AMU Times

Illegal AMU Centre at Mallapuram, Kerala

2012-01-15T14:49:00.001+05:30

AMU Centre, Malappuram Non-existent:Dedicated to the Nation by Sibal: Unworthy Rulers!P. M. reassurance to the Nation may hold promise for AMU too! This declaration was made at Malappuram on 24.12.11 with all the fanfare with posters of Congress leaders, Sonia Gandhi, Rahul, Indira Gandhi, Dr. ManMohan Singh etc. A grand Congress Party show. Malappuram Centre has the temerity to display its own emblem, as an independent institution! This is a fraud played on the Nation, Muslims and AMU; as the Centre cannot legally be created under AMU Act. nor is the Govt. so empowered of its own nor the clandestinely and fraudulently proposed amendments of the Statutes approved by the competent Parliament (as required under the Section 31 (4) and (5) of the AMU Act), nor is the Visitor empowered to approve the amendments of Statutes as claimed nor is the AMU empowered to offer concessions to Muslims (as the Minority Status has been struck down by the Court in 2005 (no efforts made by the VC and MHRD to bring fresh amendments in the Act. to meet the Court objections to restore the status).Moreover, two PIL are pending in UP, High Court against the establishment of AMU Centres and the University and the Govt. who have nothing to defend their designs are using delaying tactics to prolong the proceedings. Azis s confession that the next VC may not continue with these Centres speak loud and clear of the hollowness of the whole exercise. This should settle the issue that the Centres are illegal and non-existent. Look at the double standards. MHRD (under Shri Sibal) had issued, stern direction (18.8.11) to cut, curtail and rationalize expenditures to AMU and all other Govt. organizations and the Visitor (10.8.2011) restrained the VC from taking policy decisions, involving long term financial, academic and administrative implications. Yet the same Shri Sibal became instrumental for the inauguration function of non-existing AMU Centre at huge cost of millions, without any justification and persuaded and permitted the besieged VC to dash to Kishanganj (29.12.11) with a delegation of six and put up a big show to sign the land deal with Bihar Govt. for the establishment of a new AMU Centre, not yet approved by the Govt. Are the Govt. and MHRD not hands in glove with the conniving VC and allowed to violate their own unique restrain orders openly and profusely. They are definitely unworthy to rule and rely upon. It is untrue that the Govt. had ever promised to allocate a thousand crores for any AMU Centre as claimed by the VC (1. 1. 12) leave alone Kishanganj. The total allocations made in Union budget- 2010 – 2011 – Rs. 25 crores each for Murshidabad and Malappuram of which 25 were released for the former and only 10 crores for the later and the utilization of the grants made has not been authorized by the competent EC and FC (over 10crores were spent by the VC unauthorizedly).2011- 2012 – Rs 50 crores for each but the money has not been released nor had the University asked for it. At no point of time, the Govt. made any promise or hinted for allocating a thousand crore or more as claimed by the unreliable boasting VC. Actually, this is all a political stunt and purely a temporary phase and has nothing to do with the welfare of Muslims and their upliftment, but to garner Muslims votes instead as the dispensation (Centres) are legally and practically untenable. We are not very sure, anybody in the Country, has time and concern to take note of the Govt. taking such a liberty but the Muslims and AMU cannot remain mere spectators to the Govt.’s high-handedness, exploitation and making a mockery of everything to have their way, despite the protests by the Teachers’ Association (AMUTA) Old Boys and the well-wishers, Shri Sibal ventured to preside over the inauguration and dedicated the Centre. Congress has always been like this. 4.5% reservation and now 9% are the glaring examples.The frontal role of Muslim League for its electoral gains is all the more objectionable and most disappointing. Things have come to such a pass, that the Muslim organization, ML, openly operating against AMU and Muslims interests, for the petty gains of ML, was unthinkable and horrifying. ML has come a long way from the days of Sulaiman Sait and Banatwala and ceased to play pro-Muslim card, needs a second look, by us all. This is an alarming situation and raises several questions which require answers;Who is this all powerful Shri Sibal who is above law and has dedicated a non-existing so-called Centre? Where and how does this AMU Centre exist? What are the custodians of law and champions of justice in the Country doing and allowed this? How long the Congress be allowed to exploit Muslims for votes and keep them deprived at the same time? To what are the Muslim political and religions leadership upto? Whos interest they are protecting? Do they have lost all senses and accepted to play stooge for all time to come for personal petty considerations. Should the AMU Community be taken for granted? Or they consider themselves answerable as enlightened and responsible class to whose care fortunately or unfortunately the Alma Matter has been given and are determined to deliver, even if left alone.Hope is generated, however, by the renewed assurance of the P. M. on the New Year eve that his Govt. shall provide a more efficient and honest governance. Let us see what comes out of the deliberately much delayed CBI. CVC and CAG probe report (PE submitted before 11.1.2012 in view of the hearing under PIL before Delhi High Court coming up on 11th) by 17.1. 2012 the day the guilty Azis, quits office, most unwillingly and reluctantly as the Govt. found itself without powers to retain him in office a day beyond 17.1.12.Anyway, before the Govt. reaches for the inevitable, is it expecting too much from the most honorable VC to quit peacefully and gracefully on his own before 17.1.12!!!It is learned that Azis has no repentance and regrets for the wrongs and the harm done to the Alma Mater and why should he be expected to behave honourably?
Readers, please respond at ziauddinahmad(at)yahoo.co.in
Prof. Ziauddin Ahmad (Retd)
Dept of Botany
AMU, Aligarh

AMU Affairs – Centres: Sibal lied and lied again! So what?

2011-11-22T10:23:00.003+05:30

What has happened? Mr. Shahi ex-Advocate General, now Minister HRD, Bihar, sought an appointment and met Shri Kapil Sibal on 3.11.11 in connection with the proposed AMU Centre at Kishanganj. Shri Sibal informed him that nothing can be done now as a writ is pending in the High Court (Ref. T01, Patna dated 12.11 11) Thereafter, the protagonists of AMU Centre (largely Muslims and those belonging to ruling Congress) rushed to Shri Sibal and pet came the reply that the case pending in the Court has been disposed of, meaning thereby there are no hurdles.This is a lie: Two PIL are pending in Allahabad High Court by Z K Faizan and S.M. Subhan Naqvi and a stay order too and the University and MHRD are buying time to prolong the case. Moreover, required Statutes for the establishment of these Centres have not yet been amended. But the Centres are functioning under the umbrella of UPA. Instead and more importantly it was incumbent on Shri Sibal in the light of the Visitors restrain order (dated 10.8.11) to enlighten Bihar and misled Muslims and others (if any) protagonists the Co-ordination Committee of AMU Centres, straight away that nothing can be done now in the matter of establishment of Centres as it constitutes policy decision of far-reaching consequences (financial and otherwise) disallowed by the Visitor! But surprisingly, Shri Sibal preferred to enlighten that the VC can take any actions he deems fit in the matter and has all the powers, which is wrong and mischievous. Besides the restrain imposed by the Visitor, the University requires the approval of all its Authorities- Court, E.C, AC, and Faculties in the matter, and the VC is positively powerless.Furthermore on the basis of AMU experiences with MHRD and Shri Sibal, it could safely be concluded that Shri Sibal purposely avoided referring the Visitor’s order because MHRD is keeping silence rather encouraging the non observance of the Visitors order in several actions taken by the shielded VC). Similarly, the same Shri Sibal claimed (on record) that his Ministry has no role in the establishment of extremely controversial and blatantly illegal AMU Centres and it is the University own doing (as if, of late the University has been bestowed with unlimited powers.) This was also a big lie. Not only the MHRD, the entire UPA Govt. were providing guidance, strategic support, money (sanctions in the Union budget, fraudulently 2009-2010) and fool-proof cover to VC to mis-use powers. Shri Salman Khurshid holds the same view. This also reminds us of public pronouncement Shri Sibal made on 2G losses with all authority at his command and got exposed.On TV Shri Sibal in the heat of the discussion offered to face punishment, if he has done a wrong. It follows from the confidence he exuberated that telling lies, mis-interpreting laws, making false promises and denials do not constitute wrongs. They are strategies to survive and the Cabinet Ministers are within their rights to adopt this whenever it suits them. Education under the jurisdiction of such a person is a definite casualty, a blunder!Important:1. So-called AMU Centres are out rightly illegal and anti-University and do not stand a chance before the law.2. Every now and then there is an appeal, demand rather an upheaval for Unity amongst Muslims for justifiable reasons but it cannot be achieved the way we treat each other- AMU is mis-treated by Muslims themselves as agents of the Govt. or for ulterior personal gains? By and large Community has played no noticeable role to help AMU in this hour of crisis, giving the ill-intentioned UPA room to meddle with AMU the way it suits them.

Prof. Ziauddin Ahmad

Dept of Botany, AMU Aligarh

He can be reached at

ziauddinahmad.(AT).yahoo.co.in

AMU: Visitor Looking The Other Way Or Is The Silence Meaningful?

2011-11-16T23:34:00.002+05:30

AMU: Visitor Looking The Other Way Or Is The Silence Meaningful?

Apparently large amount of complaints and institution of CBI, CAG and CVC probes by the Visitor and the fag end of the tenure of the VC, Abdul Azis (retiring in Jan, 2012) forced the Visitors to issue directives (advisory) dated 10.8.11 to restrain the VC *………………restrained from making appointments ………….. as also form taking any policy decision which may have long term financial or other implications on the executive and academic functioning of the ‘University*

But the VC who has been violating rules at will with impunity (asserted in meetings ‘I am the law’ and at the same time vehemently denied publicly that he has not violated any rules). Would he as habitual defaulter, have any hesitation in defying the directives of the Visitors?

1. Irresistible VC, making all out attempts to prompt and instigate the Muslims residents of Kishanganj Malegoan and Aurangabad rather playing a Muslim card to provide land free of cost to the University for the establishment of the so-called (illegal and anti-University) Centres.

Moreover no funds have been sanctioned for Kishanganj or Malegoan or Aurangabad and the funds required should be of the order of about 400 crores for each Centre as proposed by Fatimi Committee of the MHRD. The fate of Murshidabad and Malappuram Centres is too well known because of the acute shortage of funds.

Furthermore, the University has not approved Centres at Malegoan and Aurangabad nor did it authorize the VC for the purpose nor is the VC so empowered. However, the recklessness of the VC is abound and the Govt. which cannot plead ignorance of the traits of the VC, was expected to keep a close watch to contain the VC, failed tamely.

Not only this he has dared a delegation, of five senior teachers to Aurangabad etc on 25^th Oct 2011 by air despite the ban imposed on financial expenditures by the MHRD (18.8.11)

2. Proposed taking over of the Union Sec. School, a private School, by the University.

3. Proposed introduction of new admission system for admission to Medical faculty

4. Expenditures are being incurred on air-travels, visits, conferences, celebrations and entertainments, in lakhs of rupees without exercising any restrain as desired by MHRD (18.8.11)

All these issues fall under policy matters with far-reaching financial and administrative and academic implications and the imposed financial crunch, are therefore, in abundant defiance of the Visitors/MHRD directives.

Shri Kapil Sibal was very much expected (4.11.2011) to sound the Bihar Govt. on .seeking clarification on the establishment of Centre at Kishanganj, that the Visitor’s directive does not permit such a policy decision. Instead, perhaps in his ignorance or otherwise, referred the writ pending in the High Court, as the reason for restraining to proceed in the matter.

Obviously, after having issued the directives it was incumbent on the Govt. to remain watchful and take all appropriate actions to insure the observance of the directives issued

But the Govt. has clearly faltered and failed to contain the unstoppable VC, Is it really a failure due to connivance or the Govt. has other ideas and waiting for the CBI report which is due any day, Justice, however, demanded that the Govt. should have acted now to stop the VC from such misadventures and the liberties enjoyed by the besieged VC in every day functioning reflects upon the Govt. credibility.

Important: So-called AMU Centres are misconceived, out rightly illegal, anti-University and shall not stand a chance in the Court of Law (two PIL pending in the Court)!

The report of the CBI probe is expected any day! Actually it was due in Oct. itself per schedule!

Waese loot machi hai ! Ek-ek din bhari hai

Prof. Ziauddin Ahmad (Retd.)
Dept of Botany
Aligarh Muslim University
Aligarh

He can be reached at

ziauddinahmad.(AT).yahoo.co.in

Hidden Agenda of Congress Party in Destroying AMU's Residential Character?

2011-11-06T11:40:00.007+05:30

Subject: AMU centres...No one answers the questions just going on invasively....

Dear All

ASAK,

Some of the alumni have a legitimate concern about the direction, our debate both for and against the centers is taking; personal comments and biases have also come to the fore and it is but natural that some of us are perturbed over that. However, just being a good human doesn't make one immune from personal and other influences and sometimes they do affect initiatives as well as responses.

Some points of information first:--

* Till date no post i.e. teaching as well as non teaching has been sanctioned for the centers. All posts on which appointments have been made have been illegally transferred from the Campus, by depriving and starving the Departments here at Aligarh.

* Crores of rupees recieved from different funding agencies has been siphoned off for the Centers. For example, the Ministry of Health, GOI, specially sanctioned approx Rs. One Crore to purchase critical care equipment such as Ventilators at the JNMC Hospital, this has been diverted to build boundary walls at Mallapuram/Murshidabad, meanwhile persons continue to die at Aligarh.

* The University has been generally refusing travel grant to attend conferences from May this financial year, despite the VC's proclamations to the contrary, however about Rs Three lacs were spent on TA/DA for appointment of guest faculty at these Centers. A little more was spent on the visit to Maharashtra. Where did this money come from? No special grant has been given for these inspection tours by the UGC/ MHRD.It is the AMU that you know that is bearing this burden from its normal grant.

I would liike to give a point by point response to the questions being asked in this thread, but some of the points were already answered a few months back by some of us, as a first step therefore, I am again posting a few lines sent earlier (in May 2010) with the commitment that I hope to present a really brief response in a day or two

"... many ...persons at AMU and outside feel, that despite everything else 'the establishment of Centres is a big achievement of AMU'.This sentiment has dominated the web space but not the real world, where there is a gut feeling that something is not quite right but, there are not enough cogent arguments to articulate the feeling.I am worried about whom to address? and, Whom to focus on? As far as AMU Centres are concerned. There is total confusion on what has been done? Who has done what? What are we trying to do? There is no reason to doubt anybody's sincerity on either side of the divide except of course of politicians, those with a questionable past and their hangers on. Except for these everyone has the best interests of the institution at heart.

At the risk of being taken to be long winded, pedantic, heavy and also confused I would invite you to consider the following

There are three main issues involved here, that may be asked as questions and whose answers may help in bringing clarity, the first issue is who benefits from these centers? The second is, is it beneficial or harmful for the university as an institution to go ahead with this endevour? And the final question (which is connected to the second) is do the existing laws make any provision to set up centers or shall we have to go in for amendment of the Act?

Let's start with a rhetorical question

"Who benefits from these Centers?"

Answer would be "Muslims obviously"

The next question should be 'How?'

This is where you do not have a glib response, you have to pause and ponder, because the University does not reserve seats for Muslims and, has never done so except a misadventure recently which is now in the Supreme Court of India, it does not give preferential admission to Muslims, it in fact is barred by law to practise any sort of discrimination.

So 'How?' still remains unanswered!

An additional weak argument that, these centers are in Muslim majority areas so more Muslims would get in, doesn't hold water as admission is by merit not by region or religion.

Additionally you only have to look at the statements made by Mr. Nitish Kumar and by the VC Prof Azis that these centers shall not have any reservation for Muslims and they are open to everyone. Similar statements regarding AMU in the context of minority colleges and institutions have also been made by the Minority affairs minister Mr. Salman Khursheed.

The logical corollary of the above would be `Then why this song and dance about the centers?'

This is where a little reflection would reveal the dirty business of politics, all political parties know that Muslims have been left behind on all fronts but there is a small increasingly vocal elite (comprising retired civil servants, professionals in various fields, NRIs , moulavis and caste leaders), which is articulating the sense of deprivation and demanding action and answers.

So politicians have resorted to tokenism, the lead as always being taken by the Congress party in states where elections are due, where Muslims are more aware of the lack of development in their areas and community. The ruling combine in these states also want Muslims to continue supporting them, so we have competitive populism where no one wants to be labeled a laggard or being perceived as grudging Muslims their place in the sun, so a university which world over is recognized as a beacon of hope for modern scientific outlook among Muslims is being projected to play a role which it never sought to play.

The Aligarh Muslim University was never intended or conceived to be the University Grants Commission of Indian Muslims, if any government or any governing party is serious about Muslim education then they should open colleges and universities which can cater to the Muslims. Why drag AMU into a role which would destroy whatever we have, whatever we have achieved. Let me clarify a bit:--

There are two broad types of university models in India (here universities, public funded and private can only be established by legislation) one is a unitary type with a bound and defined campus as well as properly demarcated areas of jurisdiction, these are generally residential universities;

The other is the affiliating type which has a broad area of jurisdiction extending over many districts and which have affiliated colleges that admit students independent of the University, but basic eligibility norm is set by the university concerned, they teach syllabi set by the university, students appear in exams decided by the university. Sometimes these universities also have post graduate departments but most of the time they are glorified examination boards, individual teachers especially in the colleges have no control over the syllabus, method of evaluation, evaluators etc, that are all decided by boards at the University level which also have some teacher representatives, in essence individual teachers have no autonomy.

On the other hand unitary universities like AMU, BHU and nearly all Central Universities, have a governance structure where teachers decide what is to be taught, how it is to be taught, how it is to be evaluated and who would evaluate it, similarly they decide who is to be admitted how they are to be admitted, and what is the eligibility condition(s). Here teachers also decide the creation, up gradation of teaching posts and their fields of specialization at the time of creation, teachers are also empowered to decide on topics for research and supervisors, we at AMU are also privileged to decide which conference to organize at Aligarh and on what theme/topic. All this is possible because our Act and other similar Acts have a provision of the Board of Studies at the lowest level which comprises of all the teachers of the Department along with certain other persons including those who are conducting research in the Department. This very significant

provision is not properly understood by persons working or coming from non unitary universities such as most state universities, like B.R.Ambedkar University, Agra or Bundelkhand University, Jhansi or Kerala University.

The point to be understood here is that if a Center is established what kind of structure would we have there? Shall we have one Department in Aligarh? In that case what happens to the teachers teaching at these so called centers, what kind of control shall they have over the courses they would be teaching? Shall we have parallel Departments at these new places? But these are prohibited by law and even in Delhi University which also has powers of an affiliating University the South campus and the original North campus do not have duplicate departments. World over Residential Universities are accepted as better institutions for teaching and research.

The Government of the day understands all these niceties and intricacies as the passage of the Central Universities Act in 2009 shows, where all these sensibilities of jurisdiction and all India character are taken into account, around the same time the Delhi Government also realized the need for a residential University so a new university was proposed to be established in Delhi. It is interesting to note that all these new Central Universities and all the previously established Central Universities have a territorial jurisdiction. I.e. everywhere the respective Act gives the boundaries of their influence . Only a few Institutions have a pan India jurisdiction such as the Maulana Azad National Urdu University, Jawaharlal Nehru University, Indira Gandhi National Open University so they are in the true sense of the term, exceptions. This is so because we have borrowed our model from the British where the norm is the Residential system as it prevails in say Oxford and Cambridge.

What I am trying to prove is that even if you accept the concept of the so called "Centers, Special Centers, Advanced Centers, Campuses" nothing can be established without amending the University Act as it exists at present. It is all a political mirage which vested interests are interested to display till the next elections at least.

Now that the Muslim advantage/benefit mirage is out of the way let us see what the University has done under the existing provisions about setting up the so called centers:--

A suggestion was made by the University Court in Dec2007 to set up advanced centers `in principle', in Jan 2008 the Executive Council of the University accepted the suggestion to establish, hold your breath, satellite campuses, now I don't have to tell anyone that nomenclature is a very important thing, so did anyone have or still has clarity on what was/is being proposed, except that something was being set up. In Feb 2008 I.e., before any other authority of the University had considered the proposal a letter was sent to the President of India to accord `In principle' approval of the so called special centers/parallel campuses/ centers of the AMU. What is the laid down procedure in the Act if something much smaller in scale is to be attempted such as a Department of Studies or a center like Women Studies or Career Planning Center or Cardiology Center or Endocrinology center is set up:

According to the Section 28(5) of the University Act any member of the University court may make any proposal which if approved shall be considered at its next meeting by the EC it reads (5) Any member of the Court may propose to the Court, the draft of any Statute and the Court may reject the proposal or refer such draft for consideration to the Executive Council, which may either reject the proposal or submit the draft to the Court in such form as the Executive Council may approve and…**This is then followed by a reference to Section28(3) which reads

(3) The Executive Council may propose to the Court the draft of any Statutes for its consideration and such draft shall be considered by the Court at its next meeting: Provided that the Executive Council shall not propose the draft of any Statute or of any amendment of a Statute affecting the status

powers or constitution of any authority of the University until such authority has been given an opportunity of expressing an opinion in writing upon the proposal and any opinion so expressed shall be considered by the Court. This is the procedure referred to in the last part of the Subsection(5) which reads …**the provisions of this section shall apply in the case of any draft so submitted as they apply in the case of a draft proposed by the Executive Council. i.e. as given in subsection3.

Now in case you are getting confused permit me to lay down the procedure of any change in the university structure

1. A proposal for setting up a new department or centre can emanate from any of the Authorities of the University viz. the Faculty(ies), the Academic Council, the Executive Council and the University Court and sometimes also from the Board of Studies which is not an authority. All this however is subject to the following

1.1. Statute 20(2) which reads as follows (2) (a) Each Faculty shall consist of such Departments as may be assigned to it by the Ordinances.

(b) No Department shall be established or abolished except by the Statutes.

1.2.And Section 2(e) of the Act reads (e) "Department" means a Department of Studies and includes a Centre of Studies established by the Ordinances;

2.In both cases, whether the proposal came from the top or the bottom, it is first discussed in all democratic bodies and if it is accepted by all then the procedure of change in Statute or Ordinance is taken up which only starts at the lowest level of the BOS and goes up to the University Court.

2.1. At all places where powers are assigned the phrase "Subject to the Act, the Statutes and the Ordinances"is given this includes Section 12(2) of the Act which talks of sanction of the Visitor.

2.2.What should be understood by this phrase except that you can only do which is allowed, not that which is not allowed in the Act.

2.3.The Act very categorically says in the preamble the intention to set up a `Teaching and residential university at Aligarh' it also says at Section 5(9A) "Twenty five Kilometers of the University Mosque" also "special centers". The actual language at both 5(9A) and Section 12(2) is reproduced below

Section 5*(9A) to establish within a radius of twenty five kilometres of the University Mosque such special Centres, specialized Laboratories or other units for research and instruction as are, in the opinion of the University, necessary for the furtherance of its objects;

Section 12(2) The University may also, with the sanction of the Visitor and subject to the Statutes and Ordinances, *establish and maintain such Special Centres, Specialized Laboratories or such other institutions for research or instruction as are necessary for the furtherance of its objects either on its own or in cooperation or collaboration with any other institution.

Additionally even Section 12(1) which s concerned with schools also talks of 15 miles, so the intention of the lawmakers are obvious, no expansion beyond a physical limit.

2.4 An example from the past may be looked at. During the tenure of Prof Naseem Farooqui as VC 1990—1994, the then PVC Prof Abul Hasan Siddiqui had come up with a proposal to set up a new Medical College near Lucknow at Sitapur road for which land was also being made available. Then also many well meaning individuals had welcomed the proposal and had seen in it the future of the University, however there was disquiet on the campus because it was seen as opening the backdoor to a permanent harmful change to the University's structure, but in keeping with our traditions very few were willing to make their disquiet known on record.

When the matter came up in the Academic Council it was passed by majority vote but there were three notes of dissent which spelt out the above provisions, stressed that `subject to…' can only mean that which is allowed and; that before any further processing, the matter be referred to the Ministry of Law, Govt. of India. This was the end of the matter.

2.5 Similarly Centers set up during the tenure of Mr.Mahmoodur Rahman as VC 1995—2000, were wound up later, during Mr. Hamid Ansari's tenure, as not being in consonance with the Act, Statutes and Ordinances.

3.What is a `Special Center' or a `Specialised Laboratory', this obviously is something which does not exist in the University but the University feels that this requirement/gap/ needs to be filled up, so a provision is made in the rules to fill up such a lacunae. It definitely does not allow the setting up of parallel departments or campuses anywhere.

3.1The President is said to have given her consent `in principle' for `Centers' under Section 12(2), this section covers only special centers so what is this entity "Centers"? and what does "in Principle" mean? Does it mean the idea is prima facie acceptable but, a proper concrete proposal is required when a final view and decision shall be taken. It does not by any stretch of imagination allow for teaching to start in a makeshift manner. What happens to the `Brand AMU' for which a high profile committee was set up? Even those who concede the basic principle of centers being setup are worried, is this how we shall provide degrees in a half baked manner and with makeshift faculty and facilities? Shall we have a different admission policy for these places? Who is an internal student here and who is not? Even if admission is offered to students currently studying here in the internal quota will they go there? What shall be the final profile of the students and the teaches? These are the questions the supporters of the idea are asking but, don't have the nerve to ask in public for fear of annoying the VC. Maybe this why in all elections held recently an overwhelming number, more than three fourths, voted against persons perceived to be supported by the administration. Why are we in such a tearing hurry to destroy everything? Just as that half baked idea of Muslim reservation destroyed decades of our quiet work in education.

4. It follows, therefore, that the proposal is bound by two limits; it should not breach the 25 Km limit and, it can only be within the existing system i.e. it should not tinker with the basic structure of the Institution which is at Aligarh and which is residential. I would like to draw your attention to the doctrine of the basic structure of the Constitution which has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, I suggest it is a similar case here at AMU.

