential character remains protected.
The Govt. is playing game with AMU and the Muslims, for electoral gains, by making false and impracticable promises and unfortunately the honourable VC, whose helpfulness is too well known now, has played in the powerful hands of the Govt. in this brazen way. Are we so helpless???
Prof. Ziauddin Ahmad (Retd)
Dept of Botany, Aligarh Muslim University
Aligarh, India
Because he has served the Congress bosses well or served the AMU, Aligarh movement and Muslims at large - Having made no secret of the admission policy by Prof. Azis (though not authorized) that there shall be no quota and admissions shall be made on the basis of All India Entrance test, and status of the proposed Centres is not known as the Minority Status of AMU itself is not known (case pending in Supreme Court) where is the confusion. These Centres have nothing to do with Muslims the way AMU has. It is a different matter that Prof. Azis, the AMU, VC has preferred to sit on the other side of the fence.
Legality and Academic aspects:
Under Section 12(2) the Visitor is empowered to permit establishment of’ Special Centres’, ‘Special Labs’, etc and not Centres. ‘Special Centre’ and Centre are not synonymous as Centre is treated equivalent to department (rightly or wrongly) while ‘Special Centre’ is only a supplementary facility to an existing department.
Furthermore, if a Centre (i.e. a department) is intended, the amendment of the Statutes is a must [Statutes 20(2)(b)]
Therefore, if the Visitor intended to accord permission for a ‘Centre’ it is clearly beyond her powers and a blunder, and the error or the oversight needs to be rectified forthwith, before the President is dragged into controversies.
If we recall, it was till yesterday and all the way, ‘AMU Campuses’ and the VC was making all the tall claims and has even taken several step (unauthorized). But this turn around has a very strong reason- no University can establish two identical departments/ Centres, leave alone Campuses.
Finally but undeniably AMU is debarred from establishing a Campus/ a department/ a Centre/ Special Centre, whatever, beyond 25kms of the University Mosque under the Section 5(9A) of the AMU, Act, so that the Residential character remains protected.
The Govt. is playing game with AMU and the Muslims, for electoral gains, by making false and impracticable promises and unfortunately the honourable VC, whose helpfulness is too well known now, has played in the powerful hands of the Govt. in this brazen way. Are we so helpless???
Prof. Ziauddin Ahmad (Retd)
Dept of Botany, Aligarh Muslim University
Aligarh, India
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)