Taliban Style of Justice and Campus Ban for Lifetime by Aligarh Muslim University (AMU)

Adil Hossain
reply-to TheAligarhForum@yahoogroups.com
to worldofaligs@yahoogroups.com,
TheAligarhForum@yahoogroups.com,
AligarhNetwork@yahoogroups.com,
voiceofaligs@yahoogroups.com
date Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 6:53 PM
subject [TheAligarhForum] Taliban Style of Justice and Campus Ban for Lifetime [3 Attachments]
mailing list Filter messages from this mailing list
mailed-by returns.groups.yahoo.com
signed-by yahoogroups.com
unsubscribe Unsubscribe from this mailing-list
hide details 6:53 PM (54 minutes ago)


Everybody must have read the Aesop’s fable of The Wolf and the Lamb. First the Wolf accused the lamb that he grossly insulted him last year. The lamb replied that he was not born then. The Wolf put another charge that he fed from his pasture and he meekly replied that he had not tasted grass yet. The wolf indicted the lamb again that he drank from his well, and he rebutted that he never drank water and mother’s milk is his food and drink both. Desperately the Wolf seized the Lamb and ate him up, saying, "Well! I won't remain supperless, even though you refute every one of my imputations." And we get the morale of the story; “The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny”. The way the present AMU administration dealt with the trial of my case and that of Mr. Afaq Ahmad, both from the Dept. of Mass Communication, AMU one can only think of that hungry wolf who doesn’t care for anything, but for his supper only.
Okay So It’s Official, I am an Old Boy of AMU now. The Disciplinary Committee held on 07.07.2010 has recommended issuing Migration Certificate to me and also imposing Campus Ban i.e. means Campus Ban for lifetime. The same Committee also recommended rustication Order for Mr. Afaq Ahmad, M.phil Mass Communication for two academic session’s i.e 2009-10 & 2010-11 along with campus ban for the same period.
The Proctor in his Office Memo vide D.No. 2541/Proc dated 13.07.2010 has added other charges to me that I repeatedly asked for the evidences which were going to be used against me and I sought explanation from the Discipline Committee. They thankfully noted in the same Office Memo, “But instead of defending himself and answering the charges he allegedly impugned the entire institutional edifice of enquiry and procedure and proceedings thereunder and made counter charges and posed counter questions”. It is clearly proved from the suspension Order that The Discipline Committee was held in Talibani style where the accused was not provided with any evidence for full and informed defence complying with the principle of natural justice. The Office Memo admitted clearly my stand that I was not ready to defend myself in an unprepared way and I kept asking for evidence of which I am sure that the AMU administration framed me with malafide intention without having any written document against me. “However he neither rejected the charges nor accepted the charges rather he kept on repeating that the charges are vague and he was not provided with any evidence. “
From the very beginning I have stressed on the point that student’s career are taken to be so cheap by the AMU administrators that they don’t even care to comply with the principle of natural justice or with the principle of audi alteram partem which any democratic institution must follow during any judicial or quasi-judicial trial.
The Supreme Court of India has given the following directives defining the “audi alteram partem” principle to be followed during any judicial or quasi-judicial process in the famous case of Union of India vs Tulsiram Patel & Others 1985 AIR 1416, 1985 SCR Supl. (2) 131,
“the audi alteram partem rule, in its fullest amplitude means that a person against whom an order to his prejudice may be passed should be informed of the allegations and charges against him, be given an opportunity of submitting his explanation thereto, have the right to know the evidence, both oral or documentary, by which the matter is proposed to be decided against him, and to inspect the documents which are relied upon for the purpose of being used against him, to have the witnesses who are to give evidence against him examined in his presence and have the right to cross-examine them, and to lead his own evidence, both oral and documentary, in his defence”.
Thereafter from the Office Memo D.No.2541/Proc Dated 13.07.2010 , it is very much clear that the Disciplinary Committee at the very outset violated the rules set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India as they again charged the accused i.e me for asking evidence & for counter questioning which is the right of any accused as mentioned clearly in the abovementioned Supreme Court Judgement. Such clear defiance of the Supreme Court Directives by the AMU administration and the Disciplinary Committee can only be interpreted that Aligarh Muslim University has adopted Taliban Style of Justice under the regime of the present Vice-Chancellor to crush any voice of dissent with the harshest laws available.
The present Vice-Chancellor is only resorting to double standard when he talks about democratic form of protest. In his meeting with the natives of Kishanganj on June 25, 2010 along with the President Old Boys Association, New Delhi Mr. Khwaja Shahid he agreed on certain things where he advised in the Action to be taken with immediate effect portion that to press for AMU Off-Campus Centres, “NH 31 road and other major markets in Kishanganj will be jammed “. So its amply clear whereas he advise natives of Kishanganj to block the National Highway to get AMU off-campus centre at any cost , at the same time he imposes Campus Ban for lifetime to a student with the charges of blocking the university road at 10.00 pm to demand for electricity restoration inside the campus. What if another Prof.P.K.Abdul Azis will handle such road block of National Highway at Kishanganj? Would this present Vice-Chancellor then support such administrator who will throw every people involved in blocking National Highway in the Jail for lifetime? The Vice-Chancellor must answer on such double standard where he pounce on every student who get involved in democratic protest and on the other side asking people to block national highway to get his desired AMU Off-Campus Centre.