4.1How is the basic structure to be determined? A basic structure involves institutional goals and aspirations as well as methods and powers to achieve them, through a laid down system of academic and administrative information flow and decision making which has to be processed through certain authorities (bodies). All Government institutions including AMU have this system in place for anyone to analyse and discuss, for AMU it is ___ Teaching and residential at Aligarh along with the Department and Faculty system with local decision making.

I have it on the authority of one of the most distinguished scholars ever produced by this University, a name which has and still inspires awe in academia, that the AMU Act shall require amendments before any of the Centers(?) as conceived by the present administration see the light of the day. I had respectfully argued that this will change the university as we know it and, although we have not been brilliant and outstanding, except for notable exceptions, we may even be harmed and, lose whatever we have achieved and have come to stand for. I also raised questions of academic governance and administrative organisation which I have already spelt out above, we are not able to properly manage a bound campus, how would we manage a far flung atomized structure? His answer was illuminating. He said it is politics and it is the politics of governance and, every political party is making use of the opportunity being offered. He also mentioned that if the

proposal is to work, separate universities shall have to be set up, in the present form it seems to be unworkable as regional feelings and aspirations shall come into play. As ours was an informal discussion it shall not be proper to mention names, but I hope readers shall get the general picture of disquiet that most of us have here.

I hope I have answered the third question I had posed at the beginning of this letter, that the present Act does not allow such centers to be set up.

Finally, after the third question let me try to answer the second question I posed earlier, let me try to do it without using the term Muslim as Mr. Hamid Ansari, during his tenure as VC here, was fond of asking us to do. The second question was `does it benefit AMU as an institution to go in for these changes' meaning does the stature of AMU increase or as our present VC is fond of saying does `Brand AMU' gain prestige ? The answer very categorically is NO. Why? Well because we as an institution have not contributed very much in pure academic terms except the individual brilliance of scholars who can be counted on our fingers. No doubt we have also had great litterateurs but they just happened to be here, they were creators, not interpreters or analysts or great teachers. So brand AMU is known more for the total individual it produces a strange mixture of a sardonic wit, an appreciator of all good things of life but, a person who retains a sense of belonging and so remembers that one should do something for society, a person who is simultaneously both religious as well as irreligious with a healthy dose of skepticism thrown in. This product is produced in Aligarh, in the hostels, library, classrooms here. It would not be produced in a Kishanganj and Murshidabad or Mallapuram or Bhopal or Pune, and I am not being snobbish or denigrating anyone or any place here. The individual who wants to do something for the deprived sections of society can be and is produced elsewhere also, but it is only here that you get an Aligarian which I fear you would not get elsewhere.

Today is May 30,2010 the VC is in a high profile meeting in Delhi (all senior officers were asked to accompany him), this is to be followed by a press conference where we shall get to know the laurels AMU is earning, the new centers, the new courses we shall be having etc. This place which is said to contain a high concentration of educated persons of all communities, including the highest concentration of educated Muslims in India is being ignored. On the other hand, people who left India many years back, who are working in different systems with different models of education, where social justice has a different connotation and different solutions are being roped in to give advice. Why? Is it because they add glamour? It is not that these persons will not or cannot contribute, of course they will, with their differing experiences, bring a new perspective to the table, but the framework has to be according to our needs and requirements and drawn up by

us, who live that reality, not someone who has a romaticised notion of the past, these experts should come in only after a basic plan has been agreed upon not earlier.

Here on the Campus there is no electricity since yesterday i.e more than 24 hours. Supply has been restored in the city, where we all know there is corruption all round, last night itself. In our great campus which is planning to open centers and what not, the students who are appearing in exams have been left to fend for themselves in this sweltering heat where there is no electricity in any Hall, MA Library, Department etc. They (students) are not making any hue and cry although they see that the central offices continue to have electricity for ACs, the VC's lodge is lit up in total darkness all-round like always, unique like an oasis in a sea of sand, they are quietly preparing for their exams. These are the same `rowdy students' for whom we require a continuous surveillance system with high tech cameras and all. Incidentally three camera towers including the control tower have come down; this is an indicator of the slipshod quality control we practice, even for things that we passionately espouse.

Today is May 31, 2010 still no electricity still no change, the University has money to put in place a high tech security structure because it has played upon the latent Muslim phobia of the security apparatus, it has no money to put up electricity poles, lack of the latter adversely affects research, teaching, learning ,exams; lack of the former only affects the pockets of the suppliers and the psychological state of the administration. The employees of the Electricity Department are working tirelessly to restore supply but the Land & Gardens office is sitting idle, it has not moved to remove the broken trees and their branches from the roads and electricity cables and poles. We do not have a disaster response system, every year we have storms, every year we have rains, every year we have recurring crises but we have knee jerk reactions; we are so involved in our support to the administration that we forget to tell the emperor about the clothes he is wearing.

I hope I have been able to put across a point of view which you would understand and respond to.

S. Mustafa Zaidi

Hony. Secretary, AMU Teachers’ Association, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh

Email: s_mustafa_zaidi(AT)yahoo.co.in

Student 1968-1974, Teacher 1978- till date, Teachers' Representative 1982

Former Member University Court, Former Member Academic Council,

Former Member Examination Committee and member of many Committees set up by the Executive Council, Academic Council and the University administration on different issues.

(Message Posted on "worldofaligs" AMU Alumni Network Yahoo Groups on Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2011 14:49:34 +0530)

Muslim Face of UPA Rejected by Aligarh Muslim University Community

2011-10-24T10:08:00.004+05:30

UPA Muslim-face Rejected by A.M.U.

Mr. Salman Khurshid, the only Muslim Cabinet Minister, many Muslims so believe. They also believe that his promotion to the Cabinet rank owes to this. He is planted to mingle, appease and serve Muslim interests, if possible or at least keep them expecting, confused and guessing, somehow, in order to keep them in good humour, if not won over.

The reckoning of Mr. Salman amongst Muslims has always been low and the incident of 17th Oct, 2011 has further damaged it because the opposition of the Congress has surfaced with full fury.

Neither AMU nor UPA visualized this. However, the fault lies with Mr. Salman and the Party Bosses who failed to realize the gravity of the situation. Actually, the anger and resentment reached its nadir long ago with the coming up of the so-called AMU Centres in 2009 and simultaneous patronization of the ill-intentioned VC for the purpose, who took the liberty to plunder at will with impunity.

Mr. Salman was hurt and disappointed because he could not pay visit to the place of birth and the place close to his heart, where the glorious son of AMU, Zakir Sahab his grandfather, was the VC. His hurt is misplaced because in recent past he was the guest of this very AMUTA twice and he is welcome to Aligarh any time even now but not the way he planned to provide legitimacy and encouragement to the worst-ever VC, most probably at the behest of Party Bosses. Not only this, Mr. Salman was approached repeatedly by teachers, and well-wishers of Aligarh for help and he cannot plead ignorance of the harm done to AMU in the last four years of Azis, destroying its discipline, traditions and values, academic standards, threatening its very existence, to say the least.

The Govt. is giving the impression loud and clear that it has no power to remove the VC. Would Mr. Salman a jurist of substance, endorse this stand that there is one more person in this great democratic country after the President of India, who is above the law and he is the present AMU VC!!!

What is the purpose of inquiry after inquiry without any result? Is the government buying time so that Mr. Azis may complete his term?

All actions of the Govt. remain suspect unless immediate action is taken to remove Azis from office.

Ziauddin Ahmad and others

Prof Ziauddin Ahmad was formerly Professor in the Dept of Botany, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh. He can be raeched at

Law and Minority Affairs Minister Salman Khurshid failed to enter the AMU Campus

2011-10-24T10:05:00.002+05:30

AMU Salman Khurshid failed to enter the AMU Campus: A blunder led to confrontation with Congress, head on !

Facts speak for themselves: readers make their own assessments & respond:

Shri Salman was the Chief Guest for the Sir Syed Day on 17th (many other having declined). Friends, Aligs and AMUTA, asked, advised even warned him, not to go Aligarh as long as the accused Azis is there, for reasons so well known. He was, therefore, initially reluctant, but then agreed because he nurses a deep desire to impress his Party Bosses that he has a place amongst the Muslims (you know better, his performance) and tows the dubious Congress policy of supporting the corrupt VC, for the sake of illegal AMU Centres to befool Muslims. The occasion, was favorable and convenient and he was lured to take the plunge. In his enthusiasm coupled surely with intoxication, he refused to appreciate the proposed black flag protest by AMUTA, and the respect he should hold for teachers at his place of birth, (he was the guest of honour for the same function organized by the AMUTA). However, AMUTA on its part warned in advance, the Congress leadership of its resentment and proposed protest. The new banners put up on the road by AMUTA explained it all;

Unreliable Salman Khurshid is not welcome.

Illegal off-campus Centres, Congress Conspiracy to Finish AMU.

Law Minister in AMU makes CBI probe suspect.

Dubious Congress shielding corrupt VC.

Visitors Restrain Order flouted by VC.

AMUTA had no intentions to block his entry and they made it known to the Dist. Administration. It was a different matter that the agitating students opposite the VC lodge were hugely encouraged by the presence of their teachers picketing next to them at the Staff Club and were found determined to turn Shri Salman out. Round 7 pm the road from Babe-e-Syed to the VC lodge, when Shri. Salman was expected to enter the Campus, was swarmed by students in thousands. Certainly, an ugly situation was saved by the timely intervention of the Dist. Adm.
Shri Salman reached the outskirts and waited for an hour and had discussion with the Dist. Administration which expressed its inability to ensure his trouble free entry in the Campus forcing him to quietly slip to the house of his pet Shri Bansal, local congress MLC and even refused the dinner in his honour at the Womenâ€™s College, a safe place.

Events will take such a turn, nobody had actually expected which is a fair indication of the anger brewing on the Campus against the Congress.

However, University official function was held as a formality with thin attendance of the hand picked audience and non-stop shouting and chanting by students. In the rest of the University the celebration went on with the usual fervour including the Staff Club, the teachers bastion.
One the Side lines Shri. Salman (to the question by the press) asserted that the Govt. has no role in the establishment of the illegal AMU Centres and this is all Universityâ€™s own doing. This is totally incorrect and misleading and unconvincing. Such a degree of insensitivity of a Minister promoted to the rank of the Cabinet Minister and given portfolios to win and appease Muslims, shall leave him nowhere and lead to further alienation of Muslims, a very high price, the Congress can hardly afford to pay.

The whole world knows that the blessed misconceived AMU Centres were high on Govt agenda and their task made easy by collaborator Prof. Azis, who is a manipulator and has no scrupulous with full Govt. encouragement, protection and support in every way possible provided to him for the purpose. It can also not be denied that the VC in barter earned the freedom to plunder at will which the Govt. failed to contain and therefore inquiry after inquiry brought no results, created a scam of scams and the on going CBI, CVC and CAG probes have become suspects. Shri Salman who swears by AMU has done nothing to contain the VC, restrain his Govt. and protect AMU from the repercussions of the illegal AMU Centres which may ultimately finish AMU.

The present episode in Aligarh was a blunder on the part of UPA and Shri Salman, and fortunately or unfortunately they have taste of AMU and its resentment, the tide has turned against them and the line is finally drawn.

It is upto UPA to mend fences with AMU and surely the Muslims of India, by removing the VC immediately. No excuses. Let us be friends again if irritant is removed.
Aligarh se khilwadh bahut mehngah padega! Baqi aap ki marzi!

Hashmat Ali Khan
Advocate, Aligarh

Posted on on Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 10:58 PM

Author can be reached at

Bihar (Kishanganj) AMU Centre Scam: FIR Lodged Against Cong MP, Five MLAs

2011-10-19T00:02:00.001+05:30

AMU - FIR Lodged Against Cong MP, Five MLAs:

What were the pressing circumstances before Maulana Asrarul Haq Quasmi (M.P) and others to come out on road and resort to violence and disrupt law and order, thereby inviting criminal proceedings by the District Administration?

What prompted them is the disclosure made by the scheming and manipulator VC, Prof. Azis, made at Kishanganj on 6 Sept 2011 despite the Visitors gag order;

“According to AMU VC, he is going to retire in January 2012, so all the official formalities to open the ‘Centre’ at Kishanganj should be finished before he leaves the University. In fact, he has some concern and said it can’t be expected that the next VC would take ahead the idea of opening the ‘Study Centres of AMU’ out of Aligarh”

While all other reasons put forward to justifying their misadventure were misleading and not convincing because;
The AMU Act does not provide for creation of ‘Centres’. Moreover, the AMU being a Residential and Muslim Minority Institution [Section 5(9A) & Preamble]; no facility for teaching beyond 25 Km can be created.
The AMU cannot extend concessions to Muslims, so is true for the AMU Centres under total AMU control, as the Minority status of AMU has been quashed by High Court in 2005.
It is practically impossible to effectively manage affairs of AMU Centres, situated thousands of Kms away, on day to day basis from Aligarh.
Establishment of AMU Centres/Campuses is in the UPA Govt agenda since long. In the recent past it was during the tenure of Mr. Naseem Ahmad, 2004-2005, who refused to oblige the MHRD as the AMU Act does not provide for Centres/Campuses especially beyond 25 Kms away from the Univ Mosque.
Prof. Azis broke all records of manipulation and violations of rules in the process of establishing the Centres at Murshidabad (Pranab’s constituency) and Malappuram (VC town) and incurred expenses in crores of Rupees illegally and unauthorized.
On the top of it all, the amendments to the Statutes proposed through manipulations and illegalities, have neither been approved by the competent two Houses of Parliament nor Gazetted as required under Section 31 (4) and (5) of the AMU Act. Thus the two Centres do not legally exist. This is an illegality, which has no parallel. As a result this caused two PILS to be filed, pending before High Court.
The UPA Govt through the MHRD, Finance Ministry and UGC provided all strategic support and encouragement to the unscrupulous and corrupt VC including whole lot of manipulations and illegalities (violations of rules) committed in the process.
The Govt has neither made any grant for Kishanganj nor is there permission of the Visitor available for that.

The Finance Minister has gone to the extent of misleading the Parliament when the allocation of Rs 50 crore was made for Murshidabad and Malappuram in the Union Budget 2009-2010 on the plea that the AMU has decided to establish two new AMU Campuses, which was totally incorrect. In another manipulation only Rs.10 crore were released to Mallappuram out of 25 crores allocated.

The quantum of illegalities committed are unprecedented, brazen and assume the size of a full fledged scam with the blessings of the Govt, which swears for clean public service devoid of corruption.

It is more than evident that the Congress MP has been promoting the party’s and his own interests without any regard to the harm that could be caused to AMU and inspirations of Muslims of India.

Maulana Quasmi and his supporters just cannot plead ignorance and deserve to be condemned and rejected for misleading Muslims and AMU.

Er. Shabbir Ahmad
Er. Saeedur Rehman Siddiqi
Er. Z.A. Qidwai
Prof. Q. Zainus Sajidin
Prof. Nafees Ahmad
Prof. Ziauddin Ahmad

AMU VC Azis Decries Orders of the Honble President of India, Visitor of AMU!

2011-10-01T19:10:00.003+05:30

AMU Affairs: Ref: AMU’s VC Decries Presidential Order, CBI Team in Campus by Faisal Fareed (daijiworld.com dated 18.9.11): Besieged VC loses Balance.

Evidently, the presence of CBI team on the Campus and ‘quizzing of the VC twice’, has its telling effect on the behavior of the besieged VC, which has un-nerved him to resort to the most un-becoming and objectionable outbursts against AMUTA (holds were never otherwise barred for him) as reported and quoted below;

“AMUTA representatives and their collaborators are collaborating with the anti-education, anti-Muslims anti-AMU forces working in the government and outside”. The Govt. is supposed to take immediate notice on this provocation and unjustified comment of the VC and restrain the VC decisively. At the same time AMUTA should warn the VC to behave!

“the restriction is totally illegal, AMUTA leaders are apparently behaving like puppets of certain politicians and the MHRD. The stand taken by them is violative of the AMU Act”.

“blatant lies were constantly fed by AMUTA, Executive without the required mandate of AMU larger teaching community”.

VC failed to elaborate on the illegality of the Visitor’s order nor did he register his protest with the Visitor against illegalities (except the clarification sought on routine matters and making payments for the on-going projects which was allowed. Request for making temporary appointments is under consideration). He has also failed to knock the doors of the Court for justice?? The chivalrous way, the VC operates, has thrown the rules to winds, he ought to ignore the illegal Visitor’s order. The VC, who has unique distinction of holding the meetings of EC without quorum and took very vital decisions, should not be deterred by ‘illegal directives’ and resort to functioning as before. What is the hesitation now? Azis sb has been the law unto himself !

So far as the functioning of AMUTA is concerned: The AMUTA Executive and Action Committee had the mandate of the G.B. VC tried his best to make a dent through the beneficiaries, teachers in the Administration and those waiting for favours, has failed tamely and the attempt to engineer a mini revolt against AMUTA fell flat. If the VC is so sure of dissent amongst teachers, why does he not direct them to requisition a G.B. meeting to thrash the matter out (an attempt, already made, in this direction has failed). Further more, if the AMUTA is feeding blatant lies, why can’t the VC and his propaganda machinery, the Media Committee, who are constantly on the watch and move, failed to effectively counter the AMUTA and expose them? Actually, the facts are contrary, the VC has nothing to say in self-defense except telling lies, twisting facts, presenting half truths, for which there are no takers now, as the public is fed up with his false propaganda. The ship is sinking and the writing on the walls.

AMU Centres: VC continues to defy the Visitor’s ‘restrain’ order by involving himself in the exercise to establish AMU Centres at Malappuram, Kishangang as reported ‘two circle’.net and by us (18.9.11) and now Malegaon Centre (refer: ummid.com by staff reported (18.9.11) and the VC has agreed and promised to send a team for the inspection of the land etc.

In the process the VC has dealt with: the short-comings at Malappuram and the financial and other support of the Kerala State Govt and Shri E. Ahmad, who has no Locus standi; VC has given word for the establishment of a Centre at Kishangang from the scratch and sounded the Bihari enthusiasts to hurry up or they would be doomed as the next VC may not oblige them (VC does not make policies but he had manipulated and coerced); and the negotiations for the Malegoan Centre have started that too by by-passing the University Authorities AC, EC and the Court (as the powers do not lie with the VC) and at the same time defying the Visitor’s restrain order as the policy matters of far reaching consequences are abundantly involved.

Thus openly defying the directions contained in the Visitor’s ‘restrain’ order of not indulging in appointments and decisions which may have long time financial and administrative and academic implications.

Therefore, there is a fool-proof case against the un-stoppable and erring VC, Abdul Azis for drastic action by placing him under suspension immediately to put an end to the nonsense.

In addition to this, the indulgence of the VC in opposing and meddling with the CBI probe in various ways should also be considered seriously.
Failure of the Govt. if any, to proceed even now decisively against Azis on the merit of the case, shall send a wrong signal and disappoint rather annoy the Community, which would have far-reaching consequences.

UPA by causing delays and its repeated failure to rise to the occasion advertently or otherwise, has already alienated Muslims at large.

Prof. Ziauddin Ahmad (Retd.)
Dept of Botany
Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh

AMU: Four years of Azis: Complete failure. I-Academics.

2011-06-29T23:07:00.002+05:30

Most tragic period in the history but Azis claimed his performance satisfactory. How can he sit on judgment for his own doings?

Let us, therefore, have a look at the academics first as the financial and administrative matters have secondary importance in a University;

Session 2010 – 2011: A Sample Survey:
1. No admissions are made in Ph. D. courses in most of the Faculties but the VC claimed third position amongst Central University, is false and totally baseless. The VC is requested to provide a proof.
2. Mandatory 180 days (for years length courses BA and SSSC) and 90 days (for Masters degree) of actual teaching not achieved and exams held on time, a fraud.
Naturally, the courses, were not completed and no questions are asked from the untaught courses, nobody bothers about it like the past.
3. VC managed the award of a Ph. D. degree (in law) to one of his political supporter in 2010, who got himself registered in 1992 and had not completed his mandatory stay of two years at Aligarh and his admission had lapsed after five years in 1997 it self, which could not be revived as per rules yet the degree was awarded.
4 Requirement of 75% attendance has been reduced to 30% illegally; devalued degrees and adversely affected prospects in the job market, to accommodate 200 odd and under pressure from pampered Students Union and self styled leaders.
5. Promoted copying in examinations by shielding the wrong-doers through the most unexpected direct intervention of the Students Union leaders and others, never witness before. No action followed to stop this against the pampered and encouraged students used to terrorize the campus.
6. Supplementary exam in B.D.S (Bachelor of Dental Surgery) a prestigious course, introduced by the VC who has no authority, to appease rowdies, which threatened de-recognition of degree.
7. Copying has been alleged at various illegally established Entrance Test Centres out sideAligarh.
8. Money changed hands in a big way in admissions in LLB and MBA at the two AMU Centres as alleged. CBI probe shall reveal it all.
9. At the two blessed AMU Centres at Murshidabad (constituency of Pronab Mukerjee) and Malappuram, the classes (though totally illegally) commenced from 1st March, 2011 and the session is to terminate in July while the session of AMU commenced from Aug.2010 – May 2011. (information supplied under RTI)
As such, the AMU Centres shall hold exams after just four months as against nine months at A.M.U.
10. On top of it all, at the AMU Centres summer vacations have now been announced from 22ndJune to 15th July (Press report on 26.6.11) (V.C. accorded approval who has no authority as rules do not exist.

Board of Studies of Management declined to appoint examiners without which examiners cannot be appointed.
11. The so called AMU Centres are; totally misconceived illegal un-authorized and anti-University and it is totally misleading to claim that concessions could be extended to Muslims. The things are highly manipulative, unprecedented politically motivated under pressure from Congress to mislead Muslims for electoral gains. It is a fraud and assumes the size of a scam. (the silence of Muslims as a whole is most disgusting, alarming and suicidal). The proposed amendments of the Statutes have not been passed by the Parliament. As such, the Centres are patently illegal.
12. The Faculty of Science where lights used to remain ‘on’ throughout the nights is thrown into frightening darkness as soon as the sun sets in as also it looks deserted in the afternoons.

The Departments of Studies are starving for funds, and laboratories are in acute shortage of sophisticated equipments, books etc.

In the 5th plan, out of the 1300 crores requisitioned merely 100 crores were promised by the ‘friendly Govt.’ to the ‘loyal VC’ despite his dreams and tall claims of achieving international standards.

These facts do not only refute the tall claims and nail the lies & exaggerations of the VC but also they point clearly that the VC has neither the will not the ability to administer the affairs of the University effectively and sincerely.
Write-up on financial and administrative aspects shall follow.

Prof. Ziauddin Ahmad,
Dept of Botany, AMU, Aligarh
Email: ziauddinahmad@yahoo.co.in

Restoration of Minority Status of AMU- NEED OF THE HOUR

2010-07-16T20:05:00.001+05:30

A.M.U.: Restoration of Minority Status; a deception
Khat main usne alijanab kyon likha

Is main dhoka zaroor hai sufi

After long four years, Prof. Azis startled all, by constituting a committee of his trusted men, to take up the Court case pending before the Supreme Court since 2006, on priorty basis. The Members of the Committee who are novice to the issue as they were neither associated with the long drawn battle in the Courts nor at any point of time and in any way, they are involved. The members are;

Mr. Moosa Raza ex-bureaucrat, new find, who was never associated with A.M.U, so is Mr. Khawaja Shahid serving bureaucrat and a local with high local stakes, Mr. P.A. Inamdar a builder who runs educational institutions on commercial lines and a beneficiary, VC’s blind supporter in all his misdeeds in the last two years as E.C. Member; Mr. Kamal Farooqui, the aspirant for Hony. Treasurer’s post, a sort of careerist, Mr. Kazmi, lawyer, University Council in Allahabad High Court, and Prof. M. Shabbir, Deptt. of Law A.M.U, both of them are not conversant with the essential details and intricacies of the matter.

This new Committee, besides being incompetent to handle the matter properly, is out-rightly un-authorized as the VC has no such powers, specially when there is a high-powered Committee existing which was constituted by the E.C in 2008 under the Chairmanship of Justice Saghir Ahmad with members like Mr. Zafaryab Jilani and Mr. Waseem Ahmad, who are conversant with the matter.

This E.C Committee may be revived rather strengthened by co-opting Mr. Saiyed Hamid senior most Alig and ex-VC, Mr. Naseem Ahmad ex-VC, Prof. Faizan Mustafa ex-Registrar A.M.U, Mr. S. Shahabuddin and Mr. Anil Dhawan, Senior Advocate who pleaded the case in the High Court as well as Supreme Court,even if Prof. Azis is not pleased with the names.

If the intentions are noble, this is the only way out for the University otherwise, it is merely to hood wink the masses because Prof. has of late, came under severe criticism in this matter.

The Teachers Association, AMU severely criticised the VC and demanded the constitution of the committee (in their usual ignorance that there already existed a E.C committee), removal of Ejaz Maqbool, University Council and reinstating of the Dy. Registrar, (who was reinstated without holding a Inquiry, proves his innocence and VC’s drama).
That the University standing Council, failed to appear on three consecutive hearings before the Supreme Court in February and March, 2010 (Hearings held after four years), on the direction of the VC. Luckily the case was not dismissed. This calls for investigation to unearth the truth. However, to save himself the all powerful and reckless Prof. Azis, shifted the blame on the dealing Dy. Registrar and was suspended, who is totally innocent as he kept the VC and Registrar posted with the developments on day to day basis.
That the VC has been persistently harping on extending benefit to Muslims at the proposed Campuses/Centres under Section 5(2)(c) of the AMU Act in spite of the truth known to Prof. Azis and all, that the operation of this provision has been suspended by the Supreme Court in 2006 and as such when AMU is not within its powers to offer consessions to Muslim, how these proposed Centres could possibly offer concessions.

Not only this, this very Shri Azis has declared in no unequivocal terms that there shall be no quota and admission shall be made on the basis of open All India Competition. What more is required to confirm that no concession can be extended to Muslims? and slogan by the VC and all is a farce.

