| Historian’s interest, Tehelka’s sensation and Common-man’s response | ||
| Published on October 27th, 2007 In Uncategorized, Blogging, News, Philosophy, Politics | Views 541 | ||
| Historian’s interest, Tehelka’s sensation and Common-man’s response
Historian’s Interest: Steve Farmer isHarvard University historian, working with Michael Witzel, friend of Romila Thapar and other Indian eminent historians. “The Hindu” of Chennai used to publish whatever they write but not that of other Indian historians. For example, Dr. R. Nagaswamy, the former Director of State Archaeology department, Dr. K. V. Raman, the former Head of Ancient History ” Archaeology, Madras University, Dr. K. M. Rao, the former Professor of Sociology, and others respond to them, but “the Hindu” did not publish. As I have had experience with Steve Farmer, I want to respond. As I have also listened to and questioned Romila Thapar and other historians also during her lectures, I developed interest in history. Today morning, the Steve’s posting provoked me. My experience with Historians: Therefore, I have no other way but to respond as common man. I am not an historian, but used to read history books, attend conferences and present papers. I follow them faithfully – the style sheet and methodology, irrespective of their ideology. So here, in the context of Tehelka, I wonder what would or could be interest of American historian in the Indian politics, that too when Indian history has already been highly politicized. Nowadays, a stage has reached that Indians have no right to read their history, but have to read what others write about them. They cannot point out the wrongs, blunders, mistakes containing in their writings, as immediately, they jump and ask, “What is your qualification”. If I say, “I am interested in history”, they retort, “Why your are interested in history?” Previously, to become a member of Indian history congress, “just interest in history and age 18” were enough ( up to 1991). But, they amended the bye-laws that one should have “M. A degree in History or presented papers etc” as eligibility. Having presented papers, they tried another tactics by not including in the list, giving only 5 minutes for presentation including discussion and in the worst case, they order just “Read the title, you name and go” (as happened in the Madras session of IHC). This is how the sessions have been going on without any care or love for academic sessions in IHC or any HC. Here is the posting of Steve Farmer, Harvard University historian:
Tehelka’s sensation: As I have already posted, I do not want to repeat. Common man’s Response: Coming to the Steve’s posting, I have read it carefully several times. When I read Indian newspapers, it would take time to understand who did what on “another” and who is “the another” and why it was done on him / her and so on, because of the Indian secular journalistic ethics and tactics. Many times, we have to research into to the gender also. The Indian journalists have been so secular, so egalitarian so utopian following the Universalistic Constitution. There also, one has to read several times, in the context to understand what had happened to what and to whom and why. Any way, here Rama Lakshmi (whether she wrote voluntarily or otherwise or somebody wrote in her name and all, we do not know) has not troubled us. But the report again appears to be motivated, as seen from such expressions used: ¹ Five years after one of India”s worst episodes of Hindu-Muslim violence Are Rama Lkashmi or Washington Post or Steve Farmer sure that no riot took place between 1947 and 2002? Or they want this to be glorified as “the worst episode” to be recorded in the modern history ignoring others? ¹ The violence began in February 2002 when a Muslim mob torched a train in ¹ In all, an estimated 1,000 people died.Oh my God, what is this? Just I was appreciating Rama Lkshmi for being very open about the identity of “people killed / torched with kerosene etc”! Why then suddenly this generalization without giving religion or gender? Is this American secularism or a transition from Indian to American? What was that “an estimated 1000”, when everything was going on so modern with spy-cam and all? Are Tehelka, Rama Lkashmi, Washington Post are so weak in mathematics? Do one have to resort to DNA test to find out the gender? Or some other method to find out their religion? ¹ Several thousand cases related to the riots are still pending in Indian courts and state inquiry committees.“Several” is definitely more than one. I also used such expression and for me, it was 6 times to understand the nuances of the subject matter in all angles. So here, the minimum is 1000 cases, the next minimum is 2000 cases and of course “several” could include 3, 4, 5 times also, if not “many”! After all, had Sonia wanted, every day a case could have been taken up! And in this 2.7 years (1000/365), all cases could have been settled. The next is – 5.5 years (2000/365) – why then hurrying up? But, why the Sonia government was sleeping? Why all the human rights and other sensible activists could not understand the simple mathematics of dealing with “several 1000 cases” or with reasonably specific 1000, 2000 cases? It is ironical that even Navanethan Pillai could not have thought about it. ¹ cable operators reportedly switched off their service to block stories on the subject.But, I could watch from Madras many-many times throughout the night on 26th October and respond also in internet. When Asish and Tarun are roaming with spycams, how the cable operators could have been so barbaric by living in medieval period? NDTV-Ajtak clearly show that their reporters were roaming in the streets of Ahmedabad interviewing all without leaving anybody! When they “could get the confessions of killers”, is it so difficult in investigate the cable operators for the truth? In Tamil, we used to ask, “Er kathila pu suthreppa = for whose ears, you are garlanding? Garlanding or tying flowers around one’s ears is not so easy task without their yielding. Anyway, Asish has done! ¹ For many Muslim leaders, the video footage released Thursday did not come as a surprise.With my due condolence to the real happening to Hindus and Muslims, I request them not to politicize the issue with these type of creepy, sensational, thrilling, exiting – exposures going on in the name of freedom of expression, investigative journalism etc. If Muslims know the facts, the Hindus too know the facts, they can to indulge in this type of spy-cam journalism. VEDAPRAKASH 27-10-2007 |
||
Historian’s interest, Tehelka’s sensation and Common-man’s response
Advertisements
July 16, 2009 at 12:00 pm |
4 Responses to “Historian’s interest, Tehelka’s sensation and Common-man’s response”
1. nathappan Says:
Posted on October 27th, 2007
The more I think of what happened in 2002 in Godhra, it makes my blood boil.
