Archive for the ‘Duke University’ Category

ICHR – the politicization started with the Congress, Communists and Mohammedans and continues!

December 26, 2019

ICHR – the politicization started with the Congress, Communists and Mohammedans and continues!

ICH politics 2019

The Politicization of ICHR and Savarkar: The politicization of ICHR has been started by historians themselves since early 1960s with the connivance of the Marxists and Mohammedans. This has been blatantly revealed through their manipulation of the proceedings of the ICHR itself. The proceedings of the IHC, particularly, the business session exposed many times, how the so-called great historians have been more unruly than the politicians in shouting and even ready to fight. Even in the recent Savarkar issue, they get exposed. Days after the Rajasthan Congress government removed “veer” from references to VD Savarkar from its textbooks, Rajasthan University has now declined a request from the Indian Council for Historical Research, an autonomous academic body funded by the Government of India, to have a seminar on the Hindutva figurehead[1]. The event, part of a multi-city talk series planned by the ICHR, backed by the history-rewriting wing of the RSS affiliate, Akhil Bharatiya Itihas Sankalan Yojana, “The truth about Savarkar” was launched, on the occasion of National Education Day, commemorated every year on India’s first education minister Maulana Abul Kalam Azad’s birthday[2]. The talk series will mainly focus on “confronting lies about Savarkar and his writings on the 1857 war of independence”, ICHR officials said.

Indira Gandhi fecognized Savarkar

Rajasthan University versus ICHR for conducting a seminar on Savarkar [November 2019]: Rajasthan university officials confirmed to ET that they had “declined” the request for space for the seminar as “certain aspects of Savarkar were deeply controversial”. The other seminars of ICHR on Savarkar were to be held in Jaipur, Guwahati, Port Blair, Pune and some other cities. “We had sought space and permission from the Rajasthan University to hold a talk series on Savarkar in their campus but they got back saying we could choose any other topic,” an ICHR functionary told ET. Pramila Poonia, head of the department of history and culture, Rajasthan University, told ET that they had not agreed when ICHR had presented them the proposal on hosting a seminar on Savarkar. “We didn’t refuse entirely but we asked them for time for a month, and more details because we need to consult others on this. There are aspects of Savarkar that are controversial and we did not want any problem.”

Mahathma Gandhi fecognized Savarkar
Historians biased on Savarkar: Recently, during the Maharashtra campaign, BJP had promised a Bharat Ratna for Savarkar that had led to a lot of debate. Rajasthan chief minister Ashok Gehlot had specifically criticised this, and had called the BJP “a party with a fascist ideology” with no regard for anyone’s sentiment. Balmukund Pandey of the ABISY, who looks after the Sangh Parivar’s “rewriting history from the Indian perspective”, project told ET that it is high time “the country got to know about the sacrifices made by Savarkar and his brothers”. “His ideas are important for the country to be on the right track.” At the ICHR, four research professors talked about ways to “confront the character assassination” of Savarkar, particularly about his mercy petitions to the British, which they said, “was typical of the language used by many leaders then”. “He was a trained legal mind who was aware of his rights, and he ended it every time saying if not him, at least his companions should be released”, Raghuvendra Tanwar, professor, Kurukshetra University, told the audience, adding the conspiracy to keep Savarkar out of mainstream politics was designed by the British because, he, unlike Swami Vivekananda or Lok Manya Tilak looked at the political revival of Hindutva. “He was the first leader who brought out the truth about the independence struggle of 1857 on a global platform with his book in 1909. For him, the essentials of Hindutva were the essentials of nationalism. We must never forget that Bhagat Singh had a lot of respect for him and was instrumental in getting his book published in Lahore.”

How leadrers perceive recognize Savarkar
The left and Savarkar: Another speaker Himanshu Rai, who is a researcher at the Nehru Memorial Museum and Library, took on the writings of authors Tanika Sarkar, Shamshul Islam and AG Noorani, on Savarkar calling them “divisive”. “The left always had a problem with him, because even in jail he started the process of Shuddhi, of encouraging prisoners not to convert…” Rizwan Qaiser, professor, department of history, Jamia Millia Islamia, said it was inappropriate of the ICHR to honour Savarkar on Maulana Abul Kalam Azad’s birthday. “Azad was always very critical of the Sangh Parivar’s divisive politics and in 1952, in Rampur, he openly blamed them for driving the Muslims to the corner which led to the partition. Savarkar’s writings have always been exclusionary of the Muslims. Even his book on 1857 represents the struggle as a pan-India uprising which it was not. Some facts cannot be changed.”