Despite these hard realities, vested interests amongst Muslims, like Maulana Asrarul Haq Qasmi and several others in Murshidabad and Kishanganj seem convinced with the rhetoric of the Hon’ble VC. Shame on them. They are blaming on the contrary, those who are in the interest of the University and the Muslim, possing the Centres which are against the AMU Act and shall meet the fact before the Court of law, the reservation policies in different States met.

Similarly, people are convinced with Prof. Azis when in a press statement he tried to convince rather misleads the public that he shall fully cooperate with the ongoing Visitors Inquiry. What is the need for such a public statement in the first place and secondly, after meddling with the process in whatever way possible to side track and delay the Inquiry report which has already taken one year. His intentions could only be believed if he quits office during the pendency of the Inquiry. On the contrary, he is going full throttle, rightly or wrongly, mostly wrongly, to commence teaching at Murshidabad to mislead Muslim masses there and to serve the master, Shri Pranab Mukharjee (Murshidabad his constituency), who alone can bail him out of the mess he is in. This matter of establishing Special Centres (now Regional Centres, child’s play) the MHRD is fully supporting Prof. Azis disregarding the legality of the matter and AMU residential and Minority character. Big game is on with disastrous fallen outs for us.

The vry idea of establishing Campuses or Centres or whatever mooted out with the sole intention to benefit Muslims backed by Govt. too. But with suspension of operation of the concerned statutory provision in the AMU Act by the Supreme Court and the declaration of Prof. Azis himself under the existing situation that there shall be no quota and admissions shall be made on the basis of All India Entrance Tests; it all fell like a pack of cards. Where is the remotest possibility of offering any concessions to Muslims and therefore, the need to establish Campuses etc?

Elections are near Congress has big stakes and may continue befooling and misleading Muslims at least till then and therefore the exercise is on, at full swing, speaks loud and clear that the intentions are not noble. A big game is on, without regards of the disastrous fall-outs on AMU, threatening its Residential and Minority Character directly.

Kr. Hashmat Ali Khan

Advocate (1953)

Ex-member, AMU Court
Aligarh

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

2010-07-16T19:54:00.007+05:30

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
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Former VC Naseem Ahmad Targeted by Hon’ble Azis

2010-06-29T08:55:00.002+05:30

Kam Maya Wa Na-Ahel Wa Riyakar Hai Hamid
Lekin Yeh Na Theen Aapke Farmane Ki Batein
(Saiyid Hamid)

I was not at all surprised at the outburst of Dr. Azis against the former Vice Chancellor, Mr. Naseem Ahmad, calling his period as the darkest one in AMU history. Such remarks are expected of a person with zero credibility and doubtful integrity, which only confirms his undesirable style of functioning. The remarks are not only in bad taste but too bad for a bad report. At the outset let me make it clear that I do not hold any brief for Mr. Naseem Ahmad and I had absolutely no contact with him, as usual, when he was the Vice Chancellor.

Mr. Naseem Ahmad was the first Vice Chancellor, who had the courage and conviction to declare that the AMU is a minority institution unlike his predecessors who often referred to it as the HISTORICAL CHARACTER. They lacked the nerves to speak the truth; perhaps they considered it a wiser way. The credit of implementing the long due reservation policy also goes to Mr. Ahmad. While all the earlier VCs were jittery and avoided it. It is a different matter that the Court not only quashed reservation but the Minority status also and went ahead to declare that even the Parliament has not been so empowered. You are, however, the first and probably the last VC in having scant respect for rules and regulations, absorbed in manipulations of the worst type by spreading lies and distorting the Act, Statutes, not concerned with the development of the University or enhancement of its academic standards. Did AMU in its ignorance cause any harm to you?

Ek Do Zakhm Nahin Jism Hai Sara Chhalni
Dard Bechara Pareshan Hai Kahan Se Ut’the
(Saiyid Hamid)

However, your fate is written on the wall. Please refer to the provision of the Statute 40(2), which reads, “…any officer salaried or otherwise may be removed on either of the following grounds, i) the officer has become incapable of performing his duties…”. You have invited the wrath by proving yourself as ‘incapable’ of performing your duty in observing the rules, a major duty assigned to the VC as per Statute 3(2) and nobody else in the University. Neither Mr. Sibbal nor Mr. Pranab Mukherjee can pull you out of the grave that you have dug for yourself. Do you still believe you can escape the guillotine? No one believes your statement that you would cooperate with the Visitor’s enquiry, in progress, as long as you occupy the chair. Why the realization has come so late after one year? Another big farce. What is the game behind it?

Mr. Naseem Ahmad owing to his sincerity, devotion and commitment to the Alma Mater (the qualities you awfully lack, rather you don’t believe in) stood firm like a rock against the determined onslaught of the then BJP Government and refused to hold Central all India Test on the ground that the AMU is an autonomous Minority Institution and requires no orders from the Central Govt regarding the governance of the University. And we could raise our heads high which we deserved. In your view, he must be a fool who missed the golden opportunity to earn a place with the Masters for all times to come like you and of course several other Muslims. Some people are late learners and some never learn. You are really great as you are taking orders even from Babus like Mr. Sunil Kumar, the Jt secretary, MHRD and we have often seen running in the corridors of power and prostrating before the bureaucracy to save yourself from all the allegations against you. We know, you are very well aware of the futility of the Special Centres for Muslims, at the cost of the University’s basic character. The proposal of these centres is nothing but a glorified gimmick to appease the Masters and to mint whatever comes to hand. These Centres are like blind men sitting in a dark room in search of a black cat which is not there.

Could you tell, which provision of the University Act & Statutes etc you have not violated?

Mr. Naseem Ahmad is a God fearing Muslim, honest and sincere in his dealings, always treated students as his own children and regarded the teachers as equals (not as Vice Chancellors personal servants to accompany and follow him wherever he goes to which the students are stark witnesses. This is more than sufficient to denigrate them before their own students (Do you really know that two teacher Assistant Proctors, remain on duty with you, whenever you go out from your residence, be it your office or elsewhere). He firmly believed that if every act of student indiscipline requires police presence and rustication extreme penalties, to establish discipline, which Aligarh rejects, the system will collapse. The moment a VC resorts to the police help like you he ceases the right to continue as AMU VC, who is a leader of the community – no father hands over students to police whatever be the situation. He avoided awarding extreme punishments to students keeping in view of their lives and career and the values and the traditions. Keeping this Aligarh ethos he revived the Students Union, which terrifies you. Give our own students their due, the statutory right of representation, especially when you are in full control and normalcy is restored to the full. Where Naseem Saheb, has failed, as claimed by you? You, Mr. Azis, unfortunately believe in terrorizing the students, intimidating the staff and generating a reign of terror on the campus with the help of Police, Security personnel, CCTV Cameras and what not and have the cheeks to claim you have achieved the normalcy on the campus. YOU ARE SITTING ON A VOLCANO

We are witness to the incident; a teacher was found guilty of moral turpitude and accepted his guilt; Naseem Saheb let him off only to save the teaching fraternity from a stigma. The very same Hon’ble teacher, you having confirmed that he was charged of plagiarizing a book and embezzled Hall money, you have chosen him as your legal adviser. “To err is human and to forgive is divine”, is perhaps the guiding principle for you in this particular case. But why then have you encouraged and harbored people of doubtful integrity and character? A man is known by the company he keeps.

Please recall the day when you were taken in the traditional carriage driven by horses to the office of the Vice Chancellor to take over the charge when Professor Saleemuddin, the then Pro-Vice chancellor (whom you designate as former VC. Why? Because you hold teachers in high esteem and misbehaves with them and victimize them when suits you) was asked by the Students’ Union President to step down from the carriage and he occupied the seat of Prof. Saleemuddin. You, instead of reprimanding the President because of his outrageous behaviour, cultivated him. For this student leader English was a foreign language and Urdu for you. How did you converse with him frequently?

Kindly recall the incident of September 2007, three months after your joining the University. This was culmination of the policy of appeasement of student leaders that you adopted immediately after your arrival. After the unfortunate incident of September 2007, you insisted for an enquiry and the E.C. endorsed your proposal, yet you did not allow the enquiry to be conducted. This points an accusing finger at you and exposes your treacherous ways. Is it because you too are responsible for the said incident due to your above said policies?

Finally you realize it or not, you have committed a suicidal mistake by crossing swords with a person, who stood by his commitments inspite of some of his failures and mistakes, that came his way but you are the one who has no concern and commitment to any one in the world except to your own good-self.

Let the readers decide the darkness of the period.

We, shall receive respect in proportion of the respect, we give to others.

May God help us.

Sincerely,
Prof. Ziauddin Ahmad,
Professor of Botany, Rtd.
__._,_.___

The Darkest Period of AMU?

2010-06-22T11:21:00.002+05:30

The V.C., Dr. P.K. Abdul Azis, in his propaganda campaign, called a meeting in the Kennedy Hall on 14.06.2010. For the audience, entire staff of the Registrar’s office was called there. Obviously the work in the Registrar’s office remained suspended during this period. He explained his three years’ achievements. Some of his men delivered speeches in his praises obviously with exaggerations according to our typical culture. Objectionable part of this whole campaign is that he got his ‘Profile’ printed at the cost of the University and distributed among the audience.Still more objectionable is that he wrote in this ‘Profile’ the period of his predecessor as the ‘darkest period’ of the history of Aligarh. Not only this time but he is on record having said on so many occasions that he took over as Vice Chancellor of AMU at a time which, according to him, was the darkest period in the history of AMU. Obviously he is referring to the period when Mr. Naseem Ahmad, IAS, was the Vice Chancellor for almost five years. Since I was also part and parcel of that administration, I have full justification to comment on this irresponsible statement of Dr. Azis Saheb. Till he commented verbally I kept quiet but now when he has come out in writing, my response seems essential. Though I feel it highly embarrassing to discuss this point in public yet Dr. Azis has stooped down so low that I am left with no option but to open my mouth, Hum Bhi Munh Mein Zuban Rakhte Hain – Kash Poochho Ki Mud’daa Kiya Hai.
Making such comments against his predecessor is in a very bad taste, unbecoming of a Vice Chancellor and against propriety. No officer in a sober and cultured society is expected to talk ill of his predecessor. I am sorry to say that he leaves no limits when it comes to vigorous publicizing, rather marketing, of his so called ‘achievements,’ completely forgetting that he is paid for precisely all he has done or undone so far. So where is the need for such an aggressive propaganda and that too at the cost of the university funds? Has any of his predecessors indulged in such an exercise of self–praise? To my knowledge, none.
Because all of them were sober, committed and quiet persons whose only agenda was serving the University in line with the dreams of Sir Syed. They shun all gimmicks of cheap publicity. What is worse about Dr. Azis is that in his over–drive for selling himself, he deliberately denigrates his predecessors to prove that he is the only shining star in the long list of the Vice Chancellors of AMU. I wish there was someone among his so called ‘advisors’ who could advise him that he should not indulge in malicious propaganda against the previous Vice Chancellors.
Here are a few interrogatories for the ‘greatest achiever’, Dr. Azis Saheb:
1. Was the University ever closed sine die during the tenure of Mr. Naseem Ahmad? Not even for a day, compared to two long spells of sine die closures during the tenure of Dr. Azis Saheb. The two murders, which Dr. Azis Saheb has referred to time and again , were committed after Mr. Naseem Ahmad had left the charge. Can Dr. Azis Saheb deny this fact which is in the common knowledge on the campus?
2. Who revived the AMU students’ union after a long gap? The answer is obvious. What about Dr. Azis Saheb?
3. Was there ever any delay in admissions, examinations and declaration of results during the tenure of Mr. Naseem Ahmad? Never
4. Who stopped the practice of arbitrary nominations in admissions and introduced the transparent system of nominations strictly on merit under various categories? On the other hand a very competent lady (Professor Imrana Naseem) was relinquished of her charge as OSD of Girls’ Sch. by Dr. Azis Saheb only because she refused to entertain an arbitrary admission of the recommendee of Mr. Fatmi, the then a Minister.
5. Were there any complaints regarding admissions or conduct of examinations and various entrance tests during Mr. Naseem Ahmad’s tenure? The reply is again in the negative.
6. Who submitted the proposals regarding the up-gradation of J.N Medical College and Z.H College of Engineering and Technology? Who started construction work of the Endocrinology Centre? Who initiated and almost completed the construction work of Dr. Ambedkar Hall for boys and Begum Sultan Jahan Hall for girls? Who started the restoration work of some of the heritage buildings like Victoria Gate wing of S.S Hall, Justice Mahmood’s bungalow (Pili Kothi) and PVC Lodge (It was renovated especially for the purpose of VIP guests and was attached to the Guest House, which has now been allotted to the “extraordinarily competent our illustrious Registrar” by the V.C., who enjoys a luxurious life there)? Who got completed the construction work of the building of Prof. K.A Nizami Centre for Quranic Studies? Who arranged for uninterrupted supply of electricity for the entire AMU campus and got constructed a separate Sub-station for the University? Who got almost all the University roads repaired and re-carpeted? Who ensured introduction of the UGC’s model curricula in almost all the courses? At whose initiative the Govt. of India approved the proposal for establishment of Urdu Academy in not only AMU but two other central universities? Can Dr. Azis deny that these initiatives were taken during the tenure of Mr. Naseem Ahmad?
7. Who raised the banner, though unsuccessfully, for the restoration of minority character of AMU? The reply is again obvious. During the tenure of Dr. Azis Saheb, the University Counsel absented himself on three consecutive hearing dates from Supreme Court without seeking adjournment and Dr. Azis Saheb has failed to take any action against the Counsel, why?
8. Who can deny that four University convocations were held during the tenure of Mr. Naseem Ahmad? Only one convocation could not be held due to the non availability of the VIP who had earlier given the consent to be the Chief Guest for the occasion?
9. Was he not Mr. Naseem Ahmad who raised a banner of successful revolt against the MHRD’s move for common entrance tests for various professional courses?
10. Did Mr. Naseem Ahmad control students’ discipline involving the Police or did he strengthen University’s own discipline system?
11. Lastly were there any allegations of corruption and financial bungling against Mr. Naseem Ahmad or against any of the other Vice Chancellor’s who preceded Dr. Abdul Azis? Let Dr. Azis Saheb himself reply.
The Real Darkest Periods of AMU:
1. One of the darkest periods in the history of Aligarh was when the AMU Act was repealed in 1965 by an Ordinance and Government wanted to drop the word ‘Muslim’ from AMU and nationalize it on the pattern of the Osmania University, Hyderabad i.e. the Minority Character was in danger .
2. Another darkest period of the University is now when, i) the Visitor of the University, for the first time in history, has ordered an enquiry against the present Vice Chancellor, Dr. Abdul Azis for his alleged involvement in financial corruptions and when, ii) the Residential Character of the University is put to danger in the name of the so called Special Centers.
My sincere advice to Dr. P.K Abdul Azis is that it is still time for him to do mid-course correction in his self centered and autocratic style of functioning. He should come out clean of the serious charges of corruption against him. He should try to learn the knack of taking people along with him and should stop throwing mud at others.
I am extremely constrained to write these comments and making it public.
Waqif Hain Mukhalif Bhi Mizajon Se Hamare – Humlog Dua Dete Hain Gali Nahin Dete
I hope Dr. P.K Abdul Azis Saheb is listening.
Regretfully,
Dr. Nafees Ahmad,
Professor of Ophthalmic Biochem, Rtd.
G-2, Dream Homes, S.S. Nagar, Aligarh

AMU Special Centres, Dr. Azis & Sir Shah Sulaiman

2010-06-16T21:12:00.001+05:30

From: Nafees Ahmad
Date: Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 4:48 PM
Subject: AMU Special Centres, Dr. Azis & Sir Shah Sulaiman
To: alirizvi@aol.com

Mohtaram Ali Rizvi Saheb, ASAK,

I am sorry to reply to your mail a bit late as you raised several points which required some time. In a detailed telephonic conversation on the other day I think, after going through your mail, I could not make my points clear.

You said in this mail, “I just fail to understand how you (I) feel that the opening of the AMU Centres will adversely affect AMU”. I submit:
1. The University has expanded several fold compared to what it was fifty-sixty years ago but no major changes in its administrative system have been brought about so far, which has caused an overall deterioration both in academics and discipline. It will cause still more deterioration if it is expanded further without bringing necessary changes in its administrative system especially after creation of the said Special Centres. If the administration, at the helm of affairs, cannot handle the affairs at the mother university, how can it be expected to handle when more institutions are created thousands Km away. The V.C. would neither properly manage AMU nor the Centres. Standards of both are, therefore, bound to go down further. Though the Centres have not come into existence yet, the V.C. is not finding time for the University only because he is much more worried about the “Qaum” and busy in establishing these Centres. Files over files are piled up waiting for his action as I could gather from the offices. Condition of various Departments, Schools and Colleges is getting from bad to worse for delay in action.
2. The affection the Aligs have among themselves is a rare and unique quality, not found among those of other Institutions. Its main cause is the residential life they enjoy at Aligarh, an obvious outcome of the Residential Character of AMU. They eat together; they live together; they quarrel and compromise, all together. “Is Buzm Mein Taighain Khenchi Hain Is Buzm Mein Saghar Tore Hain – Is Buzm Mein Ankh Bichai Hai Is Buzm Mein Dil Tak Jore Hain”. I have witnessed so many Mahabharats followed by Bharat Milaps among AMU students in the past. The so called satellite campuses will develop their own culture that will be all together different from AMU. In Kerala you will find Keralite culture, eating Rasam, Idli and Sanber etc and in Bengal another culture. Yes, you may get a few good lawyers or management students (That too is not sure in the light of above mentioned administrative difficulties) but Aligarianism will surely become a “Qissa-e-Parina”.
3. You say, “Let us get the money, the land, help set up the campuses…., assist in their becoming centres of excellence”. No doubt this expresses your pious enthusiasm and very good sentiments. But may be good for a talk of idealism and for an effective sermon on Muslim educational uplift. But when it will come to giving practical shape for creating a Centre of Excellence one will find it too difficult, rather impossible to run the AMU and thousands mile away Centres together. You say, “Like you and many others, I do share the fear that the Governance of these Centres may be difficult, but not impossible”. In the light of the little administrative experience that I have, I reiterate that the governance of institutions situated so far away shall be rather impossible. In the words of Mr. S. Shahabuddin, “I personally see the impossibility of the AMU running Satellite Universities, even if, it becomes constitutionally & legally competent to do so. Given the record of the AMU, this will be an impossible task from a purely administrative and management point of view”.
4. You say, “Sir Syed did not visualize AMU as a physical campus at Aligarh itself. If his vision was to educate the Indian minorities and Muslims, then surely we are on the right path”. Sir Syed not only visualized but also he practically established the MAO College at Aligarh. He wished it to grow into a University of repute, to the status of and to be known as the Oxford and Cambridge of the east. This was his dream project, which he visualized only for Aligarh. Yes, Sir Syed, Syed Mahmood and his other colleagues also desired to propagate modern education all over India and, for the purpose, founded Muslim Educational Conference in order to establish such schools and colleges in the length and breath of the country, popularly known as Aligarh Movement. As a result, Shibli National College, Azamgarh, Gandhi Faiz-e-Aam College, Shahejahanpur and few other institutions came into existence due to this movement but under independent management. Nothing can be so contrary to the facts, rather absurd, than to say that they wanted to establish schools of modern education all over India under the management of MAO College or AMU and that this is the right path of Sir Syed. Sir Syed emphasized especially on Tarbiat of his students, for which he established the well known “English House” in order to train them in good manners, culture, etiquettes and English way of life. Slowly this responsibility was shifted to the wardens and the Seniors of the Halls of residence. I still remember that at the time of my “Introduction”, when I joined AMU as a student, one of the Seniors asked me, “Have you seen Bab-e-Ilm (a small door in between SM North and its Dinning Hall opening towards the Union Hall, that time it was between the Depts. of Persian and Law )”; I responded with Yes. He said; Sir Syed constructed Victoria Gate, Bab-e-Ishaq, Babe-Rahmat, Lawrence Gate and Zahoor Gate (all in S.S. Hall), all of these being much bigger in size than Bab-e-Ilm (Gate of knowledge); What message it gives? Then he himself replied, in a big laughter; that means you read less (the bookish knowledge) and learn more (I was known as mugging the books most of the time). It was, therefore, Tarbiat of students that, to Sir Syed, was most important.
5. You say, “If people feel that the AMU Act does not have the provision for creation of these centres in far flung areas, let us then involve and get the Act amended”.Yes, the Act needs so many amendments but, I am sorry, any amendment for the sake of these centres, which amounts to abolishing our Residential Character shall not at all be acceptable and we (the Aligarh fraternity as a whole) shall be the first to oppose this move tooth and nail. Till we are alive we shall not let the Residential Character destroyed and the University go down under in the name of the so called Mallappuram and Murshidabsad Centres for a few crores of Rupees. This is an ill conceived programme and one of the great mistakes of Dr. Azis from the very beginning. Now he is adamant to get it through by hook or by crook.
6. You say, “In our desire to discredit a person or a group, we are trying to kill such a great initiative”. Our intentions may not kindly be doubted. Opposition of the Centres is not for the sake of discrediting any individual. We are opposing the Centres with full sincerity and conviction. As far as discrediting Dr. Azis is concerned, he himself is responsible for that. The charges of financial bungling both at CUSAT, Kochi and AMU have reportedly been proved. Still he has not decided to mend his ways and probably he shall not. Can any body tell me why he has engaged CPWD for the University constructions involving crores of Rupees when there is a full fledged in house Building Department for the purpose. Is it because they reportedly pay “commission” very quietly and are known to have institutionalized it? Only God knows. He engaged CPWD in Kochi also. The same experiment he is successfully repeating in Aligarh. ‘Honesty should not only be practiced but also it should appear to have been practiced’. Every body knows but can do nothing. Tuk Tuk Deedum- Dum na Kashidum”. A Maulana, while explaining the ‘Shirk’ in a lecture said; if you add a drop of urine to a bucket full of milk, it will make the whole milk impure. Barring Murarji Desai as it might be an Amrit for him, it is Haram for Muslims. Likewise, we the Aligarh fraternity, cannot tolerate for a second to find the Head of this great seat of learning involved in corruption. Had he been noble, he would have quit this august office on his own after the above reports. What face has he, now, to talk about Muslim educational uplift or Special Centres, again where crores of Rupees are involved. How such a person can be relied upon?

This reminds me of Sir Shah Sulaiman. He was Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court and then moved to Federal Court (the Supreme Court) as also the Vice-Chancellor of AMU. He came on the week ends to Aligarh and worked for two days (Saturday and Sunday). Usually he used to come directly to the VC office from the Railway station. V.C. office was housed in a room, adjacent to Victoria Gate on the west wing of the upper floor. He himself used to put on lights of his office and worked for the whole day till late in night. Thereafter, some times he went to the Phoos Ka Bangla (The V.C. Lodge, which was a thatched cottage that time and was known as Phoos Ka Bangla) in the night but most often he used to sleep on the roof of S.S. Hall (west) itself in front of his office. He took his food from the S.S. Hall Dining Hall (Lunch and dinner both). The bearer of Sir Shah Sulaiman, who made his bed on the roof and served food to him, narrated this story to me whom I happened to see as he was alive when I was a student. When leaving for Allahabad or Delhi on the night of Sundays he religiously put off the lights. Dr. Azis Saheb must not feel happy that he is following the footsteps of Sir Shah Sulaiman as he took his food from the S.S. Hall Dining Hall and Dr. Azis is eating from the University Guest House because at the end of every month Sir Sulaiman paid for his food to S.S. Hall and electricity charges of his office. He worked honorary and did not charge salary from the University.
Bhai Ali Rizvi Saheb, now tell me where our Hon'ble V.C. finds himself fit in the galaxy of the Vice Chancellors like Sir Ross Masood, Sir Ziauddin, Sir Shah Sulaiman, Dr. Zakir Husain, Col. B.H. Zaidi, Mr. Tayyabji, Prof. Khusroo, Mr. S. Hamid, Mr. Hamid Ansari and lately Mr. Naseem Ahmad etc. What is his level? He has discredited himself by his own deeds. No body is responsible for that. Has he courage to compare his way of living like Nawabs with wasteful expenditures at the cost of the University with that of the most simple life of Sir Shah Sulaiman. Though there was the title 'Shah' in his name but he lived like a Gada. Sir Sulaiman and others are, and shall ever be known for their sacrifices they made for this great seat of learning and Dr. Azis shall be known for …..?

Wassalam, regards,

Nafees Ahmad,
Ph.D. (1968),
Professor of Ophthalmic Biochem. Rtd,
G-2, Dream Homes, S.S. Nagar, Aligarh.
Ph: 9319096230

AMU Losing Minority Character?

2010-06-15T17:24:00.001+05:30

AMU's Minority Character Case is in the Supreme Court of India. The next date of hearing in the Supreme Court is fixed for 3rd August, 2010. Do the Vice-Chancellor and Registrar have answers to following questions?
1. Is AMU going to continue with Mr. Ejaz Maqbool, the Advocate-on-Record? One may recall that Mr. Ejaz Maqbool had admitted his "fault" (if at all it could be called a fault), and despite it, the Deputy Registrar (Legal Affairs), has already been suspended, without any fault, is absolutely clear by now. Has his suspension been revoked?
2. Who is going to replace Mr Ejaz Maqbool? And, whether the replacement has been provided with all the literature (which runs in around 3000 pages, including 12 volumes of literature of the Government on the issue). After all, the new advocate (who will replace Mr Ejaz Maqbool) has to be given enough time to study and prepare the arguments.
There is a need of thorough and careful reading and re-reading of 72 cases of last four decades in relation to the minority educational institutions of the country. Besides, critical understanding of the two judgments of the Allahabad High Court in the light of the AMU Admission Policy and procedure are equally most important. Many original records are in Urdu, Arabic and Persian- a non-Muslim advocate requires more time to understand and grasp it.
3. Who will brief the new advocates about the technicalities and history of AMU? Is the present Registrar competent enough, at least to explain what the finer points of contentions in the civil appeals before them. He has already been asked by an alumnus, A.G. Danish to undergo rigorous Refresher Course. Thanks to the Registrar's remarkable abilities.
4. It has passed more than two months from the last hearing/ happening? Is it not showing another callous attitude of the Vice-Chancellor and Registrar in sitting over the matter and not a single announcement is coming to the public, except victimization in the name of the minority case? Again, are they planning for another adjournment with the new group of advocates due to lack of time and preparedness? In that case, will the VC suspend himself or his beloved and 'competent' Registrar?
5. As of now, the VC's sole frantic preoccupation is to hiring an advocate/ chartered accountant to defend himself before the ongoing two judge inquiry into the allegations of most outrageous and unprecedented financial and other irregularities in which the VC-Registrar-F.O. stand indicted at least by the Principal Accountant General (November 2009). Mr. Kamal Faruqi is 'paid' to act as messiah of the VC, whose own 'wonderful' credentials are well known to a good section of people in Delhi.
In short, the VC’s priority is to save himself, the AMU's minority character case is nowhere on his agenda, as of now? I may kindly be corrected.

