Student Agitation, AMU:1900-1910

AMU in the first decades of two centuries: A Comparison/Parallel

History, said E.H. Carr, is an unending dialogue between present and past, and another philosopher of historiography said that all history is contemporary history. These observations turn out to be too true when one looks at some of the events of AMU during 1900-1910, and compares them with some of the events of the first decade of this century (2000-2010). They have disturbing resemblances, to say the least.

By the way, this recounting of facts about the events also demonstrate MAO/AMU’s role in the anti colonial freedom movement of India during the period, 1900-1910.

Since the year 1900, the relationship between the students and the [European] staff of the MAO College (no AMU, Aligarh ) was in deep trouble. One of the issues was food.

Amid these, in 1903, Maulana Mohd. Ali Jauhar, came back from Oxford , wanted a teaching position in Aligarh , but he was denied, on extraneous reasons. He opposed the European elements in the college, wrote essays in newspapers, was supported by a faction of the Old Boys’ Association (OBA), and Viqarul Mulk, Muhsinul Mulk etc liked/ supported him. In July 1903, Hasrat Mohani had already launched his Urdu-e-Mualla, articulating anti colonial nationalist feelings.

The students had formed a ‘secret study circle’ where they used to discuss the ways of expelling the British out of India .

In 1904, the conflict among the trio of the Students-Trustees-European Staff continued, Morison warned Mohsinul Mulk.

Morison, the Principal, had become a target in the students’ sharp criticism. There were reasoned debates in the Students’ Union Club. Morison’s proposal of Mr Carna to be accepted as his successor was particularly disliked by the students. Still, the might of the [European] administrator prevailed, and Mr. Carna became the Principal in March 1905.

In October 1905, Archbold, came as Principal, and he was harsh against the students, in the name of disciplining them.

The students attended the 1905 session of the Indian National Congress at Banaras , where the historic resolution of compulsory free primary education was passed. Bijnori came to be called as “Agitator”, and Syed Mahmud (1889-1971, who later on became minister in Nehru’s cabinet) of Bihar as “Qaum”. The rebellious revolutionary students had started displaying the portraits of Gokhale, German Kaiser, Turkish Sultan etc in their hostel rooms. The British kept an anxious watch on all these developments.

In January 1906, one student, Syed Mustafa Husain was expelled. He had submitted memoranda against the Provost, G. Brown, on the problems of Boarding Management. Even then, Mustafa was invited by Mohsinul Mulk in the All India Muslim Educational Conference (AIMEC), October, 1906; it was resented rashly by Archbold. Because he advised the Aligarh people to stay aloof from political agitation, whereas, in May 1906 the Aligarh Student union had in fact passed a resolution advocating Hindu-Muslim political cooperation to expel the British from India . Gradually British racial contempt against Asians started manifesting in Aligarh . Md Ali Jauhar started writing sharply against it. It was alleged that Morison was using Aligarh as a political tool of the colonial government. He had taken out Rs 1000 of the College fund for the government’s diplomatic deputation in Iran . It was hugely protested, but he threatened to get them punished by the Viceroy. Repression against students increased manifold adding fuel to the fire of student rebellion.

In February 1907, in the annual Exhibition of Aligarh, a student, Ghulam Husain had a clash with a constable; he was expelled for three months on the insistence of the S.P. As Ghulam was counted as sharp and sincere student, and was an award winning orator, therefore, this administrative action made the students further angry. There was huge student protest, and Union debates against the administrative repression.

On 20 February 1907, six students including Syed Mahmud (1889-1971, who later on became minister in Nehru’s cabinet) of Bihar was expelled. The student furore led to sine die closure of the college, to be re-opened only on 2 April 1907. An enquiry was instituted; unsurprisingly the report toed an official line and indicted the students for being Pro-Congress, which was told to be a disturbing trend in the college. Mohsinul Mulk was supposed to be sympathizing with the students, and he had to resign in disgust. This student agitation was spearheaded by A.R. Bijnori, his media campaign and representation to the Lt Governor, etc. put a pressure on the government as on 30 March 1907, an Old Boys’ Convention was also held. Consequently, Hewitt, the Patron, intervened to institute a fresh enquiry. By this time, the Principal had almost reconciled.

Earlier, on 5 February 1907, Gokhale was given an overcrowded warm reception at Aligarh , where he spoke on education.

In June 1908, Hasrat Mohani was imprisoned on flimsy grounds of having published an essay on Egyptian system of education. In 1908 session of the Muslim League at Aligarh , these students subjected the Muslim League to sharpest criticism for being pro-British.

Thus, the students were brimming with self-confidence. Remaining undaunted with the official repression, they had resolved to live with heads held high, and to keep their minds without fear.

With the present scenario, we are too familiar, so I think keeping things unsaid would be wiser and more expedient. Let the readers derive their own meanings/parallel.

Regards,
Dr Mohammad Sajjad
Lecturer
Centre of Advanced Study in History
Aligarh Muslim University (India)

Public Relations Office or Propaganda Office at AMU?

