Why Aligarh Muslim University now?
With the suicide of Rohit Vemula, the nation got to know how the Sangh Parivar had taken control of Hyderabad University. After this, JNU became the next target of the Sangh Parivar. JNU has always been in news for raising its voice for social justice in the society. This university has created many thinkers and social activists. The nematodes of the Sangh, who got into the University, tried branding the University as ‘anti-national’. But the students themselves stood up to every ill-planned attack on JNU.
Now Sangh Parivar has trained its eyes on Aligarh Muslim University. On May 2, many students from Hindu Yuva Vahini, an off shoot of Sangh Parivar and others from Akhila Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad barged into the University and insisted that Jinnah’s portrait that’s being displayed on the campus be removed. The attackers had even brought deadly weapons with them. And the modus operandi of Police and Sangh Parivar coming together is similar in this case too.
The Aligarh Muslim University is the epitome of modern outlook for Indian muslims started by Sir Syed Ahmed Khan. He conceptualized this university to ensure Indian muslims integrated themselves into the country with the help of modern education. This university contributed many commendable names to the country. Third President of the Country Zakir Hussain, freedom fighter Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan, French mathematician Andre Weil, first woman Chief minister of Assam Anvara Taimur, sportsperson Dhyan Chand, Lala Amarnath, Zupar Iqbal and others came out of this University.
The impact of AMU on history and future of India is massive. Sangh parivar has entered this university for the only reason that there is ‘muslim’ in its name. Jinnah portrait is a pretext, and not the entire context as it exists in AMU since 1938. Along with Jinnah, there are portraits of many other freedom fighters too. Jinnah was a muslim leader and a man who took part in the freedom struggle. As a result of this, it is natural to have had his portrait in the University.
How did the Sangh Parivar all of a sudden wake up to this portrait that has been there since 75 years, exactly on May 2, 2018?
If Sangh Parivar is angry with Jinnah for supporting and demanding a separate country for Muslims, we have to understand the genesis of this issue. This search will lead us to Lala Lajpat Rai, who realized the need for two nations.
It was put forth by Hindu Mahasabha leader Vinayak Damodar Savarkar. Hindu Sabha continuously sowed anxiety among Indian muslims and ensured that the demand for a separate nation was reflected as a demand put forth by Muslims themselves. Upper class muslims may have wanted a country of their own, but the poor men and women of the community never wanted to lose the soil they were born in. They never wanted to end the bond they shared with India.
Dadabhai Navaroji brought Jinnah to politics. Jinnah was a dedicated Congress member most part of his life. When Tilak was branded as ‘anti-national’, Jinnah fought to prove Tilak’s detractors wrong.
Muslim League wasn’t established by Jinnah, but he became its member six years after it was set up. He became the President of League three years later. In reality, Hindu Mahasabha consistently separated the muslims of this nation with the aim of establishing a hindu nation. Finally, Jinnah became a pretext for the division of the country and formation of Pakistan.
Jinnah had hoped that the new country be secular. Lal Krishna Advani, who travelled to Pakistan, recollected this on his return. As a result of that, he earned the wrath of Sangh Parivar.
Many BJP leaders have good opinion about Jinnah. One of the elected representatives of Uttar Pradesh has caused an embarrassment to the party and especially to CM Yogi Aditya Nath by saying ‘Jinnah was a great leader’.
If displaying Jinnah’s portrait in the university is wrong, displaying the portrait of Veer Savarkar who was responsible for the division of the nation is also wrong. Just not this, the statue of Manu Maharshi who propagated inequality among castes and genders, has been installed right before Rajasthan High Court.
Architect of the constitution Dr. B R Ambedkar had burnt copies of Manu Smriti for its venomous attributes against lower castes. Should this statue not be decimated?
Aligarh University is growing as a challenge just the way as JNU did against fascist forces. This has attracted the wrath of Sangh Parivar. It is the duty of every secular element in the country to come together and defeat the upsurge of fascism.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
RSS man's defamation case against Rahul: Key witness unavailable, hearing adjourned to Dec 20
Thane (PTI): A court in Bhiwandi in Thane district on Saturday adjourned the hearing in the criminal defamation case filed against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi by a Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) worker to December 20 due to non-availability of a crucial prosecution witness.
Advocate Narayan Iyer, counsel for Rahul Gandhi, confirmed the adjournment, stating that the witness, Ashok Saykar, currently Deputy Superintendent of Police in Barshi in Solapur, could not remain present due to personal reasons.
Saykar's evidence is now likely to be recorded on December 29.
His testimony is considered key because he, as police sub inspector in 2014, conducted the preliminary inquiry into the private defamation matter under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
It was on the basis of Saykar's submitted report that the court subsequently issued process (summons) against Rahul Gandhi under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The criminal defamation case was filed by local RSS worker Rajesh Kunte following a speech given by Rahul Gandhi at an election rally near Bhiwandi on March 6, 2014.
The case stems from the Congress leader's alleged statement that "the RSS people killed (Mahatma) Gandhi."
The matter is being heard by Bhiwandi Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, P M Kolse.
The hearing had previously been adjourned on November 15 after the complainant's counsel, Advocate Prabodh Jaywant, moved an application seeking permission to examine Saykar, who had submitted the probe report to the court.
The matter was originally scheduled for November 29 but was deferred to December 6 after Rahul Gandhi's legal team sought an adjournment citing their non-availability. The proceedings will now resume on December 20.