Seriousness, sincerity, commitment, ability and intentions of the Vice Chancellor and the Registrar in the preparedness for fighting the case of AMU's Minority matter in the Supreme Court is satisfactory? Should not it be taken as a wake-up call? Time is running too short.

Dollar/ Pound earning enlightened, self-righteous, all-knowing alumni (now consultants on special centres) should be able to show their capabilities in making the VC alert on the issue. After all, they gave him a red-carpet welcome overlooking his credentials (of corruption, repression, plagiarism) in the CUSAT.

Hats-off to those insiders who empanelled such a man!

Hats-off to the bureaucracy of the Union Ministry of HRD and that of the Visitor!

AMU's minority character zindabad, and VC Azis ?????baad.

Rahey naam Allah ka

ZAFAR KHAN
H-104, Batla House, New Delhi-25.

AMU Centres “stand established forthwith” (PRO).

2010-06-15T06:55:00.001+05:30

Buk raha hoon junon may kya kya
Kuch na samjhe khuda kare koi

The press note from the Public Relations Office dated June 8, 2010 in exact consonance with the Registrar’s notification (D.No ©/ 702 dated 7-6-10) (could be an exercise to preempt the Stay granted by the Hon’ble Kerala High Court on 7-6-10 is the most shameless exhibition of the misuse of official position and misinterpretation of laws and twisted facts to please the Masters in Delhi, in total disregard of the interests of the Aligarh Muslim University and a jolt to the hopes and aspirations of the Muslim Community.
The undeniable fact that the recent communication of the Visitor (27-4-10) was in response to the request of the VC (not authorized by the Competent Authorities of the University) but to Mr. Sunil Kumar, Joint Secretary, MHRD to release 50 crores earmarked in the Union Budget of 2009 for Murshidabad and Mallapuram. There was no request from the VC at all to accord sanction for Special Centres under Section 12 (2) of the University Act.
The episode has also exposed the Ministry of Human Resource Development thoroughly and brings to light that the letter of the Visitor containing her ‘approval in principle’ for the new Centres, was manipulated and appears to have not been processed through the prescribed channels nor the Visitor apprised of the facts. Govt. should take serious note of this.
In his eagerness to cover up the blunder on the part of the Ministry of Human Resource Development, the Registrar vainly tried to link up the Visitor’s letter with the VC’s communication of 13-2-2008 to Shri Arjun Singh but got caught on the wrong foot- this VC’s communication claims the so called approval of the Court, Executive council and Academic Council on the basis of which the present Visitor’s sanction was purported to have been accorded, is a lie. In doing so, the Registrar lost sight of the fact that the meeting of the said AC was held on 5-12.1-09 and letter to the Visitor was sent on 13-2-2008.
Moreover, in the absence of the approval of AC till 13-2-2008 and the fact that the Vice Chancellor’s letter did not mention the approval of the AC, where was the possibility for the Visitor to accord sanction and this letter incidentally referred for the creation of AMU Campuses not Special Centres and the letter was not responded to by the MHRD leave alone the Visitor’s sanction as claimed by the Registrar of the Aligarh Muslim University, a deliberate mis-statement. The Registrar has tried to hoodwink the public by furnishing false information on several counts which certainly is a penal offence.
Not only this, the Visitor cannot and should not consider according sanction to any plan or scheme unless the concerned Statute/Ordinance is amended by the relevant Authorities of the University. The manner in which the VC and his Office have placed the matter before the public, media, the President of India (who is also the Visitor of the university) is extremely deplorable and warrants strong disciplinary action and condemnation to stop this persistent irresponsible behavior.
The often repeated claims of Prof. Azis that Special Centres have the approval of the relevant Authorities of the University are quite misleading. The truth is that the University Court suggested four Centres for Muslims( 2-12-2007); Executive Council approved five Centres for Advanced Studies and Research (17-1-2008) and the Academic Council approved Special Centres (5-12,1,2009) for Muslims. There was no agreement on whether there should be Centres, Advance Centres or Special Centres. It ought to be pointed out here that these three categories are totally different from each other in their nature, content and objectives. Besides, Campuses were also frequently bandied about to make the confusion worse confounded. The number and locations were never finally approved by the relevant Authorities. The Vice Chancellor, who is not competent to take a decision on his own in this regard, had the audacity to decide not only about these Centres but also had the insolence to change the location, from Katihar to Kishenganj. More importantly, the prescribed procedure contained under Section 28 and 29 (2) of initiating the matter from Faculty to AC, EC and the Court (strictly in this order), incorporating the necessary amendments in the Statutes/ Ordinances to be passed on to the Visitor for approval and then to place it before both Houses of Parliament for approval (Section 31 (4) and (5)) has not been followed at all; rendering the entire exercise, claims and pronouncements of the Vice Chancellor and the recent decisions of the Board of Studies of two departments and the meeting of the Academic Council of 8-6-2010, as exercises in futility. Seen in this context, the release of Rs. 35 crores to the Vice Chancellor without the approval of the Authorities and necessary amendments to the rules is extremely objectionable and the MHRD owes an explanation and should act fast enough to retrieve the situation from getting out of hands.
In the light of the above, no sane person can agree with the insane assertion of the Registrar that “these Centres stand established forthwith”. Surprisingly, in the very next breath, the Registrar admits that ‘required modifications will be made in the relevant Statutes and Ordinances and notified separately’. This, besides refuting the claim of establishment of Centres also contradicts the assertion of Prof. Azis (The Hindu, Kerala, 18-1-2009) that amendments of Statutes is not required, the sanction of the Visitor would be sufficient.
The misleading of the University Community in particular and the public in general, by spreading lies, half truths, concealment of facts and generation of avoidable controversies, call for the removal of the incompetent Registrar forthwith, even if the notification in reference was issued at the behest of the Vice Chancellor. The Vice Chancellor cannot escape vicarious responsibility for the said notification. In fact, he has forfeited the right to continue in Office long back.
One can understand the concerns, pressures, agony and mental imbalance of person faced with an adverse report by the Cochin University Inquiry, CAG report, 2009 and the ongoing Visitor’s Inquiry. The allegations coupled with determined opposition and strong public opinion further added to his miseries closing all routes to escape. Under these circumstances, the only course open to a sensible, self respecting and educated person, is to call it a day and quit gracefully instead of pulling strings, day in and day out, to get out of the mess ( which is his own creation) with the help of the political bosses, who are nobody’s friends when the tides turn against.

Prof. Ziauddin Ahmad (Retd.)
Dept of Botany
AMU, Aligarh

Ploy Against AMU

2010-06-10T07:44:00.003+05:30

I must be thankful to "AMUNetwork", for having aired my submissions regarding AMU Special Centres in Murshidabad and Malapuram. I am also thankful to all of my friends, AMU Alumni and some very senior and respectable personalities who have responded to my mail very positively.

It is time I must inform you all that I sent the above referred mail to the V.C., Dr. P.K. Abdul Azis and Dr. Rahat Abrar in the very beginning in order to listen to their comments before making it public but I am sorry that none of them could get time to respond.

In this mail I would like to draw your kind attention towards another important issue. I suppose all of you know that there was a project of three independent universities for the Muslim minority respectively in Bangalore, Kishanganj and Ajmer planned by Mr. Antulay with the help of a high powered committee appointed by Maulana Azad Foundation, Govt. of India. These Universities may be brought into existence as practicable and modern streamlined projects. As far I know, this project has been submitted to the Prime Minister long back and has his prima facie approval. This shall be better alternative to the so called AMU Special Centres. These universities will obviously be under independent administration without hampering AMU's administration, residential character and without involving any legal issues either. Coming up of these Universities shall have far reaching consequences and shall indeed change the scenario in the times to come Insh'Allah but the Govt. is sleeping on this important issue.

I have two humble submissions, A) one to our Hon'ble V.C. and the other B) to our fellow AMU Alumni.

A) I shall very humbly request our V.C. kindly to concentrate on and find time for the University's betterment if he is really sincere to the University for which has he been appointed, drawing handsome salary and utilizing all kinds of facilities. Few months before a patient of head injury died in Medical College, whom I knew, because of non-availability of a ventilator. When enquired I was told that only four out of eight instruments available in the entire Medical college were in working order and all of those were in use. I do not know how many such patients are dying in our Medical College for the lack of facilities. One day I wanted to visit old periodicals section in the Azad Library, which is situated on the fourth floor. The lift was not working. I was told that it could not be repaired for the last several years for want of funds. A number of Departments in the University, Hostels, Schools and various Colleges etc. are deprived of basic requirements. You will find thousands of such deficiencies in the University for which our V.C. has no funds and has no time either. Yes he has crores of Rupees for the repair of V.C.'s lodge (facilities like Nawabs and kings), his T.A. bills, calling unnecessary conventions in Delhi, Aligarh, Lucknow etc and spending lacs from the Univ. funds only for the sake of publicity, unnecessary huge construction of boundary walls with the steel bar tops (These may be required for the outer boundaries of the University, but not at all inside the University campus), fixing CCTV cameras even in the girls' college and hostels (AMU is probably the only University having such arrangements on which the staff in the Control-room is sitting and watching the girls) etc. This must be an eye opener to all of us as to what are the priorities before our academician V.C. Of course one must be feeling satisfaction that there are at least no discipline problems in the University at the moment. But, having a little experience in this field, I can say with confidence that it is superficial & temporary phase. Having peace with dissolution of the Students' Union and with suppressing, rather crushing the voice of dissent is no achievement. Moreover relying on Police and CCTV cameras for controlling discipline in an academic institution especially in AMU is a mistake, rather blunder. Surely it is not a healthy sign. I feel proud that there is a well defined comprehensive internal system for that in AMU but alas! The VC has failed to strengthen it. It is growing weaker and weaker. He probably doesn't even understand. Our own system must be revived and strengthened. Instead, he is relying only on police. I shall, therefore, request the V.C. again that he give more time to the Univ. than running after the politicians beseechingly, calling conventions and wasting his precious time and Univ. funds which he could have used for the University's betterment. I also know that this request will go unheeded by the VC for the following reasons:

I am posing certain questions to explain:

1. Why Mr. Parnab Mukharji-Dr. Azis duo does not come forward to get the scheme of the above universities implemented? Is it because no University has been recommended for Murshidabad and Mr. Pranabji would not get electoral benefit out of it? Mr. Mulayam Singh won the elections on "Urdu Teachers" and Parnabji on "AMU Centres" as there are a lot of Muslim voters in his constituency.

2. Why Dr. Azis is in so hurry to implement this scheme from July, even without any infrastructure, whatsoever, for the courses he wants to start. Parnabji and UPA Govt., frightened of Mamtaji (She has swept the recent polls with full support of Muslims), has to win this and other seats for Congress in the forthcoming Assembly elections with Muslim support? This Centre has therefore to be started as quickly as possible and our V.C. is faithfully implementing this scheme. Is it because he has to appease Parnabji and UPA Govt to have their sympathy in the enquiry going on against him?

3. Why has Murshidabad got Rupees twenty five crores whereas Malapuram only ten crores? It is understood that the Ministry of HRD was not convinced with both of the projects because of the legalities involved yet it sanctioned twenty five crore for Murshidabad under the pressure of Mr. Parnabji but for Malapuram there was no such pressure. Though not in agreement yet the Ministry of HRD sanctioned Rupees ten crore to Malapuram also in order to balance, to some extent, the decision taken for Murshidabad project.

4. Dr. Azis has chosen Murshidabad, may be because Muslims there are educationally backward, but why has he chosen Malapuram where Muslims are most educated (having 100% literacy), economically very well off and who are already running a number of colleges of Management, Law, Engineering and Medicine etc. Muslim Education Society of Kerala alone is running more than two hundred and fifty such schools and colleges. The V.C. could have proposed this Centre in an educationally backward Muslim area. Is it because Dr. Azis has to appease the Kerala Govt. to have its favour in the enquiry report pending against him for action to be taken by Kerala Govt?

It must therefore be clear in our minds that the interest of these persons in the Special Centres is other than that of Muslim education. Dr. Azis is misusing the august position of the VC for his personal ends and Parnabji for his objectives. It is sad and highly deplorable that the entire game in the name of Muslim education is being played at the cost of the University interest. How simple community we the Muslims are? How long shall they continue this game? We the AMU Alumni are an educated lot. We should, with open and cool mind, sit together and decide the future course of action to stop this menace. No body should be allowed to play with our University. I may be wrong in my analysis. I am writing this with open mind.

B) In the light of the above it is obvious that both Mr. Pranabji and our V.C. shall be least interested in the above said Universities. It is we who have to raise a strong voice in this regard. I have a humble submission therefore to all fellow Alumni that while opposing the said controversial AMU Centres we must raise a forceful, unanimous voice and put our foot down to I) establish immediately the proposed Muslim Minority Universities and II) declare AMU a Minority institution with necessary amendments in the Act to be governed under Article 30 of the Constitution of India..

I had earlier decided not to write against our V.C. in future anymore. But I am not at all sorry to write these words again for I am extremely pained and every Alumnas and well wisher of the University must be pained to see the ploy, our University is being trapped in, not by Sangh Parivar but by the Chief Executive Officer of this great seat of learning himsrelf and that too in the name of Muslim education. Some body has rightly written in an email posting "Is Ghar Ko Aag Lag Gai Ghar Ke Charagh Se".

Aein-e-Jawan Mardan Haq Goi-o-Bebaki

Allah Ke Sheron Ko Aati Nahein Roobahi

I remotely deserve for this verse of Iqbal but I wish that it must refer to each and every AMU Alumnus if he finds the interest of his/her Alma Mater at stake.

Nafees Ahmad,

Ph.D. 1968,

Professor of Ophthalmic Biochemistry, Rtd.
Formerly: Proctor, Aligarh Muslim University

Member, All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB)
Member, The Markazi Majlis-e-mushawarat

Address:
G-2, Dream Homes, S.S. Nagar, Aligarh.
Ph: 09319096230, 09868482176, Fax: 0571-2700687

AMU Targets Student for Freedom of Speech & Expression

2010-06-09T15:46:00.005+05:30

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

2010-06-07T19:50:00.005+05:30

"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

AMU's Democratic Credentials

2010-06-07T12:31:00.001+05:30

We, Aligs are extremely disgusted of ourselves. We are not as courageous as Fatima Bhutto, who can afford writing against the sitting president, despite the fact that the President is alleged to have murdered Fatima Bhutto's father. Mr Zardari/ the Pakistani state is at least this much democratic. We are not a Noam Chomsky who can write against the President of the USA, the country he lives in. USA is democratic enough. Even though it props up so many autocratic regimes across the world. We are not Arundhati Roy, who can write against her own Home Minister and a Chief Justice. The Indian state is democratic enough.

AMU is probably having worse democratic credentials than the ones given by the military dictators of Pakistan to their fircest enemy citizens.

I hope USA based admirers of the AMU administration and its style of functioning will speak something. Nay, I must not hope, they along with many more Aligs, extended their support even to the VC who said, "AMU is bristling with ISI agents".

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.

All the above words are being said by a few teachers of AMU. I hope not all of them would be suspended, if at all they are identified.

Regards,
Dr Mohammad Sajjad
Lecturer
Centre of Advanced Study in History
Aligarh Muslim University (India)
{The above post have been picked up from fdr_amu@yahoogroups.com}

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

2010-06-06T10:35:00.003+05:30

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

Study Centres: A step towards commercial exploitation of AMU

2010-06-02T22:07:00.002+05:30

All Aligs
ASAK
Apropos Ziauddin sahab’s article, as I expressed in my earlier letter that consequent upon the clarification from the Supreme Court the matter has been settled once and for all, and now the test has also been conducted successfully, therefore it is no use to keep on crying on spelt milk unnecessarily.
However, the issue of Study Centres is again raked up. Lots of debate has already been taken place about the proposal of Study Centres and their locations in Bihar or West Bengal and Kerala etc., the real tribute to the great Sayyed is that we need a Study Centre in each and every corner of muslim denominated pockets of the country, but my question is that should we do it at the cost of our self respect? In my opinion the role, position, and honour of Aligarh Muslim University would be put to stake if the proposal of Study Centres is accepted in its present form.
The alig community and the University authorities have always shown great wisdom, balance, and objectivity, and this is the strongest reason that my optimism has not deserted me and I am placing the entire issue before you as the sole judge and I invite the opinion in any form including criticism of each individual reader.

Study Centres: A step towards commercial exploitation of AMU

This story starts five and a half years ago when the former VC Mr. Naseem Ahmad agreed on establishing off campus on the proposal of the then CM of Madhya Pradesh Mr. Digvijay Singh as the Chief Guest in the Sir Sayyed’s Day function on October 17, 2002. Mr. Singh on July 21, 2003 also offered 100 Acres of land for this purpose to the Gharib Nawaz Fopundation (GNF) on the occasion of foundation stone laying ceremony by the Mr. Naseem Ahmad of its Institute in village Kurana near Bhopal. Mr. S.H. Khan the Secretary of GNF visited AMU and met with the VC etc on Sept 11, 2003 and then GNF on July 24, 2004 submitted its proposal of a second campus of AMU to Shri Arjun Singh, Union HRD Minister. The UGC on Jan 28, 2005 wrote a letter to GNF informing that it has asked AMU to submit a proposal. On March 13, 2005 the GNF again requested (read complained) Arjun Singh about the AMU off campus and requested him to “promulgate an ordinance in order to expedite the process as a first step in this direction” (copy to Mr. Naseem Ahmad, VC, AMU). The Under Secretary MHRD Mr. K.C. Nandwani wrote a letter to UGC on April 21, 2005 on the same line and then on August 28, 2006 Mr. R.D. Sahay, Dy. Secretary, MHRD, wrote to the VC, complaining about delay on it and suggested to establish the said Study Centre u/s 12(2) of the AMU Act.
The initial concept of Study Centres in minority-dominated areas is a very catchy idea, since it is a step towards fulfillment of Sir Sayyed’s dream of furtherance of education among Muslims. However, the moment the above details came to me, there was a surge of queries, doubts, apprehensions and uneasiness besieged my mind. The obvious questions cropped up are; why GNF submitted any proposal without any MOU with the AMU? How the former VC Mr. Naseem Ahmad gave his assurance without taking any consent from the authorities of the University? It is different that thanks God he did not approve it under section 19(3), since he has the dubious distinction of establishing a Research Institute under this notorious section. The most obnoxious action is the request of GNF to promulgate an ordinance, who is this GNF and what locus it did posses to ask such promulgation about us? If it is so enthusiastic about this, why it does not establish a deemed University on its own? And if they are so impatient and undisciplined now, what they will do in future? And see their impudence, letter asking for ordinance was marked to the then VC, and above all the insensibility of the then VC on it and on the arm twisting tactics of the MHRD.
The story does not end here, it has another episode also. On April 30, 2007, Shri Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee, CM of West Bengal requested the Prime Minister to establish a new campus of AMU at Murshidabad, at the same time on April 25, 2007 the Belgachia Education Trust (BET) also requested the PM to establish an institution in WB on the model of AMU. The MHRD on 3 rd May wrote to AMU to establish a centre u/s 12(2) of the AMU Act. The BET complained to PM on the basis of a news in the Akhbar-e-Mashriq that the Registrar AMU refused the proposal on account of no such provision in the AMU Act to open any branch outside UP. In response, the MHRD on 8 th June wrote, “I would also request you to apprise us of your comments on the above quoted statement attributed to you in Akhbar-e-Mashriq.” Not satisfied with it the MHRD on 13 th July repeated it, but on the complained of trust by Mosharref Husain, Secretary BET.
Look at the behaviour of the office bearer of Belgachia Education Trust, he complained to the PM about our Registrar. Let me ask the credentials of these trusts. No information is available on internet except the address of BET in yellow pages, yes, the website of GNF provides its board; consists of one Professor from DU, three policemen (IPS), two Sajjada Nashins, two builders, one College teacher, one retired College Principal and above all the uncle of actor Salman Khan.
The Chief Secretary of Kerala Mr. P.J. Thomas in his letter dated Nov 21, 2007 (much before the approval of Study Centres by the EC on Jan 17, 2008) communicated that Union Minister of State of HRD Mr. Fatmi had agreed to the proposal of an Off Campus of AMU with all courses. What propriety did Mr. Fatmi posses to give his agreement without any acceptance by University bodies?
Now, I have unfolded the whole behind the scene story. In principle the establishment of Study Centres in the minority dominated areas is a crisp idea, but the above details is a glaring reference to possibilities of exploitation of AMU by the corrupt practices of private academic institutions and to subvert its unique character and autonomy. Whatever the reason may be, a moment’s reflection will show that giving nod to this sensitive subject in such a cynical haste will have implications that go far far beyond the confines of academic expansion. It in fact be a tacit acceptance by the EC of the MHRD’s right to rule the University as its empire. It is a double edged sword, these Centres of the University would go beyond the close watch of the central authority of the University and the teachers by way of punishment transfers could be controlled for ever, which always stood tall (off course with the alumni) in defeating the agenda of the Congress in the past and BJP / RSS now. It is a pity that the University has not learnt any lesson from the misadventures of the past; be it tinkering with our Act in 1951, 1965, 1972 or CET and Mr. Naseem Ahmed is the only exception other than teachers and alumni who offered strong resistance to Common Entrance Test.
In the event of regular meetings by the present Vice-Chancellor, I will not prefer to ask the Vice-Chancellor about it, but I demand a clarification from each member of the Executive Council and I would prefer to start from the teachers in the EC under any capacity followed by the Court’s representative and then the officers of the University on this issue. I expect that each member should clarify by writing in the AMU network that how an item with such nasty details was approved in the EC. And in case of no suitable reply, the only conclusion is that the present representation in EC has created a unique breed of councilors; largely uninterested in the day to day affairs of the University without realizing the powers and domain of this highest executive authority (it is always a common demand to finish the meeting quickly to catch the train) and indecisiveness despite its quasi-judicial nature, always consider the role of the EC as a supervisory council and they sought its membership to wield influence and power. As a result, in the last two decades EC has produced a system more skilled in politics than at policies or performance. Thus, leaving the most important decisions in the hands of officers, they always not concentrate on good governance but on lowest common denominator of staying in office. And the EC members are fighting on paltry issues.
The way MHRD is handling this issue is inconsistent with the present government policies based on institutionalization of affirmative actions to overcome discrimination against minorities. The same has recently been corroborated by the UGC Chairman Prof. Sukhdeo Thorat and Mr. Paul Attewell in a study entitled “The legacy of social exclusions,” which include establishment of institute in minority-dominated areas. The XI th plan envisages a target Gross Enrolment Ratio (GER) of 15% by 2012 from existing level of 10% by establishing 30 new Universities.
Originally it is not our idea instead it is the brainchild of private organizations in connivance with MHRD; therefore it deserves rejection in its present form. We should rather demand just 5 of the proposed Universities in minority areas and AMU may be the focal point of it. There should be no truck with any private organization and the statues should be clear that each centre / campus/ university shall have separate and non-transferable legal provisions of staff and funding. I hope that the Vice-Chancellor and the authorities of the University will take cognizance.
Otherwise, it is a question of surrender or sacrifice, in Sarmad (RA) words, a Sufi saint whose philosophy was Wahdat-e-Deen:
Sarmad Gila Ikhtesar Mi Bayad Kard Yak Kar Az Ein Do Kaar Mi Bayad Kard.
Ya tan Be Raza-e-Dost Mi Bayad Daad Ya Jaan Barahash Nisar Mi Bayad.
(O Sarmad ! shorten your complaint of two choices take one
Either put your body to the will of friend or offer to sacrifice your soul.)
Anwar Khursheed
Former Member University Court and EC
AMU, Aligarh.

ASAK,
At least I don’t expect such a reply from Arif ul Islam Bhai, he has sidetracked the entire issue perhaps in an apprehension that it is against the present Vice-Chancellor. Let me clarify that the present VC has already clarified that every proposal is that of the University and its people and not his personal one. However, if a wrong decision is taken than it will hound the present VC forever. I reiterate that the idea of study centres is a good idea but there should be no involvement of any private organization or trust etc. and it will ultimately be in the interest of the University as well as Prof. P.K. Abdul Azis, who no doubt has good intentions. The letters of the MHRD, office bearers of Gharib Nawaz Foundation, Belgachia Educational Trust, expression of MHRD to open centres under section 12 (2) of AMU Act, demand of Gharib Nawaz Foundation to promulgate an ordinance in this regard and still approving it in the EC, if this is not impudence and insensitivity and playing with the self respect for few pennies, then in what category you would place it? Moreover how would you stop MHRD if it would allocate funds and ask you to open a study centre in a branch any where in the country of Bharat Shiksha Parishad (a frontal organization of RSS) under section 12 (2)?
I have not mentioned any thing about the game of politics of principal political groups of the campus, every one knows that on the garb of test centres the entire tussle is to grab the VC, and this is not something new. I have also not used the term “rebellion”; the problem is that without going into the details of my article you have drawn self-conclusions. It is similar to the unfortunate fact that the General body of the AMUTA rejected the proposal of test centres and PG entrance test and accepted the proposal of Study centres without even a glimpse of item no. 20 approved by the EC in its meeting on Jan 17, 2008. It is a sad reflection on part of the Association of the teachers that except Mr. Jamshed Siddiqui and me no one bothers to go through the details before favour or opposition to these important issues.
Arif Bhai requisitioned a meeting of the General Body of AMUTA on two items; first in favour of Study Centres and second in opposition to Methew’s Commission, without knowing any thing about these, he has neither seen the approved item of EC on Study Centres nor the enquiry report of Justice Mathew’s, this only exhibits that his priorities are misplaced.