I won’t act like a crying baby. I am only putting these facts to people which will have some dangerous repercussions in future. AMU in the recent times has lost many cases in the Court of law and it naturally gave the media the opportunity to question the administrative actions in the harshest language.
With the harshest decision on me and Mr. Afaq Ahmad flouting all rules and regulation at place, the AMU administration wishes to give a clear message to the students involved in any kind of activism that they have the power to torture us mentally, physically, economically for unnecessary reasons even if we go to court and win our case. However they are not bothered with the fact that Court will like most of the cases would overturn their decisions and media would again portray them in bad light. They just want to save their ego. The anti-student, anti-activism forces should be happy only when the Court would support the decisions taken by the AMU administrations. When they don’t, and media shows how AMU still shows their thumb to the rule of law and get punched on the face by court, they must ask how long this should go.

The people at the forums are talking about an influential group. Please make one and offer for crash course on the Constitution and Principles of Natural Justice for free of Charge for the people sitting at the administration. Else, such illiterate people sitting at the helm of affairs would ruin the reputation of our alma mater.

Md. Adil Hossain,
AMU 2002-2010
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Proceedings of the AMU's Khap Panchayat known as Disciplinary Committee
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
To
The Vice-Chancellor
A.M.U, Aligarh Dated: 12.07.2010
Subject- Denial of fair trial by the Discipline Committee held on 07.07.2010 which exhibited bias, partial and pre-determined attitude.
Respected Sir,
I was suspended, without any prior show cause/explanation letter, violating the principle of audi alteram partem, vide LD No. 2113/Proc dated 03.06.2010 with 03 allegations. I was then served a Chargesheet vide LD.2177/Proc dated 09.06.2010, received by my parents on 22.06.2010 and by me on 26.06.2010. I also received a notice from the Proctors Office vide D.No. 2364/Proc dated 29.06.2010 for attending the duly constituted Discipline Committee on 07.07.2010. In the meantime I sent three letters to your office with the request to provide me with evidences so that I can make full and informed defence in front of the Discipline Committee but in vain. But even though I was denied the evidences which were to be used to substantiate the allegation against me, in violation of the principle of natural justice, out of respect and to uphold the sanctity of the duly constituted Discipline Committee I appeared before it on 07.07.2010.
In the Discipline Committee, the Proctor after reading out the allegations against me invited me to respond. I humbly pointed out the non-provision of evidence to me and therefore I cannot make full and informed defence. In the mean time the Registrar shouted at me saying that University authorities are not here to provide evidence and I am to simply give my explanation. I modestly tried to make him aware of the basic principle in any such proceedings that the burden of proof lies on the accuser. To my utter dismay, the Registrar retorted, “Go to the Court and prove your innocence”.
The Proctor intervened to assert that I know what wrong I have committed and therefore I do not require any evidence. He showed me some pages from a distance alleged that it was a copy of a write up on the net that he had gobbled up money. I meekly submitted that in a quasi-judicial process like this everything should be on paper and nothing can be in the air. I again emphasized the need of evidences which will be used to substantiate the charges against me with sufficient time to prepare my defence to be placed before any Discipline Committee.
