Illegal AMU Centre at Mallapuram, Kerala

AMU Centre, Malappuram Non-existent:Dedicated to the Nation by Sibal: Unworthy Rulers!P. M. reassurance to the Nation may hold promise for AMU too! This declaration was made at Malappuram on 24.12.11 with all the fanfare with posters of Congress leaders, Sonia Gandhi, Rahul, Indira Gandhi, Dr. ManMohan Singh etc. A grand Congress Party show. Malappuram Centre has the temerity to display its own emblem, as an independent institution! This is a fraud played on the Nation, Muslims and AMU; as the Centre cannot legally be created under AMU Act. nor is the Govt. so empowered of its own nor the clandestinely and fraudulently proposed amendments of the Statutes approved by the competent Parliament (as required under the Section 31 (4) and (5) of the AMU Act), nor is the Visitor empowered to approve the amendments of Statutes as claimed nor is the AMU empowered to offer concessions to Muslims (as the Minority Status has been struck down by the Court in 2005 (no efforts made by the VC and MHRD to bring fresh amendments in the Act. to meet the Court objections to restore the status).Moreover, two PIL are pending in UP, High Court against the establishment of AMU Centres and the University and the Govt. who have nothing to defend their designs are using delaying tactics to prolong the proceedings. Azis s confession that the next VC may not continue with these Centres speak loud and clear of the hollowness of the whole exercise. This should settle the issue that the Centres are illegal and non-existent. Look at the double standards. MHRD (under Shri Sibal) had issued, stern direction (18.8.11) to cut, curtail and rationalize expenditures to AMU and all other Govt. organizations and the Visitor (10.8.2011) restrained the VC from taking policy decisions, involving long term financial, academic and administrative implications. Yet the same Shri Sibal became instrumental for the inauguration function of non-existing AMU Centre at huge cost of millions, without any justification and persuaded and permitted the besieged VC to dash to Kishanganj (29.12.11) with a delegation of six and put up a big show to sign the land deal with Bihar Govt. for the establishment of a new AMU Centre, not yet approved by the Govt. Are the Govt. and MHRD not hands in glove with the conniving VC and allowed to violate their own unique restrain orders openly and profusely. They are definitely unworthy to rule and rely upon. It is untrue that the Govt. had ever promised to allocate a thousand crores for any AMU Centre as claimed by the VC (1. 1. 12) leave alone Kishanganj. The total allocations made in Union budget- 2010 – 2011 – Rs. 25 crores each for Murshidabad and Malappuram of which 25 were released for the former and only 10 crores for the later and the utilization of the grants made has not been authorized by the competent EC and FC (over 10crores were spent by the VC unauthorizedly).2011- 2012 – Rs 50 crores for each but the money has not been released nor had the University asked for it. At no point of time, the Govt. made any promise or hinted for allocating a thousand crore or more as claimed by the unreliable boasting VC. Actually, this is all a political stunt and purely a temporary phase and has nothing to do with the welfare of Muslims and their upliftment, but to garner Muslims votes instead as the dispensation (Centres) are legally and practically untenable. We are not very sure, anybody in the Country, has time and concern to take note of the Govt. taking such a liberty but the Muslims and AMU cannot remain mere spectators to the Govt.’s high-handedness, exploitation and making a mockery of everything to have their way, despite the protests by the Teachers’ Association (AMUTA) Old Boys and the well-wishers, Shri Sibal ventured to preside over the inauguration and dedicated the Centre. Congress has always been like this. 4.5% reservation and now 9% are the glaring examples.The frontal role of Muslim League for its electoral gains is all the more objectionable and most disappointing. Things have come to such a pass, that the Muslim organization, ML, openly operating against AMU and Muslims interests, for the petty gains of ML, was unthinkable and horrifying. ML has come a long way from the days of Sulaiman Sait and Banatwala and ceased to play pro-Muslim card, needs a second look, by us all. This is an alarming situation and raises several questions which require answers;Who is this all powerful Shri Sibal who is above law and has dedicated a non-existing so-called Centre? Where and how does this AMU Centre exist? What are the custodians of law and champions of justice in the Country doing and allowed this? How long the Congress be allowed to exploit Muslims for votes and keep them deprived at the same time? To what are the Muslim political and religions leadership upto? Whos interest they are protecting? Do they have lost all senses and accepted to play stooge for all time to come for personal petty considerations. Should the AMU Community be taken for granted? Or they consider themselves answerable as enlightened and responsible class to whose care fortunately or unfortunately the Alma Matter has been given and are determined to deliver, even if left alone.Hope is generated, however, by the renewed assurance of the P. M. on the New Year eve that his Govt. shall provide a more efficient and honest governance. Let us see what comes out of the deliberately much delayed CBI. CVC and CAG probe report (PE submitted before 11.1.2012 in view of the hearing under PIL before Delhi High Court coming up on 11th) by 17.1. 2012 the day the guilty Azis, quits office, most unwillingly and reluctantly as the Govt. found itself without powers to retain him in office a day beyond 17.1.12.Anyway, before the Govt. reaches for the inevitable, is it expecting too much from the most honorable VC to quit peacefully and gracefully on his own before 17.1.12!!!It is learned that Azis has no repentance and regrets for the wrongs and the harm done to the Alma Mater and why should he be expected to behave honourably?
Readers, please respond at ziauddinahmad(at)yahoo.co.in
Prof. Ziauddin Ahmad (Retd)
Dept of Botany
AMU, Aligarh

AMU Affairs – Centres: Sibal lied and lied again! So what?