Jo Dekh Sakte Hain Unki Zuban Pe Taale Hain
Jo Bolte Hain Who Andhe Hain Kya Kiya Jaye.

Anwar Khursheed [akhursheed_alig@yahoo.co.in]
B.Sc. Engg Civil (1983)
AMU, Aligarh.
(The writer is a senior faculty member of AMU and presently on Study Leave at IIT-Roorkee)

Sand Castles called Special Centres of AMU

2010-06-01T00:37:00.002+05:30

Dear Moderator [voiceofaligs@yahoogroups.com]
ASAK
I have received an email from a teacher who wishes to get the following content posted. The teacher, for obvious reasons, wishes to remain anonymous. Since it has been drafted by the teacher, so I don't think it is appropriate to post it in my name.
I hope you will oblige me, and the teacher, by approving this mail with your necessary note. Or with the text of my request to you.
Please post it by pasting, not attaching it. Its title is:

Sand Castles called Special Centres of AMU
Deep Regards,
Zafar Khan
==========================================================
Much media hype is being created about the special centres of AMU but the ‘honourable’ Vice Chancellor is not able to persuade his own confidants among the senior Faculty members within AMU campus.

The Department of Business Administration had its meeting of Board of Studies (BoS) 13 May 2010 on the eleventh hour it suddenly occurred to the VC that he should care about getting this proposal approved through the appropriate bodies of the AMU, and thus an item was belatedly thrust upon the agenda of the BOS. Thanks to the incisive wisdom of the sharp members of the BoS, who passed the following resolution:

“[The BoS] appreciated the efforts of the Vice Chancellor in opening the special centres at Mallapuram and Murshidabad. However, it opined that the item is beyond the purview of the BoS of the Department of Business Administration to address the issue”.

All of us Aligs must congratulate Prof. Javed Akhtar, Prof. Ashhar (Civil Engineering, Co-opted member), Prof. Khalid Azam ( Chairman), besides other faculty members who displayed that they are firm sticklers of the statutes and ordinances of the AMU. A relevant part of the AMU Act 1981 restricts the expansion of AMU within 25 Kms. from the AMU’s Jama Masjid.

Even in the Faculty Board they displayed their firm commitment to the rules by forwarding the minutes of the BoS to the Executive Council (S-21(d) of the AMU’s Academic Ordinances, p.49).

Ironically, the Department of Law revealed its naiveté towards the Statutes and Ordinances for the same agenda item.

Credible information are available that the honourable VC tried to coerce Prof. Javed Akhtar to undo the resolution of BoS of 13.5.2010 either by hook or crook. Poor Hafiz Akhtar is caught between the devil and the deep sea. Let us all empathise with him and extend all possible support to him in upholding the rules of law on the campus. Needless to say he alone can not fight a battle with the VC.

Most worrying is the fact that the letter of appreciation from the Honourable President of India and Visitor of AMU, profusely cited by the VC can’t ever overrule the AMU Act 1981. (This is a letter of appreciation and not of permission from the Honourable President of India). More informed people have a different understanding of “special centres”. They interpret that only ‘special centres’ like Studies in Oceanography or other such specialised research centres can be opened elsewhere. This is not meant for running usual courses of teaching (Section 12 of the AMU Act 1981).

In India, there is already a concern about huge scarcity of qualified teachers, more specifically in technical-professional courses of higher education. One of the ways of resolving this issue was to enhance the age of superannuation (from 62 to 65 years extendable up to 05 more years). Clearly, the existing unfilled posts must not be diverted; rather they should immediately be filled. It is indeed a dangerous politics in AMU that first the posts have been kept vacant by holding General selection Committee (GSC) selectively and reluctantly, and then these vacant posts are sought to be pushed towards the elusive special centres, far away from Aligarh.

Nasty politics of intimidation is already on rise. Some whistle blowers among the teachers of integrity and competence are sought to be victimised in various many ways including withholding the recommendations of the selection committees.

Moot question is: why did not the V.C. try to have a near consensus of the insiders on the special centres? Why is he not able to persuade his own loyal teachers for geographical expansion of AMU? Is it because of Prof. Azis’ tainted credentials?

One is also not able to rule out the fact that Kishanganj, Murshidabad, (and possibly Mallapuram as well), have been the last refuge of the scoundrels. For how long the Muslim majority constituencies will be treated as electoral greener pastures by the self seeking politicians, that too in breach of that too in breach of the AMU Act?

Jaago Qasmi Jaago:

Sadly, Maulana Asrarul Haque Qasmi, the parliamentarian from Kishanganj (Bihar), does not worry about the corruption charges against Prof. Azis since his Cochin days. Mr. Qasmi does not worry about his own electorates who have not been offered Patna as centre of AMU’s entrance test. Mr. M.A.A. Fatmi and Dr. Shakil Ahmed have already been punished by their electorates for developing cold feet on the issue of Patna as one of the centres of entrance tests. Maulana Qasmi should be wise enough to read the writings on the walls.

Courtesy:
voiceofaligs@yahoogroups.com

AMU Centres: FRAUD PLAYED ON AMU & MUSLIMS

2010-05-31T20:10:00.002+05:30

AMU:FRAUD PLAYED ON AMU & MUSLIMS

Important: On eve of the meeting of hand-picked eminent persons(Mr. Naseem Ahmad ex-VC, Mohd. Adeeb, M.P. names deleted, Mahmoodur-rehman and Prof. Nasim Farooqui ex-VC addresses tempered with and so on) at India international Center, on 30.5.2010 organized by Prof. Abdul Azis to feed them with twisted facts and half truths about the establishment of campuses/ Centers and non-existent reforms on the Campus.

Aligarh Muslim University Act enshrines ‘a teaching Residential Muslim University at Aligarh’ as its preamble.

In addition to Faculties and Departments of Studies and Centres, the Act envisages the establishment of Special Centres and Special Labs, Schools etc. but within the prescribed limit of 25 km from the University Mosque under Section 5(9A) and 12(1) of the University Act, as a guarantee to its cherished Residential character.

All policy decisions are taken by the Authorities of the University, the Court, Executive Council, Academic Council, Finance Committee and the Faculties in the spheres defined jointly or otherwise; V.C. is sub-ordinate to the Authorities and implements the decisions taken by them.

The Academic set-up is based on Faculties to which Departments of Studies/Centres are assigned and Centre is treated equivalent to a Department and Departments cannot be duplicated in the University. Creation of ‘Special Centres’ (Section 5(9A) and 12(2) shall be supplement to the existing Departments/ Centres and be not independent and self sufficient to impart training of their own, for obvious reasons. The ‘Special Centres’ shall be within 25 km of the University Mosque as provided under Section 5(9A). As such, no ‘Special Centres’ advocated by Prof. Azis can be established, any where in West Bengal, Bihar, Kerala etc.

The incessant pronouncements and claims, rather a vicious propaganda through the press (including press conferences) conventions and conferences including the present one costing the University lakhs of rupees without authorization, of the Vice-Chancellor, Prof. P.K. Abdul Azis about establishment of AMU Campuses/Centres/ Special Centres for the educational upliftment of the Muslims of India on the strength of the oft-repeated Section 5(2)(c) of the Act, is a legal impossibility (as pointed out above) administrative impracticability (impossible to exercise control from Aligarh thousands of miles away on day to day basis) and a fraud on Muslims (as no such decision to extend concession to Muslims was taken by the competent authorities, nor is the University so empowered as its Minority Status has been under suspension by the orders of the High Court (including powers under Section 5(2)(c). VC persistant claims of extending concession to Muslims under Section 5(2)(c), may attract Contempt of the Court proceedings. However, at the same time Prof. Azis himself categorically stated that there shall no quota and admissions shall be made on the basis of open All India Tests. Furthermore, the Authorities have not taken a formal decision about the establishment of AMU Campuses/Centers/ Special Centres and necessary amendments to the Statutes and/or Ordinances were not brought about, according to the procedures prescribed in the University Act.

There is no truth in the disclosure made by the Vice-Chancellor (T.I.O. dated 15.5.2010) that the Visitor has accorded sanction to establish two new ‘Special Centres’ at Murshidabad and Mallapuram. V.C. in his letter (19.3.2010) referred to in the Visitor’s communication (27.4.2010) does not even contain a request for the sanction. While the Visitor has only “agreed to approve in principle the establishment of . . .” and it fell short of passing the order/sanction. Advertently or inadvertently the Visitor’s communication mentioned ‘Centres’ and not ‘Special Centre’ which is not in the scope of provision, Section 12(2) of the Act, invoked.

AMU is neither empowered to establish its Campus/Centres like all other Universities in the Country, nor have the competent Authorities taken formal decisions and amended the relevant provisions to make away. The ‘Special Centres’ have very limited scope and purpose which cannot substitute Departments and take up teaching work independently.

Despite this, the responsible Ministry of HRD, Govt. of India under pressure from the powerful Finance Minister, (The Telegraph, Calcutta, 27. 3. 2010) released the budget grant of 25 crores for Murshidabad (Mr. Mukerjee’s constituency) and only 10 crores out 25 to Mallapuram.

Therefore, all the pronouncements and claims by Prof. Abdul Azis are his personal without the required force of law and authority.

It is an open secret as to what are the compelling reasons behind Prof. Azis’s indulgence in all the mis-adventures and rhetoric’s with such a reckless way and so brazenly;

i) The Inquiry reports, Cochin University establishing financial irregularities and corruption charges against Prof. Azis, when he was V.C. of CUSAT, Kochi;

ii) CAG, U.P., annual report, 2009 disclosing serious unprecedented financial irregularities, running in crores of rupees;

iii) Visitor’s Inquiry is on, against him on all sorts of allegations made by the members of the Executive Council and much more not yet been listed.

Serious note must be taken of the freedom Prof. Azis enjoyed in this very important matter despite the restrain imposed short of sending him on leave by MHRD to confine only to routine matters during the pending of the Visitor’s Inquiry.

Anyway, Prof. Azis, hoping against hope that he can wriggle out of the mess of his own creation by serving the Masters in Delhi , particularly, Mr. Pranab Mukerjee and be-fooling un-aware Muslim Community. Is not AMU paying too much a price for no fault of its own.

Prof. Azis has messed up everything and he has nothing to offer, except his resignation and quit gracefully, the early the better.

Senior Teachers and Old Boys

29.5.10

Courtesy:
voiceofaligs.yahoogroups.com

{The above message was posted on the above yahoo group by a very senior and respected retired faculty Prof. Ziauddin Ahmad (Retd), Department of Botany, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, India.}

AMU Special Centres: A Dispassionate Analysis of Legal Impossibility

2010-05-31T20:04:00.003+05:30

Dear all, ASAK
I am responding with a sense of desperation regarding the sentiments expressed by Mr. Sajjad which are symptomatic of many other persons at AMU, that despite everything else 'the establishment of Centres is a big achievement of AMU'.This sentiment has dominated the web space but not the real world, where there is a gut feeling that something is not quite right but, there are not enough cogent arguments to articulate the feeling. I am worried about whom to address? and, Whom to focus on? As far as AMU Centres are concerned. There is total confusion on what has been done? Who has done what? What are we trying to do? There is no reason to doubt anybody's sincerety on either side of the divide except of course of politicians, those with a questionable past and their hangers on. Except for these everyone has the best interests of the institution at heart.
At the risk of being taken to be long winded, pedantic, heavy and also confused I would invite you to consider the following:
There are three main issues involved here, that may be asked as questions and whose answers may help in bringing clarity, the first issue is who benefits from these centers? The second is, is it beneficial or harmful for the university as an institution to go ahead with this endevour? And the final question (which is connected to the second) is do the existing laws make any provision to set up centers or shall we have to go in for amendment of the Act?
Let's start with a rhetorical question
"Who benefits from these Centers?"
Answer would be "Muslims obviously"
The next question should be 'How?'
This is where you do not have a glib response, you have to pause and ponder, because the University does not reserve seats for Muslims and, has never done so except a misadventure recently which is now in the Supreme Court of India, it does not give preferential admission to Muslims, it in fact is barred by law to practise any sort of discrimination.
So 'How?' still remains unanswered!
An additional weak argument that, these centers are in Muslim majority areas so more Muslims would get in, doesn't hold water as admission is by merit not by region or religion.
Additionally you only have to look at the statements made by Mr. Nitish Kumar and by the VC Prof Azis that these centers shall not have any reservation for Muslims and they are open to everyone. Similar statements regarding AMU in the context of minority colleges and institutions have also been made by the Minority affairs minister Mr. Salman Khursheed.
The logical corollary of the above would be ‘Then why this song and dance about the centers?’
This is where a little reflection would reveal the dirty business of politics, all political parties know that Muslims have been left behind on all fronts but there is a small increasingly vocal elite (comprising retired civil servants, professionals in various fields, NRIs , moulavis and caste leaders), which is articulating the sense of deprivation and demanding action and answers.
So politicians have resorted to tokenism, the lead as always being taken by the Congress party in states where elections are due, where Muslims are more aware of the lack of development in their areas and community. The ruling combine in these states also want Muslims to continue supporting them, so we have competitive populism where no one wants to be labeled a laggard or being perceived as grudging Muslims their place in the sun, so a university which world over is recognized as a beacon of hope for modern scientific outlook among Muslims is being projected to play a role which it never sought to play.
The Aligarh Muslim University was never intended or conceived to be the University Grants Commission of Indian Muslims, if any government or any governing party is serious about Muslim education then they should open colleges and universities which can cater to the Muslims. Why drag AMU into a role which would destroy whatever we have, whatever we have achieved. Let me clarify a bit:--
There are two broad types of university models in India (here universities, public funded and private can only be established by legislation) one is a unitary type with a bound and defined campus as well as properly demarcated areas of jurisdiction, these are generally residential universities;
The other is the affiliating type which has a broad area of jurisdiction extending over many districts and which have affiliated colleges that admit students independent of the University, but basic eligibility norm is set by the university concerned, they teach syllabi set by the university, students appear in exams decided by the university. Sometimes these universities also have post graduate departments but most of the time they are glorified examination boards, individual teachers especially in the colleges have no control over the syllabus, method of evaluation, evaluators etc, that are all decided by boards at the University level which also have some teacher representatives, in essence individual teachers have no autonomy.
On the other hand unitary universities like AMU, BHU and nearly all Central Universities, have a governance structure where teachers decide what is to be taught, how it is to be taught, how it is to be evaluated and who would evaluate it, similarly they decide who is to be admitted how they are to be admitted, and what is the eligibility condition(s). Here teachers also decide the creation, up gradation of teaching posts and their fields of specialization at the time of creation, teachers are also empowered to decide on topics for research and supervisors, we at AMU are also privileged to decide which conference to organize at Aligarh and on what theme/topic. All this is possible because our Act and other similar Acts have a provision of the Board of Studies at the lowest level which comprises of all the teachers of the Department along with certain other persons including those who are conducting research in the Department. This very significant provision is not properly understood by persons working or coming from non unitary universities such as most state universities, like B.R.Ambedkar University, Agra or Bundelkhand University, Jhansi or Kerala University.
The point to be understood here is that if a Center is established what kind of structure would we have there? Shall we have one Department in Aligarh? In that case what happens to the teachers teaching at these so called centers, what kind of control shall they have over the courses they would be teaching? Shall we have parallel Departments at these new places? But these are prohibited by law and even in Delhi University which also has powers of an affiliating University the South campus and the original North campus do not have duplicate departments. World over Residential Universities are accepted as better institutions for teaching and research.
The Government of the day understands all these niceties and intricacies as the passage of the Central Universities Act in 2009 shows, where all these sensibilities of jurisdiction and all India character are taken into account, around the same time the Delhi Government also realized the need for a residential University so a new university was proposed to be established in Delhi. It is interesting to note that all these new Central Universities and all the previously established Central Universities have a territorial jurisdiction. I.e. everywhere the respective Act gives the boundaries of their influence . Only a few Institutions have a pan India jurisdiction such as the Maulana Azad National Urdu University, Jawaharlal Nehru University, Indira Gandhi National Open University so they are in the true sense of the term, exceptions. This is so because we have borrowed our model from the British where the norm is the Residential system as it prevails in say Oxford and Cambridge.
What I am trying to prove is that even if you accept the concept of the so called “Centers, Special Centers, Advanced Centers, Campuses” nothing can be established without amending the University Act as it exists at present. It is all a political mirage which vested interests are interested to display till the next elections at least.
Now that the Muslim advantage/benefit mirage is out of the way let us see what the University has done under the existing provisions about setting up the so called centers:--
A suggestion was made by the University Court in Dec2007 to set up advanced centers ‘in principle’, in Jan 2008 the Executive Council of the University accepted the suggestion to establish, hold your breath, satellite campuses, now I don’t have to tell anyone that nomenclature is a very important thing, so did anyone have or still has clarity on what was/is being proposed, except that something was being set up. In Feb 2008 I.e., before any other authority of the University had considered the proposal a letter was sent to the President of India to accord ‘In principle’ approval of the so called special centers/parallel campuses/ centers of the AMU. What is the laid down procedure in the Act if something much smaller in scale is to be attempted such as a Department of Studies or a center like Women Studies or Career Planning Center or Cardiology Center or Endocrinology center is set up:
According to the Section 28(5) of the University Act any member of the University court may make any proposal which if approved shall be considered at its next meeting by the EC it reads (5) Any member of the Court may propose to the Court, the draft of any Statute and the Court may reject the proposal or refer such draft for consideration to the Executive Council, which may either reject the proposal or submit the draft to the Court in such form as the Executive Council may approve and…**This is then followed by a reference to Section28(3) which reads
(3) The Executive Council may propose to the Court the draft of any Statutes for its consideration and such draft shall be considered by the Court at its next meeting: Provided that the Executive Council shall not propose the draft of any Statute or of any amendment of a Statute affecting the status powers or constitution of any authority of the University until such authority has been given an opportunity of expressing an opinion in writing upon the proposal and any opinion so expressed shall be considered by the Court. This is the procedure referred to in the last part of the Subsection(5) which reads …**the provisions of this section shall apply in the case of any draft so submitted as they apply in the case of a draft proposed by the Executive Council. i.e. as given in subsection3.
Now in case you are getting confused permit me to lay down the procedure of any change in the university structure
1. A proposal for setting up a new department or centre can emanate from any of the Authorities of the University viz. the Faculty(ies), the Academic Council, the Executive Council and the University Court and sometimes also from the Board of Studies which is not an authority. All this however is subject to the following
1.1. Statute 20(2) which reads as follows (2) (a) Each Faculty shall consist of such Departments as may be assigned to it by the Ordinances.
(b) No Department shall be established or abolished except by the Statutes.
1.2. And Section 2(e) of the Act reads (e) “Department” means a Department of Studies and includes a Centre of Studies established by the Ordinances;
2. In both cases, whether the proposal came from the top or the bottom, it is first discussed in all democratic bodies and if it is accepted by all then the procedure of change in Statute or Ordinance is taken up which only starts at the lowest level of the BOS and goes up to the University Court.
2.1. At all places where powers are assigned the phrase “Subject to the Act, the Statutes and the Ordinances”is given this includes Section 12(2) of the Act which talks of sanction of the Visitor.
2.2.What should be understood by this phrase except that you can only do which is allowed, not that which is not allowed in the Act.
2.3. The Act very categorically says in the preamble the intention to set up a ‘Teaching and residential university at Aligarh’ it also says at Section 5(9A) “Twenty five Kilometers of the University Mosque” also “special centers”. The actual language at both 5(9A) and Section 12(2) is reproduced below
Section 5*(9A) to establish within a radius of twenty five kilometres of the University Mosque such special Centres, specialized Laboratories or other units for research and instruction as are, in the opinion of the University, necessary for the furtherance of its objects;
Section 12(2) The University may also, with the sanction of the Visitor and subject to the Statutes and Ordinances, *establish and maintain such Special Centres, Specialized Laboratories or such other institutions for research or instruction as are necessary for the furtherance of its objects either on its own or in cooperation or collaboration with any other institution.
Additionally even Section 12(1) which s concerned with schools also talks of 15 miles, so the intention of the lawmakers are obvious, no expansion beyond a physical limit.
2.4 An example from the past may be looked at. During the tenure of Prof Naseem Farooqui as VC 1990—1994, the then PVC Prof Abul Hasan Siddiqui had come up with a proposal to set up a new Medical College near Lucknow at Sitapur road for which land was also being made available. Then also many well meaning individuals had welcomed the proposal and had seen in it the future of the University, however there was disquiet on the campus because it was seen as opening the backdoor to a permanent harmful change to the University’s structure, but in keeping with our traditions very few were willing to make their disquiet known on record.
When the matter came up in the Academic Council it was passed by majority vote but there were three notes of dissent which spelt out the above provisions, stressed that ‘subject to…’ can only mean that which is allowed and; that before any further processing, the matter be referred to the Ministry of Law, Govt. of India. This was the end of the matter.
2.5 Similarly Centers set up during the tenure of Mr.Mahmoodur Rahman as VC 1995—2000, were wound up later, during Mr. Hamid Ansari’s tenure, as not being in consonance with the Act, Statutes and Ordinances.
3. What is a ‘Special Center’ or a ‘Specialised Laboratory’, this obviously is something which does not exist in the University but the University feels that this requirement/gap/ needs to be filled up, so a provision is made in the rules to fill up such a lacunae. It definitely does not allow the setting up of parallel departments or campuses anywhere.
3.1 The President is said to have given her consent ‘in principle’ for ‘Centers’ under Section 12(2), this section covers only special centers so what is this entity “Centers”? and what does “in Principle” mean? Does it mean the idea is prima facie acceptable but, a proper concrete proposal is required when a final view and decision shall be taken. It does not by any stretch of imagination allow for teaching to start in a makeshift manner. What happens to the ‘Brand AMU’ for which a high profile committee was set up? Even those who concede the basic principle of centers being setup are worried, is this how we shall provide degrees in a half baked manner and with makeshift faculty and facilities? Shall we have a different admission policy for these places? Who is an internal student here and who is not? Even if admission is offered to students currently studying here in the internal quota will they go there ? What shall be the final profile of the students and the teaches? These are the questions the supporters of the idea are asking but, don’t have the nerve to ask in public for fear of annoying the VC. Maybe this why in all elections held recently an overwhelming number, more than three fourths, voted against persons perceived to be supported by the administration. Why are we in such a tearing hurry to destroy everything? Just as that half baked idea of Muslim reservation destroyed decades of our quiet work in education.
4. It follows, therefore, that the proposal is bound by two limits; it should not breach the 25 Km limit and, it can only be within the existing system i.e. it should not tinker with the basic structure of the Institution which is at Aligarh and which is residential. I would like to draw your attention to the doctrine of the basic structure of the Constitution which has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, I suggest it is a similar case here at AMU.
4.1 How is the basic structure to be determined? A basic structure involves institutional goals and aspirations as well as methods and powers to achieve them, through a laid down system of academic and administrative information flow and decision making which has to be processed through certain authorities (bodies). All Government institutions including AMU have this system in place for anyone to analyse and discuss, for AMU it is ___ Teaching and residential at Aligarh along with the Department and Faculty system with local decision making.
I have it on the authority of one of the most distinguished scholars ever produced by this University, a name which has and still inspires awe in academia, that the AMU Act shall require amendments before any of the Centers(?) as conceived by the present administration see the light of the day. I had respectfully argued that this will change the university as we know it and, although we have not been brilliant and outstanding, except for notable exceptions, we may even be harmed and, loose whatever we have achieved and have come to stand for. I also raised questions of academic governance and administrative organisation which I have already spelt out above, we are not able to properly manage a bound campus, how would we manage a far flung atomized structure? His answer was illuminating. He said it is politics and it is the politics of governance and, every political party is making use of the opportunity being offered. He also mentioned that if the proposal is to work, separate universities shall have to be set up, in the present form it seems to be unworkable as regional feelings and aspirations shall come into play. As ours was an informal discussion it shall not be proper to mention names, but I hope readers shall get the general picture of disquiet that most of us have here.
I hope I have answered the third question I had posed at the beginning of this letter, that the present Act does not allow such centers to be set up.
Finally, after the third question let me try to answer the second question I posed earlier, let me try to do it without using the term Muslim as Mr. Hamid Ansari, during his tenure as VC here, was fond of asking us to do. The second question was ‘does it benefit AMU as an institution to go in for these changes’ meaning does the stature of AMU increase or as our present VC is fond of saying does ‘Brand AMU’ gain prestige ? The answer very categorically is NO. Why? Well because we as an institution have not contributed very much in pure academic terms except the individual brilliance of scholars who can be counted on our fingers. No doubt we have also had great litterateurs but they just happened to be here, they were creators, not interpreters or analysts or great teachers. So brand AMU is known more for the total individual it produces a strange mixture of a sardonic wit, an appreciator of all good things of life but, a person who retains a sense of belonging and so remembers that one should do something for society, a person who is simultaneously both religious as well as irreligious with a healthy dose of skepticism thrown in. This product is produced in Aligarh, in the hostels, library, classrooms here. It would not be produced in a Kishanganj and Murshidabad or Mallapuram or Bhopal or Pune, and I am not being snobbish or denigrating anyone or any place here. The individual who wants to do something for the deprived sections of society can be and is produced elsewhere also, but it is only here that you get an Aligarian which I fear you would not get elsewhere.
As I am writing this Aligarh is being lashed by a high intensity wind storm very soon electricity shall go off and we know that it will not be soon before it is restored.
Today is May 30,2010 the VC is in a high profile meeting in Delhi (all senior officers were asked to accompany him), this is to be followed by a press conference where we shall get to know the laurels AMU is earning, the new centers, the new courses we shall be having etc. This place which is said to contain a high concentration of educated persons of all communities, including the highest concentration of educated Muslims in India is being ignored. On the other hand, people who left India many years back, who are working in different systems with different models of education, where social justice has a different connotation and different solutions are being roped in to give advice. Why? Is it because they add glamour? It is not that these persons will not or cannot contribute, of course they will, with their differing experiences, bring a new perspective to the table, but the framework has to be according to our needs and requirements and drawn up by us, who live that reality, not someone who has a romaticised notion of the past, these experts should come in only after a basic plan has been agreed upon not earlier.
Here on the Campus there is no electricity since yesterday i.e more than 24 hours. Supply has been restored in the city, where we all know there is corruption all round, last night itself. In our great campus which is planning to open centers and what no, the students who are appearing in exams have been left to fend for themselves in this sweltering heat where there is no electricity in any Hall, MA Library, Department etc. They (students) are not making any hue and cry although they see that the central offices continue to have electricity for ACs, the VC’s lodge is lit up in total darkness all-round like always, unique like an oasis in a sea of sand, they are quietly preparing for their exams. These are the same ‘rowdy students’ for whom we require a continuous surveillance system with high tech cameras and all. Incidentally three camera towers including the control tower have come down; this is an indicator of the slipshod quality control we practice, even for things that we passionately espouse.
Today is May 31,2010 still no electricity still no change, the University has money to put in place a high tech security structure because it has played upon the latent muslim phobia of the security apparatus, it has no money to put up electricity poles, lack of the latter adversely affects research, teaching, learning ,exams; lack of the former only affects the pockets of the suppliers and the psychological state of the administration. The employees of the Electricity Department are working tirelessly to restore supply but the Land & Gardens office is sitting idle, it has not moved to remove the broken trees and their branches from the roads and electricity cables and poles. We do not have a disaster response system, every year we have storms, every year we have rains, every year we have recurring crises but we have knee jerk reactions; we are so involved in our support to the administration that we forget to tell the emperor about the clothes he is wearing.
I hope I have been able to put across a point of view which you would understand and respond to.