The Registrar again to my utter shock stated that I do not require any evidence as things are clearly stated in my charge sheet and he read out the passages from it where it was written that I wrote defaming articles on the internet. He stressed that the chargesheet contained enough evidence. I humbly submitted that there is a basic difference between Charge sheet, which contains the allegations, and evidence, which is used to substantiate the allegations.
The Proctor said that the Deputy Proctor Fareed A Khan (who was sitting there and appeared to be part of the Discipline Committee) has submitted a complaint and is the witness to substantiate the charge that I blocked the main University road because of which the electricity restoration progress came to a standstill in the night of 01/02 June from 9.00 to 10.45 pm. I pointed out that if such thing happened the Chief Electricity Engineer must have submitted a complaint letter because he is the responsible authority for it. But a Dean, Member of the Discipline Committee, shot back that such complaint letter is not required and any Staff can report such incident. I again emphasized that the complainant and prosecuting authority can’t be a witness, which is against the principles of law.
I pointed out that the suspension order contained only 03 whereas the Charge sheet contained 06 allegations and therefore it should be construed as afterthought and liable to be quashed. One Dean, Member of the Discipline Committee, intervened to press that such practice is justifiable and Proctors Office may add new charges if they find any during the process of inquiry. To which I replied that the allegations added could not have been found during the Inquiry as they appear to be events that took place, if at all, much before the Inquiry and further no Inquiry was conducted and if conducted I was not given any opportunity to be heard by it, violating the principles of natural justice. Another Dean, Member of the Discipline Committee, asked me why I sent all the correspondence to the Vice-Chancellor after my suspension to which I replied I found it proper to address the Vice-Chancellor for he is the competent authority to direct the Proctor to provide me with evidences. The same Dean asked my final stand on the charges against me and I again humbly submitted that the allegations are vague and I require evidence which are proposed to be used to substantiate the allegations to rebut them. I again stressed that without evidence I cannot make a full and informed defence so I must be given a fair trial by providing me the evidence. The Dean replied that I can’t question the fairness and impartiality of the Discipline Committee and it can be added as another allegation against me, I therefore went quiet. Finally I was asked to leave.
University is a temple of learning and any act of discrimination at this stage may impact severely to the natural growth of any student. The Discipline Committee of 07.07.2010 was extremely biased and prejudiced against me, which is proved by the fact that they denied me the evidence violating the principle of natural justice. I therefore feel that it will take the harshest possible action against me, without giving me a full opportunity to defend myself.
I therefore request in view of the above to kindly direct that the entire proceedings be quashed and the allegations against me be dropped as it is by now obvious that there is no evidence to substantiate the allegations against me.
Thanking you.
Yours faithfully
(Md. Adil Hossain)
M.A(Prev) Mass Communication, Roll No: 09-MCM-06
C/O Mohd. Chaman, Quarter no F/3
V.M.Hall Compound, AMU, Aligarh-202002
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

AMU Targets Student for Freedom of Speech & Expression

From: Adil Hossain
Subject: [AMUNetwork] AMU: No Dissent, Vengeance on students & LIU mystery
To: AMUNetwork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, 9 June, 2010, 7:22 AM