Veer Savarkar and Hindutwa

Modi and Shah filling ICHR “historian with little or no professional standing” [December 2019]: Most importantly, they [Modi and Shah] have deployed their newfound and growing power with an alarming clarity of vision. To that end, they have appointed individuals with dubious intellectual qualifications to key governmental institutions with the explicit goal of promoting and disseminating a radical Hindu ideology[3]. For example, the government, even during its first term, chose a historian with little or no professional standing, to head the apex Indian Council of Historical Research. Since the council is responsible for directing the content of history textbooks, this appointment was fraught with significance[4]. Can columnist write in this way, as if she knows everything about ICHR and what has been going on since 1960s?

ICHR dissolved committee

When government changes, all the departments and institutions, rearranged: As the political parties have been ruling, it is quite natural that their appointees occupy positions in every department, institution, courts and other places. ICHR has been thus dominated by the Communists and Mohammedans of all sorts, whereas, the paper says, that “the Indian Council for Historical Research (ICHR) has disbanded the advisory committee of its journal comprising 21 eminent historians from around the world”, including Romila Thapar and Irfan Habib[5]. The council’s member-secretary Gopinath Ravindran opposed the decision taken during a meeting of the journal’s editorial board held this week, people familiar with the matter told ET[6]. That means it is only between him and the paper. The decision to “disband the committee” is among the first taken by the country’s top historical research body after it was reconstituted by the NDA government in January, 2015. Yes, as UPA did and earlier Congress did. The Indian Historical Review is the refereed journal of the ICHR that has been publishing research work in history since 1974. It is one of the few Indian journals found on the prestigious Thomson Reuters list. The panel was disbanded in a meeting of the journal’s editorial board, headed by ICHR Chairman Y Sudershan Rao, on Tuesday, May 15, 2015.

Romila thapar versus YS Rao
Advisory Committee and all are just ornamental and they do not do any work – a known fact [2015]: The membership of the new advisory committee is now limited to the 18 historians on ICHR’s governing body. The advisory committee included Satish Chandra, Muzaffar Alam from the University of Chicago, Richard M Eaton of the University of Arizona, BR Tomlinson from London’s School of Oriental and African Studies and JS Grewal, former vice-chancellor of Guru Nanak Dev University in Amritsar. Although the advisory members are not actively involved in producing the biannual journal, they help in reviewing articles that appear in it. “A panel of eminent historians lends lustre to the journal. It adds to its credibility,” said Professor BP Sahu of Delhi University, a former ICHR member. Ravindran, who also serves as the managing editor of IHR, opposed the decision on the grounds that it wasn’t backed by any “academic logic”, one of the persons cited earlier said. Ravindran, a professor of history at Jamia Millia Islamia in New Delhi, who was appointed as ICHR’s member secretary under the previous UPA II government, declined to comment on the matter. Rao, however, defended the decision saying the appointment of the advisory panel for IHR is purely the prerogative of the journal’s editorial board. “There is nothing unusual or wrong about this,” he said.

ICHR the leftist monopoly
Professor Dilip Chakrabarti of Cambridge University is the new chief editor of the journal: Thapar told ET that Romila Thapar had received no official communication about her removal from IHR’s advisory panel. Asked if she was surprised by the news of her removal, she said, “Not really. One can see from the membership of the new council which direction they are heading into.” Reacting to the decision to limit the panel’s membership to just ICHR members, she said, “The whole point of the advisory board is that you can search far and wide for people who have expertise in various subjects. If you limit the membership of the advisory board to just members of the ICHR, you are, in a sense, annulling the purpose of the advisory board, which is to get as wide an opinion as possible on what to put into the journal.” This development comes close on the heels of historian Sabyasachi Bhattacharya’s resignation from the post of chief editor of the journal last month. Although Bhattacharya gave no official reason for quitting, media reports suggested he was unhappy with the “direction” the ICHR is taking. Professor Dilip Chakrabarti of Cambridge University is the new chief editor of the journal. What is the problem for Romila Thapar or Irfan Habib? Do they expect that they should e there forever!