What has happened? Mr. Shahi ex-Advocate General, now Minister HRD, Bihar, sought an appointment and met Shri Kapil Sibal on 3.11.11 in connection with the proposed AMU Centre at Kishanganj. Shri Sibal informed him that nothing can be done now as a writ is pending in the High Court (Ref. T01, Patna dated 12.11 11) Thereafter, the protagonists of AMU Centre (largely Muslims and those belonging to ruling Congress) rushed to Shri Sibal and pet came the reply that the case pending in the Court has been disposed of, meaning thereby there are no hurdles.This is a lie: Two PIL are pending in Allahabad High Court by Z K Faizan and S.M. Subhan Naqvi and a stay order too and the University and MHRD are buying time to prolong the case. Moreover, required Statutes for the establishment of these Centres have not yet been amended. But the Centres are functioning under the umbrella of UPA. Instead and more importantly it was incumbent on Shri Sibal in the light of the Visitors restrain order (dated 10.8.11) to enlighten Bihar and misled Muslims and others (if any) protagonists the Co-ordination Committee of AMU Centres, straight away that nothing can be done now in the matter of establishment of Centres as it constitutes policy decision of far-reaching consequences (financial and otherwise) disallowed by the Visitor! But surprisingly, Shri Sibal preferred to enlighten that the VC can take any actions he deems fit in the matter and has all the powers, which is wrong and mischievous. Besides the restrain imposed by the Visitor, the University requires the approval of all its Authorities- Court, E.C, AC, and Faculties in the matter, and the VC is positively powerless.Furthermore on the basis of AMU experiences with MHRD and Shri Sibal, it could safely be concluded that Shri Sibal purposely avoided referring the Visitor’s order because MHRD is keeping silence rather encouraging the non observance of the Visitors order in several actions taken by the shielded VC). Similarly, the same Shri Sibal claimed (on record) that his Ministry has no role in the establishment of extremely controversial and blatantly illegal AMU Centres and it is the University own doing (as if, of late the University has been bestowed with unlimited powers.) This was also a big lie. Not only the MHRD, the entire UPA Govt. were providing guidance, strategic support, money (sanctions in the Union budget, fraudulently 2009-2010) and fool-proof cover to VC to mis-use powers. Shri Salman Khurshid holds the same view. This also reminds us of public pronouncement Shri Sibal made on 2G losses with all authority at his command and got exposed.On TV Shri Sibal in the heat of the discussion offered to face punishment, if he has done a wrong. It follows from the confidence he exuberated that telling lies, mis-interpreting laws, making false promises and denials do not constitute wrongs. They are strategies to survive and the Cabinet Ministers are within their rights to adopt this whenever it suits them. Education under the jurisdiction of such a person is a definite casualty, a blunder!Important:1. So-called AMU Centres are out rightly illegal and anti-University and do not stand a chance before the law.2. Every now and then there is an appeal, demand rather an upheaval for Unity amongst Muslims for justifiable reasons but it cannot be achieved the way we treat each other- AMU is mis-treated by Muslims themselves as agents of the Govt. or for ulterior personal gains? By and large Community has played no noticeable role to help AMU in this hour of crisis, giving the ill-intentioned UPA room to meddle with AMU the way it suits them.

Prof. Ziauddin Ahmad

Dept of Botany, AMU Aligarh

He can be reached at

ziauddinahmad.(AT).yahoo.co.in

Hidden Agenda of Congress Party in Destroying AMU's Residential Character?

Subject: AMU centres...No one answers the questions just going on invasively....

Dear All

ASAK,

Some of the alumni have a legitimate concern about the direction, our debate both for and against the centers is taking; personal comments and biases have also come to the fore and it is but natural that some of us are perturbed over that. However, just being a good human doesn't make one immune from personal and other influences and sometimes they do affect initiatives as well as responses.

Some points of information first:--

* Till date no post i.e. teaching as well as non teaching has been sanctioned for the centers. All posts on which appointments have been made have been illegally transferred from the Campus, by depriving and starving the Departments here at Aligarh.

* Crores of rupees recieved from different funding agencies has been siphoned off for the Centers. For example, the Ministry of Health, GOI, specially sanctioned approx Rs. One Crore to purchase critical care equipment such as Ventilators at the JNMC Hospital, this has been diverted to build boundary walls at Mallapuram/Murshidabad, meanwhile persons continue to die at Aligarh.