The present AMU administration has shown a despicable record in terms of respecting the freedom of speech and expression of the AMU students who as Indian Citizens must enjoy their right under article 19(1)(a) of Indian Constitution. In the recent Press Release the AMU authorities are only shedding crocodile tears about their care for girls students of I.G and Abdullah Hall as if they never did anything to expose the AMU girls towards “outside vulnerability”. In a RTI reply vide D.No.972/IGH dated 22.05.2010 (http://www.scribd. com/doc/32729541 /Ig-Provost- Rti-Reply) Provost, I.G.Hall reply to query no.4 as “Only one student of M.A(English) Ms. Samina Parveen was transferred by the order of the Vice-Chancellor from Halls of Residence to NRSC since she indulged in an argument with the Vice-Chancellor”. So our dear AMU administration very happily exposed a girl to outside “vulnerability” in 24 hours by transferring her to NRSC (simply throwing out of hostel) as she committed a grievous crime in a democratic country like India that she argued with the Vice-Chancellor.
In the recent times, another Mass Communication student Mr.Afaq Ahmad, who brought unimaginable development in the Dining Hall functioning at AMU and suspended since April 22, 2010 for shooting a documentary inside the Hall premises on his experience with the Dining Hall system at V.M.Hall was also denied of his fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression. I filed an RTI to the CAPIO of AMU which was received with vide Ref No. 98/CAPIO/F/10- 11 dated 28/04/2010 about the grounds for arbitrary suspension of Mr.Afaq Ahmad, M.Phil, Mass Comm by Vice-Chancellor, AMU. In reply to my question where I asked whether a student need permission from Provost or not to shoot a video inside a Hall, Provost, B.R.Ambedkar Hall in the RTI reply vide D.No 93/BRH dated 29.05.2010 accepted (which is applicable to all Halls of Residences also), “ As per record there is no Rule/Ordinances/ Regulation explicitly prohibiting making of video clip of Hall without the permission of the Provost.”
In the most blunt confession about snatching the fundamental right of students of freedom of speech and expression, the Proctor Office in reply to same RTI vide D.No 139/Proc dated 01.06.2010 accepted that peaceful democratic protest like signature campaign is seen as pressure tactic by the University authorities and thereby it is a punishable offence considered by them. Please see the reply to the Question no.4 in the RTI reply by Proctor Office. The Proctor Office in the same RTI in reply to Question No.5 also accepted that pasting of news paper cuttings/posters on the walls of the Hall and other premises of the university would also be dealt harshly with the students( they may face severe punishment). Now there is no specific board arranged by the university authorities in the whole university where student can paste their posters or any other items, the earlier one present at the entrance of Moulana Azad Library was also removed so that student cant convey any message through this medium. So it is a usual practices in this Vice-Chancellor’s regime that student paste their materials near the place Office Notifications get pasted (as if they don’t disfigure the walls). So systematically this AMU administration has also robbed off the students their fundamental right of freedom of expression by making it punishable to paste any poster/pamphlets in the whole university. See the Afaq Bhai RTI and the Reply by CPIO, Proctors Office and CPIO, BR Ambedkar Hall here- http://www.scribd. com/doc/32732927 /AFAQ-Bhai- RTI-Mockery- of-Justice.
Now the question is, in a situation where we do not agree to a decision made by the AMU authorities what are the options available to us to register our dissent? If we participate in signature campaign leave alone any rally or procession we would be punished for no reason. If we paste any poster/ news papers cutting we would be punished for no reason. Where is the place for dissent then? Should we become suicide bomber to register our protest? This AMU has no difference with Hitlers Nazi Regime where dissent was not tolerated at any cost.
LOCAL INTELLIGENCE UNIT, DREADED OFFICIAL SPY AGENCY OF AMU
The first story of Local Intelligence Unit was published in the March 8 edition of Outlook with the headline “Class Monitors” on the basis of a RTI reply (http://www.scribd. com/doc/32733386 /Proctor- Office-Accepts- LIU-Exist) procured by a RTI Activist Mr.Mohd. Chaman, a 4th grade AMU employee and Former AMU Court Member(http://www.outlooki ndia.com/ article.aspx? 264463). In this article Vice-Chancellor AMU defended its presence at the campus by stating that, “It helps maintain campus peace and security. There’s nothing secretive about the LIU and it is not policing.” After Dr.Siras controversy rocked the AMU administration and LIU’s involvement in the sting operation was exposed, this dreaded Local Intelligence Unit was covered in the articles published in India Today, Frontline and all national media. Till then LIU was known to be teemed with salaried employees but Proctor, AMU went on record in the Indian Express news published in the first page on April 11, 2010 “Shadow of AMU’s spy wing in Siras Sting” stating that students are also employed by the Proctor Office as spy in the campus. Proctor Md Zubair Khan confirmed: “There is such a proctorial team on the university. You can call it a local intelligence unit where students give information about campus activities and unwanted elements. http://www.indianex press.com/ news/shadow- of-amus-spy- wing-on-siras- sting/604027/. But after a huge public outcry over the presence of a spy agency first time in any educational institution in India the entire AMU administration started denying its presence including the Vice-Chancellor and started calling it mere “watch and ward” team but LIU remained active in the campus and performed their spy activities. Then came the news on LIU “Is there a spy wing in Aligarh Muslim University” (http://timesofindia .indiatimes. com/india/ Is-there- a-spy-wing- in-Aligarh- Muslim-Universit y/articleshow/ 5885083.cms) that was published by most of the news agency which alleged that LIU was involved in suspending Mr.Afaq Ahmad, M.Phil, Dept. of Mass Communication, A.M.U. In continuation to Mr.Afaq’s story, after his suspension Indian Express published news called “Now, AMU suspends student for ‘threatening’ V-C” where they stated that though Proctor denied the presence of LIU and called it “Watch and Ward” yet the suspension order of Mr. Afaq Ahmad mentioned it(http://www.indianex press.com/ news/now- amu-suspends- student-for- threatening- vc/610761/ 0).