S. Mustafa Zaidi [s_mustafa_zaidi@yahoo.co.in]
Department of Library Sciences
Aligarh Muslim University
Aligarh-202002 (INDIA)

(The writer is a senior faculty member and the message was posted on worldofaligs@yahoogroups.com)

Another Death in AMU: Callous Response from Administration

2010-05-31T13:10:00.001+05:30

A Student Died: Questionable Response from AMU administration

I am sitting now at Morison Court Hostel. The CCTV tower behind me is kissing the ground after the semi-cyclone hit AMU yesterday causing much destruction. Trees uprooted, electric towers fell, major roads blocked with all this thing and yes the much praised CCTV towers of Library and Begum Sultan Jahan Hall( 2 main receptors among 3, other at Registrar Office is however safe), Abdullah Hall, Sir Syed House ( It seems Sir Syed's soul also cursed it) are now destroyed. It seems they were poorly installed leaving the scope to repair them again sanctioning more money.

I am here talking with some of my old hostelmates like Shavez Raza, Kasim Khan, Mafaz Khan, Faisal Zahid, Syed Nehal Wajid, Faizan Shahid, Zeeshan Malik, Afnan Khan, Mirza Hasan Beg et all( Classmates of the student died day before yesterday at Railway Station) who are seething with anger with the mismanaged and callous response of the administration in the wake of unfortunate death of Aijaz Khan, B.A Political Science(II Year) who hailed from Siwan, Bihar. May Allah rest his soul in peace! As they are stating me, Aijaz went to railway station last night at 9 pm around to see off his friend along with Zafeer & Ghaus. He was crossing Platform No. 3 to 2 when all of a sudden a train hit him from the back which caused lethal injury to him. Nobody came to help. GRP & RPF around contacted to send the injured student to Medical they showed utter callousness and refused to send the student without informing the Proctor. They did not try at all. Students tried to contact the telephone no. printed on I-Card as the student was still alive then but in vain, it did not work. No one helped. The body lied there without any help for 20 minutes, unattended by all. Zafeer & Gaus then took a "TIRRI" and at a moment when the body of that student was half-cut from the waist, with all the blood spilling around they reached the Emergency of JNMC only to know he was already dead. These facts are published in most of the local Hindi newspapers.

As these students are stating me, when the time came to send this deceased body of this AMU student to his home the AMU administration present there i.e Proctor, Asst Proctors, Provost Dr.Suhail Sabir ( Registrar came and went soon) showed utmost insensitive approach. A "Khatara Ambulence"( In their words) was selected with no light inside( it would be boiling in this hot summer, students challenged that if any1 4m administration can stay inside 5 minutes) by them to send that deceased body without properly packing it( they said just a white sheet was on him, shoes were not taken off, later these students took care of that) and placing it on single ice cube. The students protested that this way the body could not reach his hometown, and body may fell and shake gravely on the potholed roads, and after 2 hours the Ice Cubes would get melted. The administration said that the hospital staff of Ambulance can take care of that body as they are habituated with it who when asked by the students denied that this way would be sufficient for that body and they (administration) also said more ice cubes can be bought on the way( I don't know why minimum common sense they did not have, Siwan is 900 km from Aligarh, How many time Ice Cubes can be bought?). The students insisted on more ice cubes then administration said students may themselves arrange that. According to the students, the administration consisting abovementioned people were just in hurry to send that body as soon as possible without thinking how it would be sent. What was the motive is unknown. Vice-Chancellor Sir on the other side was in Delhi and busy in publishing his achievements and busy with AMU branch thing.

As per his classmates around me, when one student proposed that LIFELINE ambulance with air-conditioned and other special facilities can be called at Rs.40000 to send that body properly to his hometown, the Proctor said they don't carry dead bodies and they can't arrange Lifeline Ambulance then. Students unknown of the funds( Later I told them under Miscellaneous fund collected from students University already have 2 Crores now, apart from that many other emergency funds are there) proposed to the Proctors and others, that later on University can charge in their hall dues if they do not have required amount then( What a shame!). The Proctor agreed but said that the students may arrange Lifeline Ambulance themselves. A student Hasnat had their number and they called Lifeline Ambulance, they agreed and said if Rs.40000 is deposited to their Office at GT Road, they have no problem to send that deceased student to his hometown). However as per the students though they agreed and LIFELINE AMBULANCE was on their way to JNMC but did not reach for long and made lame excuses. In the meantime C.O Civil Lines Omprakash Singh heard the facts from the students and he himself called LIFELINE Ambulance Office and I must held him in high regards for the thing he said to them that their fee may be adjusted later , he assure them of that but they must reach JNMC immediately. When LIFELINE AMBULANCE reached there, the Proctor that moment insisted that now more ice cubes need to be packed with body else University administration won't send it with this LIFELINE ambulance. Shavez (Morison Court) asked the driver if they have any problem with it and he said they have no problem with anything if Rs.40000 is given to them.

Now Shavez and Mafaz, while riding on their bike to search for Ice Cubes in the market( Proctor said that students may themselves arrange the ice cubes. I don't know why so many staff are there and whether university have no responsibility?), C.O Civil Lines O.P.Singh saw them and advised them to take the Police Geep ( I must praise him for his help again. Proctor Office people were mute spectator to it. Their vehicles were not for students as if.) He asked the police driver and that arrange the Ice Cubes from anywhere and help those students. So after the Ice Cubes were arranged by the students themselves and adjusted with the body, then the student bid farewell to their deceased friend in that LIFELINE AMBULANCE along with one his relative and friend.

However I would praise about the Proctor on one point as I heard from the students that he advised that FIR can be lodged against the GRP/RPF for negligence if the post mortem would be done of that student but his relatives seemed not to agree with post mortem thing. All of the above facts of negligence and callousness was accepted by one former Senior Proctorial Monitor today to me.

However may be there would be some biasness in presenting this story to me by the students who were hurt to see all this going on, but I would expect that people should know what administration say in their defence of their actions regarding this deceased student. I hope someone amongst them would reply to my questions.

But above all this incident left many question for the administration:

1. They apparently installed the CCTV cameras for the security of the students and for the safety of their lives are of 2.1 Crore. As I heard from Shadab Bhai, Research Scholar, Department of Computer Science, Aftab Hostel that even in the case of Mazhar Naeem( Who was murdered and followed a sine die in 2007), even after so many calls made by the him and others at Proctor Office and other places the university vehicle reached the spot to take him only after 20 minutes. This time students carried the body in a TIRRI when no help came. University can think of CCTV cameras but cant they think of any emergency Ambulance or line one of LIFELINE AMBULANCES to be purchased of worth Rs. 10-20 lacks with all the emergency facilities, air-conditioned, shock absorbers( APOLLO have this) with any special number popularized among the students which can reach any spot immediately to attend any seriously injured student and save his life. No! They have no time to think about the lives of the student but they want projects worth crores so that some fill their pocket.
2. Well though I agree there was a need to send that body soon to his hometown but why University authorities did not care earlier to send him properly in a way that his body would be properly preserved and won't be affected in the potholed roads. Why this much callousness? Had their relatives faced this thing would have they acted this way?
3. When students advised the administration (Why they need it I don't know) about the LIFELINE AMBULANCE why there was so much hesitation even University have enough funds for such facilities. University have no problem when Vice-Chancellor's kins travel by Air, but they can't arrange themselves and pay for proper vehicle to send a deceased AMU student. Why? Why only after student insisted they arranged that?
4. I remember when my friend Mulla Sabit Ali died in 2007( the first death in 2007), Naseem Ahmad, Former Vice-Chancellor arranged to send his dead body packed properly by Air to his hometown in Orissa and next day issued a notice pasted everywhere stating the expenditure made for this purpose and the Head of Account( Miscellaneous Fund) may be. But Mulla Sabit's relatives denied accepting that amount. Why now the university administration shows no responsibility and care to their students and Police and District Administration shows the same thing more than them? O.P.Singh, C.O Civil Lines in this case as students said helped them a lot.

We know it very well, if we protest even peacefully about such callousness and insensitiveness the AMU administration would immediately suspend some 20 of us and some Old Boys would start competition among them in rallying behind the administration saying "some elements are against the interest of the university and peace must be kept at any cost. Throw them out of our beloved alma mater" but won't ever ask the administration to think about us. And they know merely by asking for anything nothing helped us till date . This time the University administration is morally responsible for this death again as they could not provide any emergency help to the students.

I never justify violence as a form of protest, never been associated with it. But sometime the amount of insensitiveness and callousness I see here these days, I believe as things are not like Old days when University administration showed much more care to the students, now AMU students without love and care would be unruly and violent only. It's their actions that are responsible, not us.

Md. Adil Hossain [adilhossain43@yahoo.in] M.A(Previous) Mass Communication AMU, Aligarh

Courtesy: TheAligarhForum@yahoogroups.com

Beyond Rafi Relief:Moral Ambiguities of AMU

2010-05-24T12:38:00.000+05:30

Big educational and cultural institutions, sports organizations, etc. are increasingly earning disrepute for mis-utilising/ (diverting illegally) funds. In fact, there seems to be a competitive spirit in this kind of degeneration. The allegations are most often against the best of scholars, and most suave of the politicians. P. Vijayan, Shahshi Tharoor, NMML Director (See, The Hindu, 24 May 2010), quite a few Vice Chancellors, and God knows who else.
O. Ravi (IAS), Lalit Modi and other such names are not as much outrageous, because of their "low" stature.
Dr Mohsin Raza sb, Mr Adil or few more people like them may (or may not) come out with embarrassing truths. That won't be surprising. Still some highly accomplished alumni (self-righteous ones, some of them based in overseas) will display most disgusting kind of flattery. Even if Dr Mohsin Raza sb or Mr Adil come to know of irregularities and succeed in obtaining evidences to that effect, what difference will it make? How many self-righteous, overseas alumni have shown their outrage against Principal Accountant General's Report (November 2009) on huge financial irregularities in AMU? How many of them have spoken forthrightly against Justice Mathew Report? There is a long history of corruption in AMU. One of the reasons for saddening and depressing last days of Sir Syed was corruption in MAO College. Many more evidences collected in various inquiry reports like Sheikh Abdullah Report(1926), Ibrahim Rahimatoola Report (1927), G.C. Chatterji Report (1961),...further testify it.
So much of Tehzeeb and Tamaddun of Aligarh.
Reports of corruption in higher judiciary are no secret. Arundhati Roy's essay, "Scandal in the Palace" is only one such brave "report". Dinakaran and many more are already increasingly becoming sources of embarrassment for the Indian judiciary.
We are living in an age of moral ambiguities. The distinction between heroes and villains, honest and dishonest, moral and immoral are increasingly getting blurred. Popular Bollywood Hindi movies are best articulations/ representations of such ambiguities.
The whistle blowers are the most hated elements among the sections of Aligs. They would ask you to leave the sacred/ holy place like AMU, as according to them, it is above criticism; it is a question of faith (Aqeeda/ Aastha- Much like the Sangh Pariwar’s argument that the Ramjanma Bhoomi is a matter of their aastha hence Supreme Court, Parliament, Constitution, scientific history, all are irrelevant and redundant). They wantonly refuse to realize that those who make such exposes are the greater friends/ well-wishers of AMU, as they are mobilizing opinion for the systemic corrective.
Shahryar’s poem, “Muslim University ki Fariyaad” is worth recalling:

MujaawiroN ki bheerh ney
Mujhey phir ek qabr mein badal diya
MaiN kah raha hooN der sey
MaiN zinda hooN
Meri sada mein baaz gasht kyoN nahiN
Merey Khuda
Mujhey sazaaeiN jitni dey
Pe yooN nahiN

Beware of these “Mujaawirs”.
There are many, ever increasing, and they are the moral custodians of the institution.
Should not we scratch the various layers of meanings embedded in this brilliant metaphor, “Mujaawir”?

I hope, "amunetwork" won't censor it.

Regards,
Dr Mohammad Sajjad
Lecturer
Centre of Advanced Study in History
Aligarh Muslim University (India)
fdr_amu@yahoogroups.com

Rafi Relief Society, AMUSU, Student Activism and Current Administration

2010-05-24T12:37:00.001+05:30

Janab Dr. Mohsin Raza Sahab, Moderator of WorldofAligs and Former President, Aligarh Muslim University Students Union rightly mentioned about the Philanthropic Rafi Relief Society associated with AMUSU. This is also a glaring truth pointed by him that University authorities are still charging the students some amount under this head ( Code 50206 in the PAYEE's COPY) even in the absence of AMU Students Union.

In one of the RTI reply received by me vide D.No 134/Stud dated 07.10.2009 from the Asst Finance Officer( Students) it was mentioned that AMU authorities collected Rs. 64,153 in the session 2006-07, Rs. 83,466 in the session 2007-08 and Rs. 69, 568 in 2008-09 as Rafi Relief Fund.

Well, I am not aware of the rules and regulation at place that whether Rafi Relief fund can be spent in the absence of AMU Students Union or not but in another RTI reply vide D.No 141/Stud dated 10.10.2009 it was stated that in the session 2007-08 Rs. 49, 213 was spent by the AMU authorities. However AMUSU was dissolved in September, 2007 by the AMU authorities. Janab Mohsin Raza Sahab may throw light on this issue as being Former AMUSU President he might know that whether AMU authorities can spend from this fund or not in the absence of AMUSU.

AMU students are always ahead in the philanthropic activities and as I often compare it with other universities I feel proud about my alma mater on this front. AMUSU has always taken the lead in recognizing the problems and issues of the distress lot of the society and to come up with any measure which can help them. The presence of Students Union bolsters such activities as then such activity becomes more organized and more students participate in bringing a major change. Even the worst Students Unions has shown great contribution in the philanthropic activities.

During my stay at AMU I remember the AMUSU's role in the Tsunami relief work going on in Tamilnadu for which I felt really proud. They sent a relief team consisting of 11 doctors to the Tsunami ravaged areas of Nagapattinam where they distributed medicines and organized health camps. They also contributed Rs.2, 32, 480 in the PM's relief fund which was highly appreciated. AMUSU also created a "Benevolent Fund" during that time so that subsidy can be provided to the poor students in meeting the expenditure of toward treatment of disease/traumas for which the requisite facilities are not available at JNMC and they are referred to other reputed hospitals for specialized treatment outside Aligarh. The fact is that a process of sensitization about such issues affecting our society was a commonplace during that time.

But what actually make me highly disappointed and angry about the current administration of AMU that systematically they are creating such environment here that students are becoming naive and nonchalant about the issues and problems inflicting in our society.

However students of AMU are still more helpful than others but in the absence of any organization and systematic crushing of any leadership (Our Vice-Chancellor often say at the functions he doesn't want any leader here) I think we are creating a dead society here where individuals are trained to be concerned about themselves only. We know this way we cant think of helping the beleaguered Muslim Community.

Md. Adil Hossain <adilhossain43(AT)yahoo.in>

M.A(Previous) Mass Communication

AMU, Aligarh

Courtest: TheAligarhForum@yahoogroups.com

Falling Standard of Debate?: AMUTA-GBM, 6 May 2010

2010-05-10T12:24:00.000+05:30

Quite often I don’t attend the General Body Meetings (GBM) of the AMU Teachers’ Association (AMUTA). The degree of my reluctance to attend these has increased manifold since it willfully failed to have a quorum in August-Sept 2008, when it was forced to address the issue of ravaging flood in eastern Bihar. Besides raising a fund for relief, it was supposed to mount a pressure of ideas on the ruling elites of the nation to address the issue of horrific regional imbalance, and terrible negligence of the Union govt (in disgusting connivance with the regional elites) in controlling the recurrence of flood.

I am often told about deep-seated anti-Bihar prejudice of AMU. This has got almost confirmed when it has repeatedly refused to have Patna as a venue of its entrance tests. Thanks to the sycophant silence of Bihar’s elites in AMU.

This brief digression apart, this time I decided to attend the GBM, more as an onlooker. One of the reasons why did I do so was that I did not have a clear idea about the merits or demerits of having a large number of CCTV towers for intrusive video-graphic (round the clock) surveillance of the campus. I could only recall/surmise that probably a former VC’s press statement [that “AMU is bristling with ISI agents” (Times of India, 15 April 1997)] has been taken by the Union Home ministry too seriously. Groping for definite answers in justification and/or rejection of the already installed cameras, I felt it necessary to attend the GBM on 6th may 2010.

I am leaving apart the meritorious points that came forward in the GBM, for or against the motion. In an assembly of academicians, what makes news, and what needs attention are the poorly argued points, as they raise questions about our professional abilities as well.

The debate started with the arguments of those who are on the side of the administration. The first speaker was no less a person than the Proctor, who is a senior professor of Mathematics, and I am told, he is a PhD from the prestigious IISc, Bangalore. His articulations however only made me learn that longer association with the establishment might lead to intellectual degeneration. I may be wrong, but this is what came out of the event. The proctor, a valuable ally of the pious Islamic group called the Tablighi Jamaa’t (hence expected to be more conscientious), made two kinds of factual statements, one in absolute contradiction with the other, a volte face. First he persuaded us to believe him that he did not see the video clip filmed into the absolute privacy of the late Dr Siras. After few speakers, he again rushed to the dais to rectify himself, and made a frank and unambiguous confession of having actually seen at least a flash of the film (Should I call it a killer film, as it ultimately led to the death of Dr Siras?). This senior professor, looking after the law & order and security of the campus (if AMU could be called a state, proctor would be the home minister), demonstrated his innocence, naivette, inexcusable ignorance of and insensitivity to the fundamental right to privacy guaranteed by the Indian Constitution, i.e. both Constitutional and Islamic morality abhor infringing privacy.

Now the question arises: Could a citizen (that too a high paid senior professor and very high administrative functionary of a historic, centrally funded university) be excused for having committed, by his own admission, the crime of invading somebody’s privacy? I am afraid, a good number of the Aligs might naively say a forceful YES. That is what is at serious stake putting AMU to indefensible embarrassment.

The “Deputies” and “Assistants” of the Proctor were equally deficient in oratory. Apart from grammatical errors they made, and refused to acknowledge the audience’s corrective promptings, they also failed miserably in pleading the defense of the administration.

May I appeal to the honourable Vice Chancellor to kindly re-assess the abilities of such functionaries in articulating the positions taken by the administration. The way they mis-handled the issue of Dr Siras (from 8th February to 8th April 2010 and even beyond), has brought massive embarrassment for AMU across the globe. Arguably, they owe the major responsibility of this irreversible embarrassment to both our honourable VC and our alma mater.

Did this mis-handling emanate from incompetent and un-wise:

(a) Proctorial management,

(b) Media management, manned arguably by illegally recruited teacher(s),

(c) functionaries oblivious of : (i) the law of the land, and (ii) basic senses of morality?

If yes, then how could these teachers (functionaries) act as role models for the students, and for the society at large? If they failed to articulate the relevant points of the administration in the GBM, are they failing in the class-rooms as well? Or am I stretching the things too far?

I am groping towards answers. Will I succeed in getting the answers? Is academics, and therefore politics (in best sense of the word) in AMU moving towards “death throes”- to use the expression of Upendra Baxi, a former VC of Delhi University? Or has AMU become, “intellectual and social slum”, as put by Amrik Singh?

On raising such pertinent questions, if a naïve/ moron asks me to shift to another university, then a reply has to be slapped into his/her mailbox- “far from shifting elsewhere I must ask for and debate about improvement of my alma mater”. This must be an unceasing exercise. That is what, I suppose, is the spirit of the Aligarh Movement.

In other words, we must be perpetually self-critical, as suggested by Edward Said. Who said that the role of intellectuals is ‘to understand the role of authority and learning, to remain constantly engaged in search for knowledge, endless investigation, ceaseless searching, interminable doubts, to raise a challenge (to the students and to themselves) to continue their investigation, questioning, and to discover what is wrong around us. Dialogue, tolerance, skepticism and eternal quest are the essence of human exchange, so that critical consciousness is raised to new heights. Intellectuals should try to understand truth from among many conflicting ideas. They must have the courage to speak uncomfortable and embarrassing truths. The universities must not produce court intellectuals sitting at the feet of Sultan’.

Postscript: Meanwhile construction work of a private house in Jamalpur is in rapid progress, truck-loads of the construction material are put inside the AMU campus, in front of the transit houses of the Medical Colony, and these materials are being used by the masons by making a big hole into the boundary wall of AMU. The CCTV videographic camera, and proctorial patrolling mobile van are preferring to look the other way. Somebody must listen.
09 May'10

Regards,
Dr Mohammad Sajjad www.cas-historydeptt-amu.com/dr-mohammad-sajjad
Lecturer
Centre of Advanced Study in History
Aligarh Muslim University (India)

AMU Campuses vs Special Centres vs Visitor’s Permission

2010-05-08T19:45:00.004+05:30

Prof. Azis declared that the according of the permission by the Visitor to establish Centres (under Section 12[2] of AMU Act) at Murshidabad (the constituency of the very powerful Shri Pranab Mukherjee, believed to be the force behind it) and Mallapuram (Prof. Azis’s home State) is the happiest moment of his life.

Because he has served the Congress bosses well or served the AMU, Aligarh movement and Muslims at large - Having made no secret of the admission policy by Prof. Azis (though not authorized) that there shall be no quota and admissions shall be made on the basis of All India Entrance test, and status of the proposed Centres is not known as the Minority Status of AMU itself is not known (case pending in Supreme Court) where is the confusion. These Centres have nothing to do with Muslims the way AMU has. It is a different matter that Prof. Azis, the AMU, VC has preferred to sit on the other side of the fence.

Legality and Academic aspects:

Under Section 12(2) the Visitor is empowered to permit establishment of’ Special Centres’, ‘Special Labs’, etc and not Centres. ‘Special Centre’ and Centre are not synonymous as Centre is treated equivalent to department (rightly or wrongly) while ‘Special Centre’ is only a supplementary facility to an existing department.

Furthermore, if a Centre (i.e. a department) is intended, the amendment of the Statutes is a must [Statutes 20(2)(b)]

Therefore, if the Visitor intended to accord permission for a ‘Centre’ it is clearly beyond her powers and a blunder, and the error or the oversight needs to be rectified forthwith, before the President is dragged into controversies.

If we recall, it was till yesterday and all the way, ‘AMU Campuses’ and the VC was making all the tall claims and has even taken several step (unauthorized). But this turn around has a very strong reason- no University can establish two identical departments/ Centres, leave alone Campuses.

Finally but undeniably AMU is debarred from establishing a Campus/ a department/ a Centre/ Special Centre, whatever, beyond 25kms of the University Mosque under the Section 5(9A) of the AMU, Act, so that the Residential character remains protected.

The Govt. is playing game with AMU and the Muslims, for electoral gains, by making false and impracticable promises and unfortunately the honourable VC, whose helpfulness is too well known now, has played in the powerful hands of the Govt. in this brazen way. Are we so helpless???

Prof. Ziauddin Ahmad (Retd)
Dept of Botany, Aligarh Muslim University
Aligarh, India

AMU Campuses: Legal Impossibility Rather a Fraud: Some Pertinent Questions and Answers

2010-04-27T20:10:00.003+05:30

A.M.U. Campuses: Legal Impossibility rather a Fraud: Some Pertinent Questions and Answers.

The Aligarh Muslim University has its own legal system based on its Act, Statutes (passed by the Parliament), Ordinances and Regulations. Policy decisions are taken by the Authorities of the University, namely, the Court, Executive Council, Academic Council, Faculties and Finance Committee in their respective spheres, jointly or otherwise, as per the laid down procedures. The Vice-Chancellor is the principal executive and academic Officer (salaried) officer of the University and is duty bound to give effect to the decisions of all the Authorities of the University under Section 19(2) of the University Act and ensure observance of rules (Statute 3 (2)).