“		Propaganda is neutrally defined as a systematic form of purposeful persuasion that attempts to influence the emotions, attitudes, opinions, and actions of specified target audiences for ideological, political or commercial purposes through the controlled transmission of one-sided messages (which may or may not be factual) via mass and direct media channels.		”
	— Richard Alan Nelson, A Chronology and Glossary of Propaganda in the United States

The lessons of Public Relations taught in the 2^nd Semester of M.A Mass Communication are still fresh in my memory. As Press Council of India has set some guidelines for reporting in newspapers & magazines, Advertising Standards Council of India set certain guidelines for advertising, in the same way International Public Relations Association adopted and recommended Code of Athens (undertaking of ethical behaviour) in 1965 in the Public Relations practices worldwide. However when I seriously analyse the role of Public Relations and Media Department at AMU, it utterly disappoint in terms of PR ethics and standards and seemingly took the form of a propaganda machine under a despotic regime. Now propaganda is one form of communication which doesn’t need to follow any ethical standards or guidelines and highly detestable in a civil and democratic society.

Bab-e-Syed Revolt, 2009

During the days of recent massive protest by students in October, 2009 the Media Department of AMU quite baffled with the peaceful nature of protest tried to raise the bogey of “outsiders (I will come to this later)” and continuously tried to colour that agitation in violent terms defaming their own students and university. Even though 24 hours before declaring sine die the PRO’s Press Release stated that classes were conducted peacefully and thereby accepting the peaceful nature of protest. However before that the Press Releases from AMU PRO’s office stated that students went on rampage and blocked the national railway traffic after the murder of late Mr. Shahnawaz Alam which the highest authority of law and order of Aligarh District, the then SSP, Aligarh denied in a statement to a Hindi Daily.

In that agitation, students complained of massive suspension, rustication, shifting to NRSC, indiscriminate fines, massive raids which created a reign of terror. These issues literally angered the academic circles in the country to such extent that in the Press Release of November 15, 2009(some 30 students were then in dharna at Jantar Mantar) where Vice-Chancellor declared about the re-opening of the university the Public Relations department tried to defend the university’s position on the harsh disciplinary actions taken against students. In that Press Release under the sub-headline “Baseless Rumours” PRO, AMU(http://www.scribd.com/doc/33194466/Press-Release-15-November-2009) stated “During the last 2 years, the University administration has not suspended or rusticated any student for violation of code of conduct rules. The Propaganda that hundred of students have been suspended by the University is totally baseless and designed to create ill will towards the university by some individuals and others whose designs are political...The allegation that the University has collected several lacks of rupees as fine is a blatant lie to misled students and general public...In the current academic year out of 11000 plus students only 29 students in all the 18 Halls of residences were fined.”

Now see who resorted to Propaganda. Read this passage from a newspaper report published in The Hindu recently about students’ suspensions. (http://www.thehindu.com/2010/06/15/stories/2010061565940300.htm).

“According to the RTI response, in 2007, 32 students were suspended in September, six in August, 26 in October and 15 in November. In 2008, roughly 10 students were suspended. Of the students who were suspended in 2007, 28 students were rusticated in 2008. Thirty-one students were suspended in 2009 of which 18 were suspended in November. Of the suspended students, four were rusticated. In 2010, 12 students had been suspended till April taking the total count to 148 students who had been suspended, rusticated or both.

And look at the lie of fines...In one RTI reply to me by vide D.No 648 dated May 12, 2010(Scan copy attached though of poor quality, underlined in the 12^th row) the Asst. Finance Officer (Students) accepted that under Category “A” and Code 50011 Finance & Accounts Department, AMU collected the followed fees as FINES since 99-2K till date, 1999-2000: Rs.83688, 2000-01:Rs.84539, 2001-02: Rs. 100512,2002-03:Rs.185270 , 2003-04:Rs.185271, 2004-05: Rs.192209, 2005-06: Rs.222460, 2006-07: Rs.262685, 2007-08: Rs.326446, 2008-09:Rs.429927, 2009-10: Rs.750169. So we can see who is lying now! The Fines in the tenure of this Vice-Chancellor is touching new heights every year. However the amount of Fines is same since Academic Council passed AMU Students Conduct and Disciplines Rules, 1985 which is maximum Rs.500 which may extend up to Rs.2500. And moreover 29 students and lakhs of fine, start with your own knowledge of math. It will make your day I must say.