I had always been a strong critic of such a spy agency maintained by Proctor Office,AMU where students and people are employed for the purpose for keeping an eye on students and teachers of the university as it should not exist in any democratic institution. Secondly in the RTI, where Proctor Office accepted LIU exist in AMU and that they spend 1.2 lack/month in paying the salaries to LIU people, the CPIO/Budget of AMU in the letter vide D.No.990/FO dated 30.10.09 stated AMU doesn’t have any fund meant for LIU or anything. So the question arrives who pays for the 14 lack/annum spend on this spy agency? Is it the Miscellaneous fund of the students or any other fund meant for development?
To know the history and involvement of students in Local Intelligence Unit, I filed an RTI received at Proctor Office vide R.No 191/Proc dated 17.04.2010 asking 7 points in detail. When already in an RTI reply vide D.No 91/Proc dated 17.11.2009 Proctor Office not only accepted Local Intelligence Unit exist at Aligarh Muslim University but also provided the name of those persons employed as LIU, their salaries etc to my utter surprise the Proctors Office informed me in reply to my RTI application vide D.No 130/Proc dated 12.05.2010 (http://www.scribd. com/doc/32734673 /Proctor- Office-Denies- LIU-Exists- RTI-Reply that, “there is no LIU Unit at the Proctors Office”.
In the meantime, I received in reply to the RTI application regarding Afaq Bhai’s case the copy of “Confidential” letter sent by the Provost, V.M.Hall vide D.No 29/VMH dated 6th April, 2010 to the Vice-Chancellor where he mentioned that “some resident members of VM Hall, belonging to a particular ideology”( it speaks a volume how AMU administration works for the dissenters) especially Mr. Afaq Ahmad, M.Phil Mass Communication “ have really created a lot of mess” and “it may be confirmed from the LIU report” clearly mentioned on the 2nd page of the same letter. The letter itself states how in a democratic institution like AMU students are handpicked and butchered.
So now the question is, if LIU don’t exist as per the latest RTI reply by the Proctors Office, AMU, then why
Provost, VM Hall of AMU mentioned about the “LIU Report” to the Vice-Chancellor so that he may rely on what he is stating?
Prof.Irfan Habib, Professor Emeritus, Dept of History in the Telelka Hindi(UP edition) of 30th April, 2010 stated that the culture of employing spies exist here since 1981? We can’t deny his authority on AMU administration. So if AMU Proctors Office in 7 months vanish the LIU in two contradicting RTI replies then for the last 30 years who paid the salaries of these LIU people? Is it students who were made to pay through different funds for this LIU?
My suspension and campus ban has come at a time when I was very close in my first stint as Investigative Journalist to reveal the cloudy and mysterious history of employing and funding spooks at the Aligarh Muslim University which is sponsored by many influential administrators of my alma mater. I had already filed the First Appeal to the Appellate Authority on 31.05.2010 as I found the answer from the CPIO, Proctor Office “misleading and incomplete” and next I would have proceeded against the Central Information Commission, New Delhi which will for sure appoint a committee to get all the information about such mysterious undemocratic agencies.
The reason for my suspension as writing on yahoogroups or blocking an empty road at dead night at AMU is just an eyewash. As I said earlier, not only my anti-administration stand on Dr.Siras issue, CCTV and above all LIU but also with all these RTI exercises which exposed the moral bankruptcy of the AMU administrators and their desperate and undemocratic attitude to crush any student’s voice of dissent has led to my suspension and such unseen campus ban. But truth shall prevail in the end. I dream so, I believe so, I feel so.