None of the stupid pseudo-secularists condemned what happened in Godhra, but have the audacity to talk about Gujarat riots thereafter. Shameless ! To hell with the shameless historians and history-twisters !
At least, as a result of Gujarat riots, Muslims are forced to think twice before acting in haste against Hindus. Thank God for the Gujarathi’s swift action.
I do not belong to RSS, VHP or BJP or any other organization, but I feel proud of Modi’s achievements in his State and happy about the upbeat economy and model state of Gujarat.
Wish him all the best !
2. laadlabakdaas Says:
Posted on October 29th, 2007
Ppl like Rama Lakshmi are hypocrites, while they dont’ have the audacity to even write about the Iraq war or the Afghanistan War they think that they are entitled to show a onesided story of a country just because its their origin.
Thousands of years of Invasion couldn’t shake Hinduism. But the fight within Hinduism has definitely shaken it. Too bad pseudo intellectuals and pseudo seculars like RAMA LAKSHMI couldn’t mention even a word about the agony of the Hindus killed in Godhra and Kashmir. Just shows how hypocritic they are.
ppl who tend to forget their past are left to condemn their future.
3. nathappan Says:
Posted on October 29th, 2007
An appropriate article:-
The myth and truth of Godhra
– Arvind Lavakare, Organiser
Since no `secularist’ or `liberal’ or `objective’
person ever challenged the above sets of figures, some
questions arise: Who killed 200-odd Hindus so early in
those riots? Was it the police or the Hindus
themselves? And what made those 40,000 Hindus rush to
relief camps? Was it fear of Hindu mob violence, rape,
arson and murder?
Two recent `news briefs’ in print are critical
evidence of a reality that’s been totally ignored by
our `liberals’ who have, for four years running, gone
on and on and on about the `genocide’ of Muslims in
Gujarat after the sudden inferno in the S-6
compartment of Sabarmati Express had consumed 58
Hindus, including 26 women and 12 children, returning
home after performing kar seva at Ayodhya.
In its edition of March 19, 2006, The Sunday Express
carried the following report from Ahmedabad:
“Post-Godhra riot case: 7 get lifer
The city sessions court on Friday convicted seven
people in a post-Godhra riot case and sentenced them
to life term for the murder of 35-year-old Mukesh
Panchal, a resident of Lambha. He was attacked by the
accused and went missing on November 7, 2003 from
Shah-e-Alam Darwaza. His mutilated body was found near
Chandoka Lake on November 11. One of the seven
accused-Javed Shaukat Ali-meanwhile managed to give
the cops a slip and fled from the court.”
In its edition of Wednesday, March 29, 2006 The Indian
Express carried the following report, also datelined
Ahmedabad:
“Nine get jail in post-Godhra riot case
The city sessions court on Tuesday convicted nine
accused in a post-Godhra riot case. Additional
Sessions Judge Sonia Gokani sentenced Mushtaq alias
Kanio Ahmed Sheikh to 10 years in jail for murder and
attempt to murder. Eight others were sentenced to 18
months in prison for unlawful assembly, possessing
weapons and rioting.”
Out of the five convictions so far in l’affaire
Godhra, the above two rip the blindfold on Godhra that
the country was subjected to since March 2002. Those
two convictions conclusively prove that even as some
Hindus in Vadodra, Ahmedabad and a few other parts of
Gujarat were provoked into insane killing, arson and
loot by the S-6 carnage, the Muslims in that state
were hardly the cattle hiding from the slaughter house
that they have been made out by the “secularists” in
and outside our national English media. Do you, for
instance, recall reading about the mutilation of
Mukesh Panchal’s cadaver in any of the English print
media? Did you hear a sound byte about it on our TV?