The establishment of AMU campuses, if any, is a major policy matter which requires amendment of the Statutes as various departments shall be created. The procedure is provided in Section 28(3) of the Act. The process of amendment is to be initiated at the level of Faculty/ Faculties and then it is passed on to the Academic Council, Executive Council, University Court and the Finance Committee and then to the Visitor for approval. The procedure has not been followed nor shall any attempt made to amend the necessary Statutes, knowingly fully well that such an action does not lie in the ambit of the AMU Act.

1. Therefore, for public consumption, in his usual best, Prof. Azis maintained that amendment to the Statutes is not required and mere permission of the Visitor is suffice (to put the record straight, even the permission of the Visitor has not been obtained, which shall certainly be not forthcoming and what about the restriction of 25km). This is the height of dishonesty and highhandedness, unbecoming of a Vice-Chancellor to bring disrepute and irreparable harm to the University to carry out the designs of the powers for their political gains on one hand and personal gains on the other. It is indeed shameful and disgusting, rather intolerable.

2. The Aligarh Muslim University is an autonomous Residential Muslim University and protection to this basic character is well enshrined under its laws.

The University is not entitled to establish basic teaching units, the departments/centres (synonymous) nor special centres, laboratories to supplement the needs of the existing departments beyond 25 km of the University Mosque (Section 5 (9-A) of the University Act). It is this feature which makes it a residential non-affiliating University. It was precisely because of this reason that Mr. Hamid Ansari had to hurriedly close down the Centres illegally and unauthorisedly established by Mr.Mahmoodur Rahman in Dubai and South India. (The fact that the respectable teachers were in agreement on these occasions tell a different story but a sorry state).

3. As a general rule, no University in the Country is entitled to establish two identical departments nor the MHRD and UGC so empowered. How then, the AMU be permitted to establish a college consisting of departments, leave alone a campus. (Moreover, AMU Act does not have the jurisdiction for establishing a Campus of its own and no amendments to the Act can provide for it). The University does not have the power even to create a post of a teacher without going through the process of creation within the University and obtaining the sanction of the MHRD/UGC thereupon.

Statute 20 (2) of the University Statutes mandates that no department shall be established or abolished except by the Statutes. Therefore, establishment of a Faculty, College or Campus comprising different departments warrants amendment of Statute 20(b). The assertion of the Vice Chancellor that amendment to the Statutes is not required is totally misleading, erroneous, mischievous and dishonest.

4. All claims, announcements and steps taken by an over enthusiastic Prof. Azis, with regard to the establishment of the five A.M.U. Campuses are unauthorized, illegal and ultra vires of the Act and Statutes which surely make a good case to launch legal criminal proceedings against him.

5. The MHRD and UGC, on their part cannot plead ignorance of the entire rigmarole and their connivance with Prof. Azis for past twelve months extending all possible support clandestinely for their ulterior motives. This does not augur well for MHRD, UGC or UPA.

6. How could the allocation of 25 crores each for Murshidabad and Mallapuram for establishing the Campuses be made? The Parliament seems to have been misled in allocating funds for Murshidabad and Mallapuram Campuses in the budget of 2009 full facts seem to have not been placed before in the House regarding the legality and feasibility of these Campuses.

7. The belief of the protagonists of AMU Campuses has turned out to be a mere myth and shattered the hopes of the Muslim Community. With the categorical assertion by Prof. Azis that there shall be no quota and admissions shall be made on the basis of open all India competition.

8. How can these Campuses, thousands of miles away from Aligarh, be managed and administered effectively by the A.M.U from Aligarh? It is humanly impossible. It would be rather more proper for Prof. Azis to sit in Aligarh and try to administer the University properly.

9. Prof. Azis, on his own, has announced the courses to be taught at these Campuses and the teaching schedule without any formal decision by the University’s relevant authorities (Board of Studies, Faculty, Academic Council and Executive Council). Is this the way to deal with such an important matter? Is it desirable to leave a University to the whims of an individual and that too of the intent and repute of Prof. Azis?

All these exercises wrapped in half truths and brazen untruths projected as glittering promises never meant to be taken seriously. It is time for the Muslim Community to guard itself against these platitudes and seductive slogans rather a fraud being placed on them. The only beneficiary appears to be the UPA in general and Minister for Finance, Mr. Pranab Mukerjee in particular who found an opportunity to nurse his constituency at the expense of public funds and enhance his electoral prospects. Hon`ble Prof. Azis would be a natural beneficiary in various ways to the best of his satisfaction, and our dismay and displeasure.

Prof. Ziauddin Ahmed (Retd)

Dept of Botany, Aligarh Muslim University

Aligarh, India

AMU Visitor’s Inquiry resumed against Prof. Azis

2010-04-15T22:45:00.002+05:30

AMU Visitor’s Inquiry resumed against Prof. Azis

But the hon’ble Prof. Azis maintains, ‘the allegations of corruption are a myth’. How uncharitable on the part of the apparently friendly MHRD to order the Inquiry and defame the noble soul.

The new Inquiry committee to go into the allegations against Prof. Abdul Azis the Vice-Chancellor is headed by Justice B.A. Khan and Justice Akbar Baroocha is required to submit the report by May end.

At its first meeting held on 05.04.2010 at Delhi (not Aligarh) it made clear that the Inquiry is against the hon’ble Prof. Azis and not the University and party to the Inquiry are people who are against the VC and those who are supporting the VC and signatories (all teachers) of the so-called counter allegations.

Thus the confusion which was all along deliberately created by Prof. Azis to hoodwink the masses, is removed Consequently, Shri Ejaz Maghbool who has been appointed as University Counsel at a whooping fee of about Rs. 90000/- per hearing was asked by the Committee not to appear as there are no allegations against the University.

Prof. Azis has been asked to appear on 10^th May to plead his case or send a lawyer for the purpose.

The earlier Inquiry committee headed by Justice Fakhruddin was more friendly, liberal and democratic in its approach. At the very outset, it invited all the members of the Court, EC and AC (a total of over 200) and sought their approval to continue the Inquiry and even invited complaints, if any. How sweet and considerate of it. It was in a way free for all and would have taken a life time to complete the Inquiry.

Fortunately, difference cropped up between the Chairman and the member forcing the member to resign. The Chairman followed suit and resigned and the Committee had to be disbanded.

It was in Oct, 2009 but the Ministry who is soft towards the extremely cooperative Prof. Azis, dragged it feet and took four long months to re-constitute the Committee.

From the way the new committee endeared itself we may hope that report would appear within the two months of the specified time.

Does it not lie in the domain of the Inquiry Committee to demand the removal of Prof. Azis from office during the pendency of the Inquiry so that fair and unhindered inquiry could be conducted as is the rule elsewhere in the country? The position taken by Shri Kapil Sibal that the AMU Act does provide for removal of VC is too simplistic and deliberate and intended to assist the most non-co-operative Prof. Azis. Shall no one be punished for a murder, as the AMU Act does not provide for it in so many words?

Prof. Ziauddin Ahmad (Retd,)

Department of Botany

Aligarh Muslim University

Aligarh

ARE AMU STUDENTS WORSE THAN MAOISTS?

2010-04-02T09:43:00.004+05:30

The following write-up by a student of AMU is really an eye-opener. It also makes it amply clear as to why corruption tainted Dr Azis, VC, AMU, is not being sacked by the Kapil Sibal led Ministry of Human Resources, New Delhi. The central government is perhaps experiencing great difficulty in locating a substitute who has the qualities of Dr Azis! After all Dr Azis, despite his tainted track record, was still appointed VC, AMU, by the Central Government! How can a man who has facilitated 24-hour surveillance of about 20 thousand Muslim youth be sacked? Perhaps AMU is to more of such humiliation.

It is interesting to note that Muslim organizations like the Jamaat-e-Islami, Milli Council etc. are hand in glove with Dr P K Abdul Azis and are his staunchest and most vocal supporters!! None of them has raised any voice against this 24-hour surveillance scheme installed at AMU by Dr Azis. Isn't it intriguing?

Riaz

==============================================================================

“The Aligarh Muslim University, which had the potential to become the premier provider of higher education to the Muslim middle classes as well as to help generate knowledge about India’s largest minority, has reduced itself to being a small-time distributor of patronage and corruption. While government policies and interference must bear a large part of the blame for this trend, the culpability of the “university community” cannot be denied either.” --- Economic and Political Weekly, February 27, 2010, Volume XLV No. 9

Few days back when Debarshi Dasgupta, the Outlook correspondent (http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?264463) called me to comment on the official spy agency of AMU “LIU (Local Intelligence Unit)” he all of a sudden asked, “Adil, do you really believe that Government of India is oblivious of the fact that a premier institution like AMU has sleuths who are legally appointed to spy both on students and staff? You know I have never heard of it in any other academic institution in my entire career!” For a moment I was little confused and then I said, “May be”. He responded with a firm voice, “No, I believe they are not. May be government itself silently and unofficially recognized it with the suspicion that SIMI or other hardliners are still active there so it need such mechanism.” I was so embarrassed but I think the tone of that outside journalist to some unique feature like this at AMU was kind of justified.

But this is not even enough to monitor the activities of students. AMU has recently installed some 57 CCTV cameras inside the campus including hostel gates, playgrounds, AMU run Schools, gates at IG,SN,BSJ & Abdullah Hall(may be voyeurism would be given top priority there) apart from the other places in campus for the “security reasons as per government guidelines” as the PRO, AMU.

You see! Government guidelines are clearly mentioned to monitor and keep surveillance on the most active Muslim youth community who are supposed to be the future threat for all the sinister design against Muslims by the state and for which they readily paid 10 crores.

Hey 10 crore by Government of India for security reasons to a university where no terrorist found yet( well well yes if we remember Government were hell bent to prove that during the Vice-Chancellorship of Hamid Ansari), no Maoist or sympathizer, or dacoits or anything. Yes violence happened but the degree of it is quite similar to many universities, many colleges in India.

Now look at this letter sent by the Ministry of HRD to AMU vide no.G23011/22/2009-IF.1 dated September 12, 2009 where they have instructed with the words, “The Ministry is at the same time aware that it is often difficult within the available resources, to meet the cost of various chemicals and consumables, etc, required in the laboratories and also for meeting the cost of library books and journals, etc. Given the constraint of resources leading to mandatory cuts in non-salary expenditure, it is expected that the institutions would make efforts to generate additional resources by gradual revision of fees, levy of user fees, withdrawal of hostel subsidies and through other measures.”

Wow, Govt have lack of funds for our hostel facilities, books, journals, lab chemicals and equipments but 10 crore was granted all at once for CCTV at hostels. People accused me of playing politics here. But if you they have guts then come through logical process and answer to my concerns rather than going personal and send rebuttal to the ‘conspiracy theory’ I can sense here.

Are we worse than maoist?

Prime Minister of India in 2008 declared that “Maoist insurgence” is the greatest single internal security threat of India. Now let’s see the links of Indian Universities with this Maoist insurgence. During the recent agitation at the Osmania University, Andhra Pradesh Govt. Filed an affidavit at the Supreme Court citing Maoist presence at the hostels and campuses, later on Ministry of Home Affairs also endorsed the same view but it was refuted by their brave Vice-Chancellor(http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/hyderabad/No-Maoists-in-OU-VC/articleshow/5601326.cms). In June 2008, West Bengal Police entered Jadavpur University (4^th Rank in India) hostels to arrest and some Maoist and their supporters and it led to violent student-police clash. Later on West Bengal Chief Minister apologized in the assembly and termed this Police action as “uncalled for” and asked the Police to respect university life. It is no open secret that Maoist have their sympathizers at JNU and they have their hide-outs there sometimes. On Feb 2, 2010 a newspaper reporter in Hindustan Times quoted that, “while travelling through Naxal-affected Chhattisgarh, a senior police officer, himself a product of one of Calcutta’s most liberal colleges, told me that the “intelligentsia in colleges and JNU-type universities” have been helping the Maoists. “That oxygen stream must be cut off,” he had said decidedly”(http://www.hindustantimes.com/Collateral-damage/H1-Article1-520658.aspx). None of these universities received government guidelines to install CCTV camera at its hostels and campuses. No university in India have. They know to show respect the university life, AMU forgot.

So what the conclusion came from all this information? We the students of AMU are proud to learn that installation of CCTV camera for “security purposes as per Government guidelines” has proved the AMU students community as more dangerous than the Prime Minister quoted Maoists as “greatest single internal security threat to India”. 10 Crore for us seems to be an insult now. We would be pleased if elite Greyhound forces get deployed next near Arts Faculty with SLR, AK-47. The day is not too far.

Respect for University Life

I myself could not get room in my 1^st year at Allama Iqbal Hall as some student who completed his Phd was not leaving his room. Infiltration of illegal’s who occupy the hostel rooms is very much internal matter of university and these illegals are known to the authorities also. No one in here understand this thing from the logic that these people stayed in the rooms because in spite authorities knew them, they enjoyed the impunity before law. Now a student who has allotment in some room and some illegal is occupying it, only Proctor Office or Provost Office with some little expediency can vacate that room as the student who is affected is bound to inform the authority about that illegal. How CCTV help here? Every gundagardi that I have seen in the campus was not a hidden fact or infiltrators who did that were unknown to the authorities. Now the true will or the ineffectiveness of the Proctor Office machinery has no relation with the CCTV. After 2007, when Vice-Chancellor of AMU flushed out 1600 illegal as it was claimed, how many again infiltrated since then that they are installing CCTV cameras now? So it means from 2007 till date the Proctors Office or Provost Officers did not do their job properly. Whether any disciplinary action taken? Again right now Provost Offices employ 3 people with 8 hours duty at the hostel gates which means 24 hours they keep vigil. What are their jobs? Why they are being given the salary? And if installing CCTV means we wont need them anymore, Why then the job cuts when already it is providing employment to few?

One respected senior Alig linked CCTV with the murders happened in the campus. First of all no murders were linked with hostels and secondly how CCTV is going to stop any murderer at the campus. There are many ways to enter in a hostel or campus and commit the murder? CCTV has not covered the Cafe De Phoos area where the murder of 2007 happened or the backyard of VC lodge from where at night many students come alone or many places where things can be done. Right now 3 Gypsy keep effective vigil around the campus and I congratulate Proctors Office that for this not many mobile thefts or any other unfortunate thing avoided. If you add just 5 more Gypsies and some little more manpower and keep 24 hour vigil around the campus, it is nearly impossible for any miscreants to do anything. But the fact is not that. It is about selling the interest of the students for just Rs.10 Crore.

Why the Control Room has been set up near the Aligarh Police Control Room? Is it again the government guidelines that monitoring should be shared with the IB or Police Officials of the AMU? Definitely, we are the greatest single security threat in India now, so is it? Am I wrong Vice-Chancellor sir?

It seems the way the Old Boys are understood about the security situation at AMU is nothing but the ‘Manufacturing Consent’ for such security purposes as mentioned in the Noam Chomsky’s book. There US officials invest billion of dollars for hi-tech defence systems creating an artificial fear among the Americans with Dick Cheny’s company earning the profit. The all politics of Blues and Red can bring no respite when Muslims face extra security measures at the Airports, or their moves are monitored in the post 9/11 era. Why you remain silent as you what’s the problem with surveillance? Why the matters of sense of dignity appear then?

All I can say the media policy of AMU what was taken and then the security measures investing 10 crores is following the similar lines. I will write next what could have been done in 10 crore rupees in AMU rather than this futile and humiliating exercise.

Here we do not have enough books in our reading rooms, proper drinking water, canteens, labs for many department, and rooms for many enrolled students at AMU. As per the Need Hierarchy theory propagated by the Abraham Mashlow, the first needs are the physiological and basis needs. If they remain unfulfilled, rest are meaningless. The same case with AMU where such uncalled for security measures will bring only humiliation in our lives

The cameras at the gates are the invasion in our social lives. The places we are playing, involving in literary and cultural activities, having tea, smoking all are covered by the BIG BOSS. And many students said to me they feel choked with the presence of all this.This is not the way a university life should be. I know what West Bengal Chief Minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharya said about respecting university life to the Police Officials. Its not Aligarh exhibition, its not Railway station. It’s Aligarh Muslim University.

No university students are unaware about their rights as we are. And only for that reason administration in association with the Govt. has gone ahead in turning AMU into a police state. More than thousand students here asked me why we are not starting protest against it. At this moment I just could give advice to them to take other measures to raise our concern as BA/BSC final exams will start from April 7. We understand us, they don’t. However we won’t be silent.

We challenge the AMU authorities to come out with a white paper and distribute it among the students about the “government guidelines’ they received and face us with all our questions and queries in a General Body Meeting and let us understand the importance of these CCTV cameras. This is for us na! Let us tell them. If they constantly ignore the students’ anger again which is cutting them from inside things may snowball in near future.

2 days back when Senior Hall & Senior Food of Sulaiman Hall went to DSW( as they told me today) for Hall Function and complained with the words, “Sir yaha hamare hall mein Aquaguard kharab pade hue hain, saaf pani nai milta, aur yaha VC sahab 10 karore mein camera laga rahe hain”, the embarrassed DSW just could reply with the words, “ Ye batein chhoro, tumse kya matlab!ye administration ka mamla hai, top level ki baat hai.”

Indeed it is. It is about “government guidelines” after all. But for whom? We know the answer. The greatest single security threat to the India! Its us!

Md. Adil Hossain

M.A(Prev.) Mass Communication

A.M.U, Aligarh

+91-9997447287

Secretary, University Film Club 2008-09

Senior Hall, Aftab Hall, 2009

Judicial Enquiry & Some Questions: AMU Woes March 2010

2010-03-29T20:20:00.001+05:30

Judicial Enquiry & Some Questions: AMU Woes March 2010

We have grown up learning two dictums of justice system: “Justice delayed is justice denied”. And “justice should not only be done, rather it should appear to have been done”.

Now look at the following questions:

Should we expect that the ongoing judicial inquiry into financial irregularities and embezzlement in AMU is going to be a milestone in reforming the administrative management of the higher education? When the Principal Accountant General (November 2009) could find all the irregularities and could state quite unambiguously, then why did the Justice Fakhruddin-A.H. Jung Committee failed so miserably? Why did not the Visitor ask the functionaries under scanner to proceed on leave till the inquiry runs? Will it bring chaos on the campus? If yes, then barring the VC, what is the problem in sending the other two highest functionaries (Finance Officer and Registrar) under scanner, on leave? Why did not the elaborate investigative-bureaucratic machinery of the Union government take care of the credentials (academic and financial) of the individuals empanelled as the AMU’s VC in April-May 2007? Why did the AMU EC and Court and the Union government ignore the allegations against the empanelled individual in his previous position/ institution? Why did it take so long for the government to understand the whole affair when ordinary people are able to understand it through the documents obtained under RTI? Is it because the whistle against such corruption was initially blown by someone whose credentials (moral as well as academic) are much more doubtful? Is there any truth behind the ‘rumours’ that even after more than a month of notification (5^th Feb’10) of the reconstituted judicial inquiry, the two judges have not received even the abovementioned audit report? If yes, then what does it mean? To avoid a vertical indecisive divisions of opinions, why did not the government appoint 3 or 5 member inquiry committee; more so when the earlier two-member inquiry committee got divided vertically in opinion, and turned out to be fatally indecisive, and thereby delaying justice? Is it true that the two judges are more concerned about their perks etc, and less sincere about looking into the ‘incriminating’ files/documents? Already there are media reports about dirt in judiciary. Why does the VC pay frequent visit to the residence of the amicus curiae of the judicial inquiry? What is transpiring between the VC and the father of the amicus curiae? What role is being played by the people like Kamal Faruqui and Khwaja Shahid of Delhi? Why does the VC frequently meet them? Why do the self- righteous, highly enlightened, overseas alumni (particularly the sections of alumni based in USA) talk less of the corruption and more on other ‘trivial’ things? Have they grown up as another group of vested interests? Have these USA based NRIs developed multiple contradictory faces- one at the public/ working places in USA, and another in their private spaces? Why they are silent on the regressive and obnoxious practice of taking tainted, illegally recruited teachers in crucial positions of the AMU administration?

Given a consistent history of putting inquiry reports of irregularities (G.C. Chatterji Report, 1961 and Justice Mathew Report, 1998) under the carpet, it is but natural that objective and sincere sympathizers of the AMU would have doubts over any other exercise in sanitizing the affairs of AMU.

Why do some strange people visit my residence in Batla House, enquiring about me with my neighbours? Are they stooges of the tainted insiders of AMU.

Allah Hafiz

ZAFAR KHAN

H-104, Batla House, New Delhi-25

Yale Scholar Supports Sharia Law if it Bans Lewd [gay] Behavior

2010-03-26T12:59:00.002+05:30

Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 8:35 AM: Asad Ahmed, Ph.D. (Aligarh '61) and Ph.D. (Yale 64) was in Aligarh just a few weeks ago in connection with the Summer University. He feels that there is no evidence of a "rot" in Aligarh Muslim University (AMU). He claims to have noticed improvements for the first time in many years. According to him “campus was peaceful, students were busy with their studies, security was good, and the Guest House was surprisingly clean. Even some teaching Departments showed signs of improvement.”

Asad Ahmed on Suspension of Gay AMU Teacher Dr Siras by Dr P K Abdul Azis, VC, AMU.

Dr Asad prefers to refer to indulgence in consensual sex by the gay AMU teacher, Dr Siras, as gay "acrobatic acts”! In his opinion, “laws of the land represent the minimal rules of conduct that are essential for running a civilized society. The acrobatics in which the Chairman [Dr Ramchandra Siras] was caught were legal but morally reprehensible, especially in a conservative place like Aligarh. Societies all over the world expect a higher standard of morality from the universities, well above the laws that govern ordinary citizens. Indeed, the universities set the standards of acceptable moral and ethical behavior in a society. It has nothing to do with the Sharia law. (And if the Sharia law bans lewd behavior of this kind, I am all for it.) Had the Chairman been a plumber or a janitor or a rickshaw-wala, I would say that it was within his rights to practise those acts. But being a university professor and a Chairman imposes certain constraints on acceptable behavior.” Hence the Vice Chancellor [Dr P K Abdul Azis] acted correctly in expelling the Chairman from the campus. Dr Asad goes on to say that “the research scholar who planted the video camera did trespass, but performed a useful service to the university.”

Socially and culturally, Aligarh, remains a vibrant and interesting place as it has always been with all its ups and downs; but there is no "rot" in it. The Vice Chancellor is attempting to bring about a change in the attitudes of the Aligarh faculty and this may lie at the bottom of this unwarranted criticism.

Asad Ahmed, Ph.D. (Aligarh '61), Ph.D. (Yale 64), Edmonton, AB, Canada
======================================================
Complete Mail by Dr Asad to Aligarh Muslim University Related Network
======================================================

From: Asad Ahmed 
To: amunetwork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 08:35:17 +0530
Subject: [AMUNetwork] Re: AMU: Who will stem the rot

Dear Sir:

This is in response to a letter dated March 11th entitled "AMU: Who will stem the rot" by an unnamed "senior faculty member" at AMU. If the faculty member believes in what he has written, he should stand behind his words and identify himself. Anyway, I was in Aligarh just a few weeks ago in connection with the Summer University and saw no evidence of a "rot". If anything, I noticed improvements for the first time in many years. The campus was peaceful, students were busy with their studies, security was good, and the Guest House was surprisingly clean. Even some teaching Departments showed signs of improvement.

The letter from the "senior faculty member" is centered around a case that involves unbecoming conduct of a Department Chairman who was close to retirement but was asked to leave the AMU by the Vice Chancellor. The "senior faculty member" is right in pointing out that the particular acrobatic acts he performed in the privacy of his home - but caught on video - were legal. However, he fails to realize that the laws of the land represent the minimal rules of conduct that are essential for running a civilized society.The acrobatics in which the Chairman was caught were legal but morally reprehensible, especially in a conservative place like Aligarh. Societies all over the world expect a higher standard of morality from the universities, well above the laws that govern ordinary citizens. Indeed, the universities set the standards of acceptable moral and ethical behavior in a society. It has nothing to do with the Sharia law. (And if the Sharia law bans lewd behavior of this kind, I am all for it.) Had the Chairman been a plumber or a janitor or a rickshaw-wala, I would say that it was within his rights to practise those acts. But being a university professor and a Chairman imposes certain constraints on acceptable behavior. Hence the Vice Chancellor acted correctly in expelling the Chairman from the campus. To think that he left Aligarh out of his principles is incorrect; he probably left out of shame - unable to face his colleagues and Aligarh students. The research scholar who planted the video camera did trespass, but performed a useful service to the university. At least he had the good sense to deliver the video only to the university authorities and not to sites like the YouTube. In contrast, the "senior faculty member" has apparently sent this scandalous letter to a newspaper only to malign the institution.

What is particularly ridiculous in this ridiculous letter is that, on the one hand, he blames the Sharia law and, on the other, blames an eminent Marxist historian in Aligarh for not speaking out against this dismissal. The reason given is that this eminent historian was appointed a Professor Emeritus by the Vice Chancellor so he remained silent. The truth is that this historian enjoys such a stature that he did not need to be honored by this appointment; it is the community of Aligarh professor emeriti that was honored by his appointment. I do not understand  why he was dragged into this silly episode. Nor do I understand what is the connection between Gay pride, the Sharia law, and Marxism.

Socially and culturally, Aligarh remains a vibrant and interesting place as it has always been with all its ups and downs; but there is no "rot" in it. However, there are alarming faults in its academic activity - that is, teaching, research and other scholarly activities. But the "senior faculty member" has remained completely silent about this real issue. Perhaps senior faculty members (including the anonymous faculty member himself) should look at themselves for this dismal sate of affairs.