Md. Adil Hossain
M.A(Prev) Mass Communication
AMU, Aligarh

Mobile- +91-9997447287

Saving the 'State' called Aligarh Muslim University

"We must keep loving our cowardice, greed and self-promotion; there is no greater virtue than cowardice. Obsequious allegiance and slavish sycophancy are the biggest ingredients of our being. Mohammad Sajjad"

Dr.Sajjad & all,

ASAK,

Yes that is true. Perhaps our dear campus, at least presently, resembles General Ziaul Haq's regime, where all democratic norms and civic laws were put aside in the name of "saving the State". That kind of extreme and super-autocracy led that State into ruins, and established a culture of un-ending dictatorial and corrupt rule. The State could never recover from those kind of high handedness. There too were many cowards, greedy and self-promoting selfish souls, who were instrumental in the process of destruction, all in the name of protection and integrity.

It is ironic that the largest institution of India is functioning under such undemocratic and autocratic manner, and run and supported by a bunch of incompetent and corrupt officials ,who have least level of understanding of the basic norms, codes and ethos of a civil society. The government of india, the civil institutions and other higher authorities should know the pathetic state in which our dear alma mater is under siege.

It really is puzzling why so much high handedness is so easily tolerated in this campus;

a suspension of 150 students,
accusation and intimidation to anyone without any proper findings
arbitrary and provocative actions

I wish they have had a list of achievements showing the following;

addition of newer facilities, new departments
more resources for staff and students
improvements in the infra-structure, particularly for research and in the Halls of residence
more projects, more grants.

Instead;

What we hear is only shutting of campus,
suspension of students
suspension of teachers
accusations and charges on any

They have not SPARED even the alumni - and their forums. We live in a state of infamy.

