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

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

Courtest: TheAligarhForum@yahoogroups.com

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

AMU Campuses: Legal Impossibility Rather a Fraud: Some Pertinent Questions and Answers

A.M.U. Campuses: Legal Impossibility rather a Fraud: Some Pertinent Questions and Answers.

The Aligarh Muslim University has its own legal system based on its Act, Statutes (passed by the Parliament), Ordinances and Regulations. Policy decisions are taken by the Authorities of the University, namely, the Court, Executive Council, Academic Council, Faculties and Finance Committee in their respective spheres, jointly or otherwise, as per the laid down procedures. The Vice-Chancellor is the principal executive and academic Officer (salaried) officer of the University and is duty bound to give effect to the decisions of all the Authorities of the University under Section 19(2) of the University Act and ensure observance of rules (Statute 3 (2)).

The establishment of AMU campuses, if any, is a major policy matter which requires amendment of the Statutes as various departments shall be created. The procedure is provided in Section 28(3) of the Act. The process of amendment is to be initiated at the level of Faculty/ Faculties and then it is passed on to the Academic Council, Executive Council, University Court and the Finance Committee and then to the Visitor for approval. The procedure has not been followed nor shall any attempt made to amend the necessary Statutes, knowingly fully well that such an action does not lie in the ambit of the AMU Act.

1. Therefore, for public consumption, in his usual best, Prof. Azis maintained that amendment to the Statutes is not required and mere permission of the Visitor is suffice (to put the record straight, even the permission of the Visitor has not been obtained, which shall certainly be not forthcoming and what about the restriction of 25km). This is the height of dishonesty and highhandedness, unbecoming of a Vice-Chancellor to bring disrepute and irreparable harm to the University to carry out the designs of the powers for their political gains on one hand and personal gains on the other. It is indeed shameful and disgusting, rather intolerable.

2. The Aligarh Muslim University is an autonomous Residential Muslim University and protection to this basic character is well enshrined under its laws.

The University is not entitled to establish basic teaching units, the departments/centres (synonymous) nor special centres, laboratories to supplement the needs of the existing departments beyond 25 km of the University Mosque (Section 5 (9-A) of the University Act). It is this feature which makes it a residential non-affiliating University. It was precisely because of this reason that Mr. Hamid Ansari had to hurriedly close down the Centres illegally and unauthorisedly established by Mr.Mahmoodur Rahman in Dubai and South India. (The fact that the respectable teachers were in agreement on these occasions tell a different story but a sorry state).

3. As a general rule, no University in the Country is entitled to establish two identical departments nor the MHRD and UGC so empowered. How then, the AMU be permitted to establish a college consisting of departments, leave alone a campus. (Moreover, AMU Act does not have the jurisdiction for establishing a Campus of its own and no amendments to the Act can provide for it). The University does not have the power even to create a post of a teacher without going through the process of creation within the University and obtaining the sanction of the MHRD/UGC thereupon.

Statute 20 (2) of the University Statutes mandates that no department shall be established or abolished except by the Statutes. Therefore, establishment of a Faculty, College or Campus comprising different departments warrants amendment of Statute 20(b). The assertion of the Vice Chancellor that amendment to the Statutes is not required is totally misleading, erroneous, mischievous and dishonest.

4. All claims, announcements and steps taken by an over enthusiastic Prof. Azis, with regard to the establishment of the five A.M.U. Campuses are unauthorized, illegal and ultra vires of the Act and Statutes which surely make a good case to launch legal criminal proceedings against him.

5. The MHRD and UGC, on their part cannot plead ignorance of the entire rigmarole and their connivance with Prof. Azis for past twelve months extending all possible support clandestinely for their ulterior motives. This does not augur well for MHRD, UGC or UPA.

6. How could the allocation of 25 crores each for Murshidabad and Mallapuram for establishing the Campuses be made? The Parliament seems to have been misled in allocating funds for Murshidabad and Mallapuram Campuses in the budget of 2009 full facts seem to have not been placed before in the House regarding the legality and feasibility of these Campuses.

7. The belief of the protagonists of AMU Campuses has turned out to be a mere myth and shattered the hopes of the Muslim Community. With the categorical assertion by Prof. Azis that there shall be no quota and admissions shall be made on the basis of open all India competition.

8. How can these Campuses, thousands of miles away from Aligarh, be managed and administered effectively by the A.M.U from Aligarh? It is humanly impossible. It would be rather more proper for Prof. Azis to sit in Aligarh and try to administer the University properly.

9. Prof. Azis, on his own, has announced the courses to be taught at these Campuses and the teaching schedule without any formal decision by the University’s relevant authorities (Board of Studies, Faculty, Academic Council and Executive Council). Is this the way to deal with such an important matter? Is it desirable to leave a University to the whims of an individual and that too of the intent and repute of Prof. Azis?

All these exercises wrapped in half truths and brazen untruths projected as glittering promises never meant to be taken seriously. It is time for the Muslim Community to guard itself against these platitudes and seductive slogans rather a fraud being placed on them. The only beneficiary appears to be the UPA in general and Minister for Finance, Mr. Pranab Mukerjee in particular who found an opportunity to nurse his constituency at the expense of public funds and enhance his electoral prospects. Hon`ble Prof. Azis would be a natural beneficiary in various ways to the best of his satisfaction, and our dismay and displeasure.

Prof. Ziauddin Ahmed (Retd)

Dept of Botany, Aligarh Muslim University

Aligarh, India