Yes, despite all the media and the consequent
political, propaganda about the `genocide’ of
Gujarat’s Muslims, the reality is that some of that
community were also engaged in murder, rioting and
unlawful assembly with arms in hand.
This trend was discernible to the objective person
four years ago itself. Thus, in its issue of April 28,
2002, The Times of India reporter, Sanjay Pandey, told
us that of the 726 people who had been killed by then
in the post-Godhra riots, 168 were Hindus. In its
issue of June 24, 2002, India Today carried an article
saying that the official figure of all people killed
in Gujarat in the three months following the S-6
massacre was 800, of which a quarter were Hindus. The
Union Home Ministry’s Annual Report 2002-03 said that
about a third of the total dead in the Godhra riots
were Hindus. It also said that, at one stage, 40,000
Hindus were in riot relief camps.
Since no `secularist’ or `liberal’ or `objective’
person ever challenged the above sets of figures, some
questions arise: Who killed 200-odd Hindus so early in
those riots? Was it the police or the Hindus
themselves? And what made those 40,000 Hindus rush to
relief camps? Was it fear of Hindu mob violence, rape,
arson and murder?
More proof of the blindfold on Godhra came in 2005,
when the UPA coalition (comprising the `secular’
friends of Muslims) made a statement in Parliament
that 254 Hindus and 790 Muslims were killed in those
riots.
But our national media simply refused to remove the
blindfold on Godhra. Hence it was that the elites of
our society continued to rant about the Gujarat
`pogrom of genocide’; some cussed Indians even
conspired to deny a US visa to the Chief Minister of
one of the country’s fastest developing states.
Aiding and abetting that conspiracy were reports from
Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International et al. The
National Human Rights Commission joined in; written
lies by the likes of Arundhati Roy and fake e-mails
added fuel to the fire. All of them went to town about
the Gujarat `genocide’ with blinkers on, a blindfold
underneath. None wanted to touch upon the minority
community’s role in that tragedy.
But the latest criminal conviction of 16 Muslims
evokes the recall of the Justice Tewatia Report on the
Godhra issue published on April 26, 2002 under the
aegis of the Council For International Affairs And
Human Rights, based in New Delhi.
It was a report based on a six-day field study of a
team headed by Justice D.S. Tewatia, former Chief
Justice, Calcutta High Court and Punjab and Haryana
High Court. Its other members were Dr J.C. Batra,
senior advocate, Supreme Court, Dr Krishan Singh,
academician, Jawahar Lal Kaul, veteran journalist, and
Prof. B. K. Kuthiala, Dean, Faculty of Media Studies,
G.J. University, Hisar.
The five-man team visited three affected areas and
relief camps in Ahmedabad, interacting freely with the
public and members of both communities, and without
government interference. In Godhra, five delegations
from both communities and also of mixed composition
presented their views and facts to the team.
Similarly, free discussions with the public and
affected communities were held in Vadodra at seven
affected areas and five relief camps. It collected
information from the staff at the Godhra Railway
Station, district administration, including the
Collector and Police Commissioner, passengers
traveling in Sabarmati Express on 27.02.02 in S-6
compartment as well as in other compartments, staff of
the Fire Brigade, Godhra, reports in 22 newspapers and
nine magazines (local, regional and Delhi) and views
on media coverage articulated by some 500 persons
including intellectuals like lawyers, doctors and
businessmen. The site where the train was initially
stopped and stoned was also visited. A high point was
that 13 delegations consisting of 121 citizens met
Justice Tewatia’s team and presented their viewpoints
and information. The delegations ranged from the
Association of Hoteliers to a group of Vanvasis and
affected Muslim as well as Hindu women.
Based on the considerable oral, audio and visual
evidence obtained from the above interactions, the
Justice Tewatia team’s conclusions most relevant to
the blindfold on Godhra were as follows:
Burning of 58 Hindu pilgrims on February 27, 2002 was
an act carried out at the behest of then government of
Pakistan which had planned to burn the entire
Sabarmati Express carrying some 2000 passengers. The
primary objective was to create Hindu-Muslim communal
conflagration in India. The actual perpetrators were
jehadi elements in the predominantly Muslim town of
Godhra where
a very high traffic of telephone calls was recorded
between Godhra and Pakistan, especially Karachi,
before the date of the carnage
an abnormally large number of passports were issued,
there was a large number of persons without ration
cards
a large number of unemployed Muslims had mobile
phones,
though there is no tradition of being a Muslim pilgrim
center and the local Muslims are not affluent, three
istema (religious gatherings) have been held and
attended by large numbers of foreigners, and
an Assistant Collector (a young Muslim from eastern
UP) went on leave two days before the gory incident
and did not return till the middle of March though the
district of his posting was aflame with communal riots
much earlier.