* The University has been generally refusing travel grant to attend conferences from May this financial year, despite the VC's proclamations to the contrary, however about Rs Three lacs were spent on TA/DA for appointment of guest faculty at these Centers. A little more was spent on the visit to Maharashtra. Where did this money come from? No special grant has been given for these inspection tours by the UGC/ MHRD.It is the AMU that you know that is bearing this burden from its normal grant.

I would liike to give a point by point response to the questions being asked in this thread, but some of the points were already answered a few months back by some of us, as a first step therefore, I am again posting a few lines sent earlier (in May 2010) with the commitment that I hope to present a really brief response in a day or two

"... many ...persons at AMU and outside feel, 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 sincerity 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.

3.1The 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.

4.1How 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, lose 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.

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 not, 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

Hony. Secretary, AMU Teachers’ Association, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh

Email: s_mustafa_zaidi(AT)yahoo.co.in

Student 1968-1974, Teacher 1978- till date, Teachers' Representative 1982

Former Member University Court, Former Member Academic Council,

Former Member Examination Committee and member of many Committees set up by the Executive Council, Academic Council and the University administration on different issues.

(Message Posted on "worldofaligs" AMU Alumni Network Yahoo Groups on Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2011 14:49:34 +0530)

Bihar (Kishanganj) AMU Centre Scam: FIR Lodged Against Cong MP, Five MLAs

AMU - FIR Lodged Against Cong MP, Five MLAs:

What were the pressing circumstances before Maulana Asrarul Haq Quasmi (M.P) and others to come out on road and resort to violence and disrupt law and order, thereby inviting criminal proceedings by the District Administration?

What prompted them is the disclosure made by the scheming and manipulator VC, Prof. Azis, made at Kishanganj on 6 Sept 2011 despite the Visitors gag order;

“According to AMU VC, he is going to retire in January 2012, so all the official formalities to open the ‘Centre’ at Kishanganj should be finished before he leaves the University. In fact, he has some concern and said it can’t be expected that the next VC would take ahead the idea of opening the ‘Study Centres of AMU’ out of Aligarh”

While all other reasons put forward to justifying their misadventure were misleading and not convincing because;
The AMU Act does not provide for creation of ‘Centres’. Moreover, the AMU being a Residential and Muslim Minority Institution [Section 5(9A) & Preamble]; no facility for teaching beyond 25 Km can be created.
The AMU cannot extend concessions to Muslims, so is true for the AMU Centres under total AMU control, as the Minority status of AMU has been quashed by High Court in 2005.
It is practically impossible to effectively manage affairs of AMU Centres, situated thousands of Kms away, on day to day basis from Aligarh.
Establishment of AMU Centres/Campuses is in the UPA Govt agenda since long. In the recent past it was during the tenure of Mr. Naseem Ahmad, 2004-2005, who refused to oblige the MHRD as the AMU Act does not provide for Centres/Campuses especially beyond 25 Kms away from the Univ Mosque.
Prof. Azis broke all records of manipulation and violations of rules in the process of establishing the Centres at Murshidabad (Pranab’s constituency) and Malappuram (VC town) and incurred expenses in crores of Rupees illegally and unauthorized.
On the top of it all, the amendments to the Statutes proposed through manipulations and illegalities, have neither been approved by the competent two Houses of Parliament nor Gazetted as required under Section 31 (4) and (5) of the AMU Act. Thus the two Centres do not legally exist. This is an illegality, which has no parallel. As a result this caused two PILS to be filed, pending before High Court.
The UPA Govt through the MHRD, Finance Ministry and UGC provided all strategic support and encouragement to the unscrupulous and corrupt VC including whole lot of manipulations and illegalities (violations of rules) committed in the process.
The Govt has neither made any grant for Kishanganj nor is there permission of the Visitor available for that.

The Finance Minister has gone to the extent of misleading the Parliament when the allocation of Rs 50 crore was made for Murshidabad and Malappuram in the Union Budget 2009-2010 on the plea that the AMU has decided to establish two new AMU Campuses, which was totally incorrect. In another manipulation only Rs.10 crore were released to Mallappuram out of 25 crores allocated.

The quantum of illegalities committed are unprecedented, brazen and assume the size of a full fledged scam with the blessings of the Govt, which swears for clean public service devoid of corruption.

It is more than evident that the Congress MP has been promoting the party’s and his own interests without any regard to the harm that could be caused to AMU and inspirations of Muslims of India.

Maulana Quasmi and his supporters just cannot plead ignorance and deserve to be condemned and rejected for misleading Muslims and AMU.

Er. Shabbir Ahmad
Er. Saeedur Rehman Siddiqi
Er. Z.A. Qidwai
Prof. Q. Zainus Sajidin
Prof. Nafees Ahmad
Prof. Ziauddin Ahmad

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