Irresponsible and unjustified criticism like this simply dilutes out genuine, constructive criticism that Aligarh needs. The Vice Chancellor is attempting to bring about a change in the attitudes of the Aligarh faculty and this may lie at the bottom of this unwarranted criticism.

Asad Ahmed, Ph.D. (Aligarh '61), Ph.D. (Yale 64)
Edmonton, AB, Canada
==========================================================================================================

Kidnapped AMU Boy from Azamgarh Found

2010-03-24T11:00:00.004+05:30

The kidnapped AMU boy, Mohd Ahmad, student of Claxx XII, belonging to Azamgarh has been found. He claims to have been picked at gun-point from within the AMU campus by three car borne kidnappers. He was taken to the city of Kanpur where, he claims, the kidnappers realized that they had picked the "wrong" person. Realizing their mistake, the kidnappers releazed him and later the officers of the Aligarh police brought him back to Aligarh. It is surprising to note that despite the claimed profile security measures being put in place by Dr P K Abdul Azis, VC, AMU, and his team, such an incident could happen near the Arts Faculty (from where the boy claims to have been kidnapped). The claimed place of the incident is also very close to the residence of Dr P K Abdul Azis and is supposed to be one of the most heavily guarded sites in AMU campus!

AMU student of Azamgarh goes missing from campus: Careless Response from AMU authorities

2010-03-23T09:02:00.000+05:30

The response of Aligarh Muslim University administration to the issue of the missing boy has been quite amazing. The AMU administration woke up only after the students started agitating. It is to be noted that the Mr Tanveer, Principal, City High School, and Provost of Allama Iqbal Hall where the student was residing did not even deem it fit to report the matter to the higher authorities for about two days.
Interestingly, the Proctor AMU Prof Zubair did not have the courage to face the agitating students of AMU and agreed to face them only after the local district administration and police officers were present to provide security to him ( scan of newspaper)! God save the AMU led by Dr Azis, VC, and his wonderful team!

==================================================================
Mail from a concerend alumni of AMU regarding the response from AMU PRO Mr Rahat Abrar
==================================================================

Dear All,

Its a serious issue. Specially in the backdrop of whats happening these days. As of now, we do not know what happend to this student. He may have willing gone somewhere or there could be a sinister design or he may have met with some untoward incident.

However, we must take it seriously to find out the whereabout of this student.

I am seriously taken aback by the lackadisical approach of the university authorities.
I called up PRO Dr Rahat Abrar today to enquire about the student. His first reaction was shocking.
He said students run away these days to evade exams due to shortage of attendance. They get into bad company.

I told him that the student scored 85 percent in his Class 11 exams. There are little chances that someone scoring 85 percent will run short of attendence. Dr Abrar did not give me the figure of the attendance of the student.

I was surprised because the student was issued the hall ticket to appear for the exams. So there was no question of his attendance running short.

Dr. Abrar then added another reason. "The student generally go into depression during exams. This could be one reason that he disappeared," Dr Abrar told me. Again this was hard for me to believe.

I do not rule out these reasons. But for the AMU authorities to jump to a conclusion in the begening shows their "concern" for the welfare of the students.

I really doubt that AMU authorities are seriously pursuing this case. They have just filed a complaint with the police for formality. That too, after students protest.

I request senior Aligs to intervene as this is exam season.

AMU has a tradition of closing down the university sine die when students protest for genuine greivances.
Let us not make it happen this time.

Ehtasham Khan
MA-Journalism 2000
New Delhi

Aligarh Muslim University: Extracts of Expenditure Audit Report (July-Oct 2009)

2010-03-21T12:08:00.000+05:30

The following is an extract of the roughly 60 page Expenditure Audit Report dispatched to Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) vide AB(C) 09-10/248 dt. 17.11.2009 from Office of Principal Accountant General (Audit), Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad, India, relating to the Audit of AMU conducted during the period from July 2009 to October 2009 under the supervision of Mr Chopra and Mr Altaf Ali, both Audit Officers, Office of Principal Accountant General (Audit), UP, Allahabad, India. (Please note that the typographical and other grammatical errors in the original report have been preserved in this typed version!)

Note:

1) The Expenditure Audit Report was sent to AMU vide AB (C) 09-10/248 dt. 17.11.2009 by Office of Principal Accountant General (Audit), UP, Allahabad. It has also been sent to Shri Kapil Sibal led Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD) vide AB (C) 09-10/249 dt. 17.11.2009 by Office of Principal Accountant General (Audit), UP.

2) The period referred to in the Audit Report pertains to the tenure of Dr P K Abdul Azis, Vice Chancellor, Aligarh Muslim University (formerly Vice Chancellor, Cochin University of Science & Technology, CUSAT, Cochin, Kerala) and the Registrar V K Abdul Jaleel who also hails from Kerala and has been hand-picked and appointed by Dr P K Abdul Azis. Both of them are currently serving as Vice Chancellor and Registar, respectively, of Aligarh Muslim University.

Part-II-A

Part-1: Irregular civil work resulted in excess pay of Rs. 24.34 Lakh.

The VC’s lodge was damaged in arson and violence during student’s agitation on 16/17 September 2007 and in this incident the plaster of building, furniture and AC installations including wiring etc was reported completely damaged. Hence, renovation of VC’s lodge was required and for this purpose the VC sanctioned (September 2007 to October 2008) the following amount:

a) Civil work:- Rs.75.10 Lakh

b) Wood work:- Rs.2.15 Lakh

c) Electrical work:- Rs.10.95 Lakh

d) Miscellaneous work

i. Purchase of furniture Rs.38.77 Lakh

ii. Replacement destroyed/

burnt item of telephone etc. Rs.0.64 Lakh

iii. Installation of ACs and DG sets Rs.34.79 Lakh

Total:- Rs.162.40 Lakh

The VC’s lodge was insured for Rs. One crore to meet out the expenses on damages occurred due such type of incidents against which the university made (February 2008) a claim of Rs.97.42 Lakh. The claim was yet to be received (September 2009) by the University. The VC approved (September 2007) an estimate of Rs.24.54 Lakh for civil work which could be justified to Rs.42.44 Lakh at current rate as the estimate was based on Delhi schedule of Rate (DSR) 2002 and on this basis, VC permitted (August 2007) to invite short term tender locally from four selected contractors. The lowest tenderer M/S Samiah International builders was awarded the work and the university entered (December 2007) into agreement with this contractor at a cost of Rs. 46.53 Lakh which was 74 percent above of the approved estimate. Further, two more estimates for civil works e.g. additional works for renovation and restoration of VC’s lodge, construction of two toilets and three bathrooms for security staff costing Rs.2.21 lakh and Rs.1.80 Lakh respectively were approved in July and September 2008. The contract of these works was awarded to other contractors without inviting tenders and agreements against these estimates were entered at Rs.3.00 lakh and 1.66 lakh respectively. Thus, the university did not maintain the transparency in tendering system as per tender rules and not get the benefits of competitive rates due to non tendering of works.

Against the above three agreements, Rs.70.14 lakh, Rs.3.73 lakh and Rs.1.76 lakh respectively were paid (February 2009) to the contractors. It was also found that wood work at VC’s lodge was carried out as extra item of another work “providing false ceiling and floor tiling and alternation Registrar Office” which was also awarded to a contractor at tendered cost of Rs.6.99 lakh (Estimated cost Rs.4.60 lakh) again selected among three local contractors. The amount paid against this contract was Rs.8.75 lakh i.e. an excess of Rs. 4.15 lakh over the estimate and Rs.1.76 lakh over the agreement cost. The reason for cost escalation was mainly the extra works carried out by the order of VC over the estimate and agreements. As, neither insurance claim was finalized nor any fund was available under the head of ‘VC’s Lodge’, the required payments were made through different heads not pertaining to head ‘VC’s Lodge’ without demanding the fund from UGC. Thus, sanctity of either the estimate or the agreements was not adhered by the university.

On being pointed out the university replied (September 2009) that (i) the tenders were invited on short notice basis of 10 days to avoid delay of publication in National Dailies and also to take up work on priority basis as the same was of an emergent nature and approved by the competent authority (ii) the estimate for the main work was prepared for Rs.24.54 lakh keeping in view the quantum of work/items to be taken up for execution but during the course of execution and at later stage some additions/substitutions were made. The other estimates were also prepared at a later stage due to change of requirement and therefore could not be included while preparing the original estimate.

Reply was not tenable as work should be taken up after arranging the fund and adherence of tender rules properly. Also, the estimates should be based on actual survey reports and too many changes after agreements and during the progress of work or even after that turned the original estimate meaningless on the basis of which competitive rates were obtained from contractors.

Thus, the university not only gave undue benefits to selective contractors but also incurred an excess of Rs.24.34 lakh over the cost of the above two agreements by arranging the fund improperly.

Part-II-A

Misuse of Government money of Rs.19.19 lakh

Para-2 (a) Unauthorized payment of Income Tax Rs.4.72 Lakh.

According to IT rules for salaried class people, the income tax computed for a particular assessment year was to be deducted at source from the salary of each official who were under the purview of taxable income and the employer was responsible for correct deduction and to issue Form-16 on that basis to facilitate each of such official to submit his IT return.

Scrutiny of the pay bill registers and cash book of the University revealed that IT amounting to Rs.82,356 and Rs.44,315 was deducted from salary bills of VC and Registrar respectively during the year 2007-08. The periods of deduction were from July 2007 to February 2008 and September 2007 to February 2008 in respect of VC and Registrar respectively. Scrutiny revealed that VC and Registrar were to deposit Rs.1,53,574 and Rs.1,01,829 respectively as IT during 2007-08 instead Rs.82,356 and 44,315 only were deducted and the university paid the difference of Rs.1,26,671 as IT on behalf of them which was recovered in the year 2008-09 from their salary under the head of account “Salary expenditure (Recovery of pay).”

On being pointed out, the university stated (September 2009) that generally the IT due to an employee was totally deducted from the salary for the month of February, but in certain cases the IT deducted till February was not final due to some unanticipated income received by an individual during the month of March from unforeseen sources or might be due to some miscalculation in working out the amount of IT due. As result thereof, the University after obtaining the approval of VC made the payment of the remaining portion of IT. Further, in previous years also i.e. during 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07, IT amounting to Rs.1.33 lakh, Rs.0.45 lakh and Rs.1.67 lakh respectively was paid as IT on behalf of 52, 19 and 29 employees as it was responsibility of the DDO to make deduction of TDS and its timely remittance to IT account.

The reply was not tenable as the employer was solely responsible to ensure that IT due from individual is deducted from the pay and remitted to IT department within the financial year. Further, any amount/arrears received in the month of March the IT computed on that amount was to be paid in the next assessment year. This indicated that there was complete collapse of financial management and VC and Registrar instead of stopping this frequently financial irregularity, themselves became part of this.

Para-2(b) Unauthorized payment of Transfer Travelling allowances Rs.0.82 lakh

According to paragraph 2(1) of AMU Act XL 1920 amended in 1981, Statutes of the University VC of the University will be appointed by the Visitor (Hon’ble President of India) from the panel of persons recommended by the court as well as by the Executive Council (EC) of the University. He will hold office for a term of five years from the date on which he enters upon his office.

Scrutiny revealed that the VC claimed TTA amounting to Rs.81,654 for four persons, that is, for himself, his wife and two children on his first joining after his appointment as VC at AMU and was paid (July 2007). He was not entitled to TTA as the post of VC was a tenure post and not a transferable post. Further, prior to his appointment in this University he was holding the post of VC in Cochin University of Science and Technology, Kerala (CUST) which was also a tenure post.

In reply, the University furnished the appointment letter sent to the VC in which it was mentioned that the other terms and conditions of his appointment would be governed by the Statutes and Ordinances of the University.

Thus, payment of TTA amounting to Rs.81,654 was not admissible to VC.

Para-2(c) Irregular payment of HTC Rs.0.93 lakh.

As per LTC/HTC rule XVII-B para-1, a government servant was entitled for such claim only when he had completed one year of continuous service on the date of journey.

Scrutiny revealed that VC assumed his office in AMU on 11.6.2007 and claimed HTC on 16.6.2007 for his wife and two children for his hometown Trivendrum by air and the University paid Rs.93,051 against this claim. Further, the claim was for 2006-07 during which period he was VC of CUST but the bill passed for payment for the block year of Rs.2007-08. Also, age of his two children was not mentioned in the claim bill but ignoring this the bill was passed.

On being pointed out the Finance Officer replied (September 2009) that at the time of his joining of the office, the block year of 2006-07 for HTC was operative.

The reply was not tenable because VC was not transferred but appointed and in view of this HTC claim was not admissible to him as per above mentioned LTC/HTC rules.

Thus undue favour was given to VC by the University in paying the amount of HTC for which he was not entitled.

Para-2(d) Unauthorised purchase of car worth Rs.12.72 Lakh

Under the Depreciation Fund Rule[1] of the University, this fund was meant for the special repairs, upkeep and maintenance of the university buildings, roads, furniture, equipment and other property and it could not be utilized for the purposes other than the renewal and replacement in buildings, machinery etc. In addition to this, this fund could be utilized for any other special purpose that may be determined by the EC as per Rule 5(v). Further, under Depreciation Fund Rules (6), a maximum limit of Rs.20,000 only could be incurred in a year by VC.

Scrutiny revealed that University purchased six vehicles during 2007-08 at a cost Rs.41.56 Lakh which included Rs.12.72 Lakh, the cost of Honda Civic car specifically purchased for VC out of depreciation fund. Prior to this purchase for VC, two cars Maruti Baleno and Ambassador HM purchased in the year 2000 and 2002 respectively were under the use of the then VCs. Further scrutiny revealed that these cars were in good condition and smoothly plying in and outside Aligarh and were being used for delegates and university guests.

Thus, the University not only misutilised the Depreciation Fund but also carried out unnecessary purchase of Honda Civic car.

In reply, the University stated that the vehicles were purchased during 2007-08 under rule 5(v) of Depreciation Funds Rule and the previously used cars were not in position to use by the VC.

Reply was not tenable as EC had not approved any purchase/expenditure under Depreciation Fund and the VC himself on behalf of EC under section 19(3) of AMU Act sanctioned the amount treating this purchase as of emergent nature.

Part-II-A

Para-4 Loss of interest amounting to Rs.28.63 lakh due to irregular payment to C.P.W.D

Para 17(a) of Account code of the University stipulates that when the Budget was finally passed by the Executive Council the University shall not incur any expenditure under any head of Expenditure in excess of the amount passed under proper sanction either (i)-by re-appropriation from some other head under which savings are anticipated and that no re-appropriation will be allowed before October in a year, or (ii) by obtaining an additional grant from the Executive Council which should also be communicated to the Accounts Office. Further, as per Section 18, re-appropriation may be made:- a) As between sub-heads under the same department with the sanction of the Deputy Finance Officer (DFO) upto a limit of Rs.5,000/- and thereafter by Finance Officer (FO) provided that the DFO and FO shall not make any re-appropriation to meet expenditure on new and original work of buildings. (b) As between department with the sanction of the FO on the recommendation of the DFO upto Rs.25,000/- and VC on the recommendation of the FO provided that the Chairman of the Department certify that the savings will not be required by him subsequently during that financial year.

Scrutiny of Financial Estimate and Financial statements for the years from 2005-06 to 2008-09 revealed that need based budget estimate in respect of various accounts heads was not prepared in those financial years with the result that budgets were not fully utilized and there were huge unspent balances at the end of financial year during the period 2005-09. Also, diversion from one head to another was regular feature in the University which was evident from the succeeding paragraphs:-

Executive Committee had taken decision (October 2007) that all construction works will be carried out by Central Public Works Department (CPWD) instead of Building Department of University manned by qualified professionals like University’s Engineers, Assistant and Junior Engineers and other skilled and non-skilled employees.

As per clause 8 of Memorandum of understanding (MOU) between CPWD and University (January 2008), 33.33 percent of the sanctioned amount was to be deposited with the CPWD at first instance and remaining amounts in two equal installments as and when demanded by the CPWD and before making payment of IInd and IIIrd instalments the Building Department had to obtain the statement of expenditure from CPWD against awarded works. It was noticed that the grants received for construction works from UGC under fix plan were being invested by way of FDR in the bank earning highest rate of interests. Interests earned were utilized by the University after taking permission from the UGC.

Scrutiny revealed that some construction works were not started by the CPWD till the date of 31 May 2009, but entire amount was given to CPWD as advance in the month of March 2009 and also for some other construction works amounts were paid to CPWD even before commencement of works. CPWD had not spent the amounts of first installment; however without demand the building department released IInd and IIIrd installments to CPWD. Non-follow up of MOU by the University resulted into loss of interest to the tune of Rs.28.63 Lakh (as per enclosed annexure)

Para-II-A

Para-10 Irregular purchase of Furniture Rs.39.74 Lakh

The VC sanctioned (July 2008) Rs.54.24[2] Lakh for purchase of furniture for VC’s lodge and Registrar’s chamber which was completely damaged during student’s agitation occurred on 16/17 September 2007. As the fund was not available under the head ‘Pool Furniture’ against the allocated amount of Rs.50.00 lakh during 2008-09 the VC ordered for the arrangement of the same by re-appropriation as under:-

Rs. In Lakh

Sl. No.	From the head	To the head	Amount
1.	Enhancement in the rate of daily wagers	Pool furniture	30.00
2.	Unforseen expenses	Pool Furniture	24.24

Purchase was carried out on the basis of the comparative statement prepared by obtaining quotation from four firms in respected of furniture made of different wood materials

e.g.

Rose wood, Teak wood, Red wood and Mahogany and Royal Koas

The detail of quotation are as under:

Sl.No.	Name of Firm/Specification	Top Furniture, Kottakal, Kerala	Tip Tops Furniture, Kottakal, Kerala	Mozart Global, Kottakal, Kerala	Kohinoor Sofe Works
1	Rose wood	49.39	47.04	48.45	NQ
2.	Teak wood	49.95	49.09	44.38	NQ
3.	Red wood & Mahogany	30.54	25.08	20.95	NQ
4.	Royal Koas	No Quotation (NQ)	NQ	NQ	7.73

Scrutiny revealed that University purchases (January 2009) furniture for VC’s lodge from a Kerala based firm at a cost of Rs.39.74 Lakh without inviting tender in violation of the University’s purchase rules which stipulated that invitation[3] to tenders should be used for procurement of goods of estimated value of Rs.25 lakh and above. The central purchase committee (CPC) of the University opted (August 2008) for M/s Tip Top furniture, Kottakal, Kerala justifying this firm as lowest bidder and after some negotiation (August 2008), the CPC decided to purchase furniture of Rose wood for drawing and dining rooms costing Rs.7.38 lakh and 6.74 lakh respectively and the rest portion was covered by the furniture made from Red wood and Mahogany costing Rs.21.37 lakh. The purchase of above furniture of the two types of wood on higher cost could not be justified as cost of furniture quoted by M/s Royal Koas wood was far less than the cost of approved furniture. Also, no member either in the negotiation committee or in the CPC had the expertise in recognizing the wood material and also no expert was outsourced for this purpose. Further, the incident took place in September 2007 and the University had enough time for placing demand in the next year’s i.e. 2008-09 budget estimate (BE) but instead of doing so the university made the provision by diverting the amount from other heads.

On being pointed out, the university replied (September 2009) that the purchase of furniture from Kerala based firm was done on the recommendation of CPC and the expected expenditure on furniture for VC’s lodge could not be included in the BE of 2008-09 which was placed for consideration before Finance Committee in March 2009 as CPC constituted in November 2007 could not take decision on the required estimated amount.

The reply was not tenable as the University had sufficient time to foresee the expenditure as well as inviting the open tender to maintain the transparency and to get benefit of competitive rates.

Thus, the university gave undue benefit to a supplier by not only violating the purchase and financial rules but also incurred an extra expenditure of Rs.32.51 lakh in comparison with the local bidder M/s Royal Koas wood.

Part-II-A

Part-11 Excess expenditure on purchase of furniture Rs.130.99 Lakh.

Scrutiny revealed that the provision of Rs.149.00 lakh for purchase of furniture was made in the financial estimate under the head ‘Furniture’ in the non plan during the financial year 2006-07 to 2008-09 while, University incurred a total of Rs.279.99 Lakh on purchase of furniture in these years. Year-wise details were as under:-

Rs. in Lakh

Financial year	Sanctioned amount	Expenditure incurred	Excess
2006-07	55.00	63.84	8.84
2007-08	44.00	108.39	57.76
2008-09	50.00	107.76	57.76
Total	149.00	279.99	130.99

Thus, an excess expenditure of Rs.130.99 lakh (Rs.279.99-149.0 lakh) was incurred against sanctioned estimate. This excess expenditure was met by re-appropriating the required amount from the Savings of Other Contingent Expenses of various departments.

In reply the University stated that the VC sanctioned the purchase of particular furniture and the re-appropriation from savings of one head to another where excess fund needed was made by the order of VC.

The reply was not tenable as mentioned the above paragraph.

Part-II-B

Para-1 Excess payment of Rs.9.22 lakh due to irregular installation of Central Air Conditioning

As 23 old installed split/window Air Conditioners (AC) 23 were completely damaged during the above incident, new ACs were required to be installed in the renovated VC’s lodge. For this purpose, tenders were invited through website for installation of Central Air Conditioning covering the area of 6000sq.ft in the VC’s lodge, in response to this the following firms through their authorized dealers visited VCs lodge, surveyed and submitted their proposals as under:-

Sl. No.	Name of Firm	Amount
1	Hi Tech Engineer-Blue Star	32.34
2.	Saran Aircon Pvt. Ltd, Delhi-DAIKIN	24.59
3.	Carrier AC & Refrigeration Ltd. Ghaziabad (Two proposal) AC based latest technology Ducted Split AC	24.98 14.28
4.	M/s Chill Point, Aligarh-LG	10.99
5.	Cosmic Services, Aligarh-LG	10.44

Of the above, proposals mentioned at sl no. 1, 2 and 3 (1) were for VRF/VRV system or based on latest technology. A consulting committee[4] set up by the VC went through these proposals and opted the VRF/VRV system. This committee negotiated with two firms Daikin India and Blue star quoted VRF/VRV system and decided in favour of Blue Star who agreed to carry out the work at Rs.23.50 lakh against the quoted amount of Rs.32.54 lakh. The VRF/VRV system was preferred in view of energy cost saving by comparing the power consumption of old system with the newly installed system on the plea that it would save Rs.8.46 lakh annually in power consumption.

Scrutiny revealed that VC sanctioned Rs.24.59 lakh for installation of Centralised AC in VC’s lodge and the supply and installation work was awarded (November 2007) to the Blue Star firm as per above decision and the firm carried out the work accordingly and was paid the agreed amount of Rs.23.50 lakh (February 2008). Scrutiny further, revealed that the energy consumption cost was computed to Rs.12.44 lakh on imaginary basis as the electricity bill in respect of VC’s lodge prior to 16/17 incident or after the installation of present system was never raised.

In reply, the university stated that VC desired for Central AC as this place was visited by the high dignitaries and person of eminence; hence, VC’s lodge must have quality fixtures of national/international norms. Also, the VRF system could be operative at ambient temperatures as high as 52⁰C and could deliver any capacity between 10 percent to 100 percent to exactly match varying cooling requirement resulting in greater power saving.

Reply was not tenable as comparison should be made with the quoted present system in which cheaper option of Rs.14.28 lakh was available for Centralized AC capable in giving the cooling effect. Further, prior to the installation of present system high dignitaries were used to visit AMU and the old system was equally successful.

Thus, university could save Rs.9.22 Lakh if opted for cheaper option.

Part-II-B

Para-3 Loss of interest due to wrong investment of Provident Fund Rs.7.79 Lakh.

1(a) An investment of Rs.51,60,64,176 from the head AMU PF account was made in Canara Bank, Main Branch, Aligarh on 28.02.2009 at the rate of 9 percent for 33 months after obtaining rates of interest from different banks. It was, however, noticed that Central Bank, Dodhpur, Aligarh had quoted interest at the rate of 9.25 percent for such investments. It was not found desirable to invest the said amount with this bank as the service rendered by the Central Bank was not satisfactory in the past and the T.D.S. deducted wrongly by the said bank had not been settled. Also, the central government had approved the recapitalization of public sector banks e.g. Central Bank of India, Vijaya Bank, UCO bank in view of their poor performance in working and financial crunch the service rendered by the Central Bank was not satisfactory in the past and the T.D.S deducted wrongly by the said bank had not been settled.

(b) The provident fund committee of the University headed by the VC decided to invest (March 2008) an amount of Rs.8 crore on account of PF amount deducted from the salary of officials of the University in Shreyas Gramin Bank, Aligarh[5] (Gramin Bank) for the period of three years from 31.03.2008 to 31.03.2011 at the rate of 10 percent per annum. Scrutiny, further, revealed that the amount so invested was withdrawn from the above bank after six months and reinvested in the State Bank of India (SBI), AMU Branch, Aligarh with maturity date on 24.07.2011 with the plea that the SBI was paying interest at the rate of 10.5 percent.

This decision of the University resulted into an immediate loss of Rs.7.79 lakh in respect of the amount of interest earned as the Gramin Bank paid Rs.32.21 lakh only as interest amount instead of Rs.40 Lakh that would had been earned as interest at the rate of 10 percent per annum if the invested amount of Rs.8 Crore was not withdrawn from the Gramin Bank.

[1] Resolution No.5 of the Finance Committee dated 9.7.1959 adopted by Executive Council. Resolution No. 13 dated 22.06.1959

[2] VC’s Lodge-Rs 28.77Lakh (2). Registrar’s Chamber-Rs 12.70Lakh (3) Transportation Charge-Rs 12.77Lakh Total – Rs 54.24Lakh

[3] Paragraph 6.9 Chapter 6; Accounts of Purchase, Receipt and Opening of Tenders

[4] Member in Charge, Electricity; Assistant Finance Officer (AFO) Purchases; AFO Audit; Electrical Engineer (S/S); Electrical Engineer (W&M)

[5] A public sector Regional Gramin Bank