ICHR the leftist monopoly-dominance

Left versus Right: If the left now feels that they are getting less postings, it is natural because, they have been enjoying government postings, grants and all other facilities since 1960s. As they have monopolized ICHR, ICCSR, UGC etc., now they feel so. It is also corruption and sickness of their highly intellectual minds to insist and persist that they should continue. There is no meaning in accusing BJP or RSS, as they have been working with their outfits that have been dominating since 1960s. The regulars of IHC and ICCSR conferences and seminars have noted the fact. How the grants for publication and foreign travel were distributed among themselves also consciously noted. Now perhaps, their share would get reduced and that is why they start crying and shouting. Had they been real historians, they would be contended and quite without raising noise and crating controversies getting exposed in this way. When all are retiring, these people should also retire, as they have become senile.

© Vedaprakash

25-12-2019

ICHR the leftist monopoly-dominance versus right

[1] Economic Times, No space for Savarkar: Rajasthan University tells ICHR, By  Vasudha Venugopal, ET Bureau, Nov 12, 2019, 09.14 AM IST.

[2] http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/no-space-for-savarkar-rajasthan-university-tells-ichr/articleshow/72016518.cms

[3] Foreign Policy, Secularism Is Dying in India, by Sumit Ganguly, December 11, 2019, 7:41 PM.

[4] http://foreignpolicy.com/2019/12/11/secularism-is-dying-in-india/

[5] Economic Times, ICHR dissolves advisory panel comprising Romila Thapar & Irfan Habib, By Ritika Chopra, ET Bureau, May 16, 2015, 04.00 AM IST

[6] https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/ichr-dissolves-advisory-panel-comprising-romila-thapar-irfan-habib/articleshow/47303073.cms?from=mdr&fbclid=IwAR0WvTbTLm1xr_wAjaOgUI7sikO_m0CXCJZVJwhGVpFG00JHf4nGDR9rByQ

Romila Thapar, Duke University, Methodist Church or Romila Thapar, Secularism, Secular history: The Role of Historian and Social Change!

July 16, 2009
Romila Thapar, Duke University, Methodist Church or Romila Thapar, Secularism, Secular history: The Role of Historian and Social Change!
Published on October 23rd, 2007 In Uncategorized, Politics |  Views 410
Romila Thapar, Duke University, Methodist Church orRomila Thapar, Secularism, Secular history: The Role of Historian and Social Change! I am happy to know that, “The Historian in the World: A Conversation with John Hope Franklin and Romila Thapar” will take place at 3 p.m. in the Divinity School’s Goodson Chapel on Duke’s West Campus. It is free and open to the public. Srinivas Aravamudan, director of the John Hope Franklin Humanities Institute, will moderate the discussion”. http://www.dukenews .duke.edu/ 2007/10/conversa tion.htmlI am more anxious what the historians discuss there in the Divinity School’s Goodson Chapel on Duke’s West Campus on October 22, 2007!

“the DivinitySchool’s Goodson Chapel on Duke’s West Campus” made me curious to look into the details. The University claims that, “The Duke University is related the Methodist Church”.

For details see: “Duke University”s Relation to the Methodist Church”:  http://library.duke.edu/uarchives/history/duke-umchh.html

  •      Well, it is all right, bt how the reportedly Communist or Marxist, progressive, secuar Romila Thapar would be speaking there in the, “the Divinity School’s Goodson Chapel on Duke’s West Campus”?
  •      How “Two distinguished scholars will share their views of the role of the historian and social change”?
  •      Would they discuss within the Charter, bylaws, aims, and mission statement” or they go beyond?

