Archive for the ‘K. Sadasivan’ 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

Thomas myth spread by Historians – Historian-liars on the increase in India!

October 17, 2015

Thomas myth spread by Historians – Historian-liars on the increase in India!

I was surprised to see an article / paper written by one Dr. K. Sadasivan, Professor & Head. Department of History, Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, Tirunelveli appearing in the “Journal of Indian History and Culture” (JIHC) March 2003, Tenth issue, published by C. P. Ramaswami Iyer Institute of Indological Research, The C. P. Ramaswami Aiyar Foundation, 1, Eldams Road, Chennai – 600 018. The journal is edited by Dr. G. J. Sudhakar and the editorial board consists of –

  Dr. K. V. Raman,

  Dr. R. Nagaswami,

  Dr, T. K. Venkatasubramanian and

  Dr. Nandita Krishna.

The editor in his note recorded –

“Dr. K. Sadasivan, of Manonmaniam Sundaranar University has added his scholarship to this issue through his paper “Early Tamil oral, Literary and Archaeological traditions and St. Thomas Christians

The learned editor’s complimented paper is appearing in the journal spreading to twenty pages (JIHC, pp.17-38). What and how the Professor has added his scholarship? Anything new? NO.

The learned Professor has just vomited what the propagandist missionaries and fraudulent group has already aided and abetted with the unscrupulous Archbishop & fundamentalist elements. Dr. Sadasivam has ironically not read what Dr. N. Nagaswamy has written about “the doubtful Thomas”. He has happily concluded as follows:

It can be understood from the foregoing study that even in the absence of any documented history, the universal and local Christian traditions are unanimous in their views that St. Thomas arrived in India in 52 A. D., reached Mylapore via the west-coast (Thirivithancode-Aralvaimozhi pass), performed there his apostolic service in converting the natives to his religious fold and suffered martyrdom there at the hands of a native in A. D. though there are differing versions are there about his killer(s) and the place of his martyrdom. Moreover, the presence of a strong St. Thomas community, the tomb, the Chapel and the Cross, and the architectural remains, makes us believe that St. Thomas was living among the Tamils of first century A. D. however, it is premature to postulate a theory of Christian influence in Tamil works, particularly, Tirukkural, though it seems to display the possibility of having been influenced by the Bible or Christ/s Sermon on the Mount. But, a spark of Christian influence on the Tirukkural is not impossible as this didactic work is believed to have been written in the second century A. D., when St. Thomas Christians in the West Coast were still entrenched and began spreading the Gospel of Christ” (pp.33-34).

   So the cat is out. Denying Christian influence on Tirukkural is to place it in 2nd century and accept it! This makes one to remember what M/s. Arulappa and Acharya Paul Company has done in early 1980s. Now who is doing that to make Sadasivam to come to the same conclusion?

   He asserts to conclude: “the universal and local Christian traditions are unanimous”. What is that universal tradition? Something alien or superman-type? Came from heavens or sent by Christ and revealed to Sadasivam? And that too the traditions are unanimous! It is unfortunate that as an historian should he lie like this.

   . Moreover, the presence of a strong St. Thomas community, the tomb, the Chapel and the Cross, and the architectural remains, makes us believe that St. Thomas was living among the Tamils of first century A. D. Are the historians so naïve and gullible to believe instead of asking for historical evidences? Definitely, something has happened to this gang of historians who decided to accommodate such false, that too, already well-known forgery and fraudulent act. Who gives such dating of first century A. D and all? Not only his dating is wrong but also the notation, as now only BCE and CE are used. The learned historian has been so “christianic” to follow Anno Domini! Any way to follow fraudulent and forge history such dubious dates have to be followed.

    “But, a spark of Christian influence on the Tirukkural is not impossible as this didactic work is believed to have been written in the second century A. D., when St. Thomas Christians in the West Coast were still entrenched and began spreading the Gospel of Christ”. Very well indeed. Had Arulappa been alive, he would have generously funded to Sadasivam of Tirunelveli,  as he did to Acharya Paul of Sri Rangam. How e gets the same “research methodology” of Arulappa and Co.?

   The acknowledgement of Dr. G. J. Sudhakar is unbelievable: “Dr. K. Sadasivan, of Manonmaniam Sundaranar University has added his scholarship to this issue through his paper “Early Tamil oral, Literary and Archaeological traditions andSt. Thomas Christians“. He has been a history Professor of Loyola College, editor of several history-journals, office-bearer of IHC, SIHC, TNHC etc. So his admission and appreciation of “scholarship” aiding and abetting false history, fraudulent history etc., is intriguing and appears to be heading for dangerous situation.

   Dr. Nandita Krishna has been of course not new for the spread of myth, as she has already contributed her mite in “The Hindu”. For details: See www.hamsa.org However, being a great-daughter of C. P. Ramaswami Iyer in his name the Foundation runs and publishes this journal, this is something unfortunate, as she could have avoided it. At least, she could have told Sudhakar not to publish it. But, what is done becomes history!

   Anyway, why Indian historians have been becoming liars? One has to study this aspect.