The Politics of Outsider

The politics of outsider and constructed fear is a great way to wage war against a state, to purchase huge defence equipments benefitting the suppliers, contractors, middle-men and politicians, and above all to evoke jingoism and blind patriotism to justify and make acceptable any emergency actions. At AMU, every student agitation is the handiwork of some “outsiders” with some vested interest here as it is often portrayed by the AMU administration. All students are happy and busy in their studies only. They do not voice their problems and disturb peace in the campus, its “outsiders” only who provokes them. So see how Public Relations Department again resorted to lying in support of their propaganda related to “outsiders”, CCTV etc. (http://www.scribd.com/doc/33194336/Outsider-RTI-Reply-by-Proctors-Office)

The PRO, AMU said to THE PIONEER on March 31, 2010 in the news story “AMU Hostels under CCTV scanner”(http://www.dailypioneer.com/245880/AMU-hostels-under-CCTV-scanner.html), “They have been put in place for security reasons as per government guidelines. Several outsiders enter the campus to create unrest and violence. The recent hungama on March 22 was an example of it. No student or teacher is affected by their installation,”

Now on March 22, a student from Azamgarh went missing and for 3 days the Provost, Allama Iqbal did not respond and the entire AMU administration came into action to rescue him only students gathered in large number that day. So to find the role of the outsiders in the“hungama” and detailed report about their involvement in it available at the Proctors Office on whose basis PRO might have gave his statement a RTI was filed. The Proctors Office in its reply vide D.No 124/Proc dated 21.4.2010 shocked by saying, “No such report relating to any hungama in the campus on 22.03.2010 is available in the record of the Proctors Office” or when asked about the name and address of the outsiders and the action taken report on them, they replied, “No such information/record available at the Proctors Office. CPIO, PRO may provide information/record.” What kind of drama is this then? There was no hungama, yet PRO justify actions on a hungama. And as I said, the AMU administration has mastered in this politics of “outsiders”. There is no one, yet they can produce such outsiders out of nothing to justify actions and hide their fault. Same way they did in declaring the sine die in 2009 where AMU administration said due to their fear they were closing the university.

News Value Factor

This is the primary lesson in journalism taught to us sincerely by Prof. Shafey Kidway in the 1^st Semester. There are eight primary factors (Impact, Timeliness, Prominence, Proximity, Uniqueness, Conflict, Currency, and Human Interest) which determine the newsworthiness of a potential story for media. But I can understand the plight of the people involved in the media department of AMU who can’t let the decision makers understand about these important things and just had to write what their masters dictate without using much of their personal knowledge. The decisions to suspend me for defaming on internet, Afaq Ahmad for filming the mess and sending threatening letter to VC, Dr. Siras for involving in homosexual activity exposed through illegal sting operation inside his private quarter all had the News Value Factor of top rated “Uniqueness” (Because such decisions had never been taken in any other institution in India) which would be covered by media extensively even if happened in any other institution. Media department failed completely in this damage control and news stories and articles constantly appeared and criticized the functioning of AMU in the last 6-8 months. The problem the AMU administrators can’t even understand that just by citing that AMU has its own system it can’t take rare disciplinary actions and in the end media will only publish stories after stories on such damaging its reputation further in the academic circles in the country.

Some Questions

Some prominent Old Boys who never spare a second to blame my writings on forums as “political” are conspicuously silent on the issue that in justifying my suspension the PRO sent a Press Release where he accused me and other students of blocking the National Railway Traffic after the unfortunate death of Mr.Shahnawaz Alam. Whereas in the news item “Namjadgi Galat, AMU Chhatra Shamil Nahi” on 30^th October, 2009 in Dainik Jagaran the then SSP, Aligarh Mr. Asim Arun denied that any AMU student was involved in such incident. I can see many Old Boys are silent even I asked them to speak out. Is not this Press Release defaming the AMU students and the university itself?

If for writing correct facts regarding the mismanagement prevailing at AMU which could not respond to a injured student pushing him to death, and for showing total disrespect towards his deceased body which in the end embarrassed Proctor and he ordered to suspend me, Why no actions should be taken for falsifying facts and defaming the AMU just to please the Vice-Chancellor?

The Public Relations Office of AMU should be renamed itself Propaganda Office, AMU in view of the abovementioned facts and reasons which violated Sections 11, 12, 13 and 14 of Code of Athens (http://www.ipra.org/detail.asp?articleid=22) for Public Relations Officers which ask them to refrain from Subordinating the truth to other requirements(11), Circulating information which is not based on established and ascertainable facts(12); taking part in any venture or undertaking which is unethical or dishonest or capable of impairing human dignity or integrity(13); Using any manipulative methods or techniques designed to create subconscious motivations over which an individual has no control(14) .

I just can say that this is extremely shameful and very much unfortunate.

Regards

Md. Adil Hossain M.A (Prev) Mass Communication A.M.U, Aligarh

AMU: No Dissent, Vengeance and LIU and Mystery

Students targeted for practicing Freedom of Speech and Expression at AMU

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 4^th grade AMU employee and Former AMU Court Member(http://www.outlookindia.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.indianexpress.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-University/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.indianexpress.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 6^th 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 2^nd 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

1. Provost, VM Hall of AMU mentioned about the “LIU Report” to the Vice-Chancellor so that he may rely on what he is stating?
2. Prof.Irfan Habib, Professor Emeritus, Dept of History in the Telelka Hindi(UP edition) of 30^th 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.

AMU suspends student for `dissent'

AMU suspends student for `dissent'

read more...