The “Charter, bylaws, aims, and mission statement” contains a provision, as follows:

The aims of Duke University are to assert a faith in the eternal union of knowledge and religion set forth in the teachings and character of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; to advance learning in all lines of truth; to defend scholarship against all false notions and ideals; to develop a Christian love of freedom and truth; to promote a sincere spirit of tolerance; to discourage all partisan and sectarian strife; and to render the largest permanent service to the individual, the state, the nation, and the church. Unto these ends shall the affairs of this University always be administered”.http://library.duke.edu/uarchives/history/charterlink.html

How Ropmila Thapar hailing from “Secular India” is going to be accommodative, conducive and recptive to such Christians principles in the name of Jesus Christ? This makes me remember as to how the Christian Crusades, marriages and other functions are held at the “Periyar Tidal” (auditourium with big hall) at Chennai, India. The podium / stage there bear the Cross-believing Christians and the atheists, who speak against the God, scriptures and believers! Like that, would the “the Divinity School’s Goodson Chapel on Duke’s West Campus” bear the secular, progressive and sectarian Romila Thapar there in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of God?

Just remember, what she wrote about Jesus Christ, when she was accusing Rama, the Hindu God as a myth:

This does not happen with the biographies of those who were known to be historical figures and who founded belief systems: the Buddha, Jesus Christ, Mohammad. Their biographies adhere largely to a single story-line and this helps to endorse the ‘official’ narrative of their life. Their existence is recorded in other sources as well that are not just narratives of their lives but have diverse associations…..”.

At that time, I had responded as follows:

Their biographies adhere largely to a single story-line and this helps to endorse the ‘official’ narrative of their life.Why they should largely adhere to a single line? How this helps “official” narrative? How “official” it could be of “their life”? Why can’t you write as a historian instead of believer here? That the “biographers” were compelled or forced to accept or adhere to a single line proves that many lines were left out. And still small number of biographers who did not adhere to a single line is also exposed. Then, what you are talking about? Majority view and minority view? Condemn the “lesser” and accept or approve the Larger”! Adhere to one-line and forget many lines! What sort of historian you are? That man Karu has become a senile man and talks differently. Do you also do the same think as a senile lady?How you endorse such one-liners? Is there any historical methodology to that effect? Which University teaches such approving of one-line biography by eminent historians like you?Do not fool Indians. Ernest Renan, J. M. Robertson and so many reputed authorities are there on the subject matter of Jesus Christ and Christianity. Any way, it is your cowardice gets exposed, as you never whispered anything, when there was much Christian opposition to screening of “Da Vinci Code”. However, when the so-called “Hindutva judgment” came out, you vociferously jumped and asserted that “We would go to Court”. Everything appeared in “the Hindu” itself with your face. Madam, what happened? But now you come siding with atheists, anti-Hindus, anti-nationals as a historian suppressing the recent past and forgetting your own past!

Their existence is recorded in other sources as well that are not just narratives of their lives but have diverse associations. So also Rama. Why then your argument goes differently.In fact, their associations differ. But, Ramayana core story, as H. D. Sankalia in his “Ramayana Myth or Reality”  that it had been there nearly for 3000 years.How “That their existences is recorded in other sources” help you to decide?

It may be noted that historians and scholars have pointed out that Christ story was copied from
Krishna! Rama was repeatedly mentioned in different literature not because of variance, but influence and impact created on the people well before 2500-3000 YBP. Was the Sangam poet a fool to record in his poem about his discussion with his army about the mode of crossing over the ocean to Lanka”. How that poet was imaging that that Lanka should have been the Lanka of Ramayana in his times i.e, 2500 – 3000 YBP?”

Definitely, the Americans and American Christian believers might be knowing about the background and the implications revoving around the discussion. So, we Indians are eagerly waiting to see as to how tshe is going to discuss within the conditions of the University and Christian belief system or she would have courage to vent our her genuine feeling as sjhe has been doing here in India against Hindus. As she has recently started supporting the atheist political party DK-DMK-PMK combine of the ruling combine (supported by the Communist-Marxist political parties from outside), we look forward the discussion to fulfil the following conditions:

The aims of Duke University are to assert a faith in the eternal union of knowledge and religion set forth in the teachings and character of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; V     to advance learning in all lines of truth; to defend scholarship against all false notions and ideals; to develop a Christian love of freedom and truth; V     to promote a sincere spirit of tolerance; to discourage all partisan and sectarian strife; and V     to render the largest permanent service to the individual, the state, the nation, and the church.

Unto these ends shall the affairs of this University always be administered

The activities of Duke foundation have been obviously Christian:

For details: click and see http://www.dukeendowment.org/ruralchurch

VEDAPRAKASH

22-10-2007.