The vacuum pipe between the Coaches No. S-6 and S-7
was cut thereby preventing any further movement of the
train. Miscreants threw bricks and stones at the train
as soon as it left Godhra railway station. The stoning
intensified after it finally stopped about 700 metres
from the station. The passengers of the train,
particularly Coaches S-5, S-6 and S-7, were the main
targets. Burning missiles and acid bulbs were thrown
on and in the coaches. One such acid missile landed in
Coach S-7 and a fire started which the passengers were
able to extinguish. But the attack continued and more
burning missiles were thrown into the Coach S-6.
In an effort to control the subsequent riots, the
Gujarat government
Publicly announced its decision to employ the Army on
the evening of the day riots began on February 28
(Within less than 24 hours at least one brigade of
Indian Army had air-landed at Ahmedabad),
Made preventive arrests of over 33,000 people,
Fired over 12,000 rounds of bullets,
Fired over 15,000 rounds of tear gas shells,
The involvement of Vanvasis in the post-Godhra riots
added a new dimension to the communal violence. In
rural areas the Vanvasis attacked the Muslim
moneylenders, shopkeepers and the forest contractors.
They used their traditional bow and arrows as also
their implements used to cut trees and grass while
attacking Muslims. They moved in groups and used coded
signals for communication. Apparently, the accumulated
anger of years of exploitation by Muslim moneylenders
(interest of 50 per cent per annum), shopkeepers and
forest contractors had become explosive after
moneylenders sexually exploited their womenfolk.
The media selected, distorted and added fiction to
prove their respective points of view. The code of
ethics prescribed by the Press Council of India was
violated by the media with impunity. It so enraged the
citizens that several concerned citizens in the
disturbed areas suggested that peace could return to
the state only if some of the TV channels were closed
for some weeks. Even the Vanvasis complained that the
media had no time to hear their agony and was
spreading canards against the Hindus. Newspapers
published in English from Delhi invariably
editorialised the news. Direct and indirect comments
in the news writing were so telling that the personal
likes and dislikes of the news reporters were too
obvious to be missed. They appeared to have assumed
the role of crusaders against the State Government
from day one. It coloured the entire operation of
newsgathering, feature writing and editorials.
Conclusions 1 to 4 above are indicators as to why our
national media, ever afraid to criticise the Muslim
and ever ready to indulge in BJP/Hindu bashing,
bypassed the Justice Tewatia Report, despite its high
credentials and the fact that it was publicly released
at a press conference in New Delhi. After all, our
`secular’ national media simply could not have
tolerated giving even a line to report’s conclusion 5
above. Hence, they simply buried the whole report
itself, put a blindfold on the country vision of it.
After all, they had found their Hindu-bashing agenda
in the post-Godhra riots and they were hell-bent in
pushing it full steam, right up to the Supreme Court
and beyond to the United Nations.
Will the criminal conviction of 16 by two separate
sessions judges in Ahmedabad remove the blindfold on
Godhra that the `monster media’ put on the people of
this country?
(The writer can be contacted at 202, Dosti Erica,
Antop Hill, Wadala (E), Mumbai 400 037.)
http://www.organiser.org/dynamic/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pi d=129&pa\
ge=17
Related story:
http://indiaview.wordpress.com/2007/08/10/wherere-human-rights-advocates
4. MNachiappan Says:
Posted on November 1st, 2007
The mis-use of history, politicization of history and the role of Indian historians have been intriguing in Indian context.
The Marxist, Communist, progressive, secular brand of historians earlier dubbed other historians as nationalist, communal, Hindutva and so on. But, how why and how they themselves indulge in their own way of “fascism” dubbng others as fascists?
What right historian have by misinterpreting history and set people fight with each other in the name of history?
How a history of India could be interpreted differently in 5 / 6 or dozens of interpretations? If a fact is fact, historical fact, why different views come?
As for as the response to Tehelka by foreign historians has been quite amusing.
July 17, 2010 at 7:30 am |
[…] [4] Vedaprakash, Historian’s interest, Tehelka’s sensation and Common-man’s response, https://indiainteracts.wordpress.com/2009/07/16/historian%E2%80%99s-interest-tehelka%E2%80%99s-sensat… […]