Thanks and regards.

wa-as-salam,

Razi Raziuddin [razi24.AT.hotmail.com]
Picked up from amuoba.yahoogroups.com

"I do want support, I do not want sympathy" Says Suspended AMU Student

Respected Aligs!
There are few points I want to make very much clear. Probably first time in any quasi-judicial process the name of two AMU related forums are dragged in official document by the authorities of AMU. I have no role in drafting my own Suspension Order. I can understand the Janab Zubair Sahab apprehension where he emphasized that it is individual responsibility and not yahoogroups or its moderators for all the matters some1 is writing on which he may face the consequences. But I am afraid I do not agree with Zubair Sahab here that the onus of proof lies on me. This is a famous principle in legal system that the onus of proof lies on the accuser i.e AMU Proctor now. The fact is that both individual and the yahoogroups who allow them to express their views and concerns are targeted here.
Now I know by criticising AMU administration for ignoring the needs and plight of the students through a public discussion forum at a time when Students Union is not active I have made many enemies. If raising such issues by writing which is my job as Mass Communication student is politics to some people I am proud of my actions. Mr.Shah Faisal, the IAS topper is known RTI activist and a `whistle blower' and I've also filed numerous RTI applications exercising the right as Indian Citizen along with my studies. I believe that if media ask me on my opinion about the episode on Dr.Siras, CCTV or Local Intelligence Unit whose illegal presence I exposed here officially( another principle of journalism) as everybody have their individual opinion, I have mine and I can voice it as my right. Secondly, till now no one can ever blame me of financial bungling at AMU, or engaged with any violence, or that even I slapped, abused any single student or teacher at AMU till date. I have always followed the rule of law and in dissent followed the democratic principles to lodge my protest. I have neither pointed a gun towards any official nor do I hold the collar of anybody while I register my disagreement with any official. So the brand of my politics if it is at all is harmless writing and expressing my thoughts with facts and logics and sometime substantial proofs. Now the University administration also suspends and impose campus ban those who burn the VC lodge and also on people like me who just simply write. Ask yourselves and tell is this justice? If my writings are wrong, politically motivated etc as people blame why not answer me in my way i.e simply you may reply in writing whatever you feel like. And if any reader don't like my writings, don't read me, delete my posts, who have forced them? I don't want to be a hero rather than to be listened. But yes they are unnecessarily making me a hero by taking stupid decisions by going against the spirit of Indian Constitution. I have no issues if University suspend me for valid reasons, but they have to make the context right and follow the proper legal steps. They can't be desperate to suspend me if they find me doing nothing illegal. I tried to change the face of student activism at AMU after a long time which was marred with student violence, regionalism, factionalism etc by simply writing only but my detractors even find fault with peaceful ways also. As far I have read a little history of AMU I think I have chosen the Moulana Hasrat Mohani's way to raise my concerns and facing the same fate i.e suspension and campus ban. AMU has not changed at all in the last 100 years. They do not know to respect the non-violent ways of protest by students which only push them further towards violence.
Few days back I wrote a post defining the yahoogroups as a new form of media which have their own impact. But the suspension of a student on account of writing in it is the dangerous development ever on the freedom of speech and expression. If we justify and do not protest against this action then tomorrow Dr.Sajjad Sahab or other teachers may not express themselves freely on such forums and University administration may take revenge on them by suspending them for writing in it. Tomorrow teachers can be charged with same sentences and we will only fight on the onus lies. The fact is simple and crystal clear. University has no right to charge anybody for writing on internet. With me two student, Tanveer of B.Tech & Syed Asad, BSC(Hons) Physics also voiced their criticism on CCTV or closing of gates of Sulaiman Hall, but if I am prosecuted for writing only today the yahoogroups, which is the last resort by the students these days to write freely about their life here in a time when student get punished for asking the Provost why they had not been served Chicken for two weeks would be discussion board for the Old Boys only where present teachers and students have no voice. If that is what Moderators want I have no problem. And who knows tomorrow student may face suspension for `baseless allegations against AMU' made on their twitter, facebook or orkut account for comments written inadvertently. AMU authorities cant impose thought control like in China.
I do want support, I do not want sympathy. All I want that Aligs must stand at this crucial juncture on the right of an individual to express himself freely in writing without the fear of subjugation.
Md. Adil Hossain [adilhossain43@yahoo.in]
M.A(Prev) Mass Communication
AMU, Aligarh

The posting has been taken from TheAligarhForum@yahoogroups.com