Aligarh Muslim University (AMU)
Contents |
Artefacts
2018: Artefacts, some over 5,000 years old, missing
Anuja Jaiswal, Artefacts, some over 5,000 yrs old, missing, April 24, 2018: The Times of India
.jpg)
From: Anuja Jaiswal, Artefacts, some over 5,000 yrs old, missing, April 24, 2018: The Times of India
Feared Stolen From AMU, Probe Ordered
Around 25% of rare artefacts kept in Aligarh Muslim University’s archaeology section, some of them even 5000 years old, have gone missing. The head of varsity’s history department has ordered an internal inquiry.
According to departmental sources, the artefacts, collected from various excavation sites of Atranjikhera, Fatehpur Sikri and Jhakhera, were either stolen or misplaced during the shifting of the varsity’s archaeological section in 2014. Several other artefacts have been also damaged in the process.
The missing artefacts include wires and bangles of ochre coloured pottery (OCP) culture and terracotta balls of painted grey ware (PGW) culture. While OCP culture is a 2nd millennium BC Bronze Age culture of the Indo-Gangetic plain, extending from eastern Punjab to western Uttar Pradesh, the PGW culture is an Iron Age culture of the western Gangetic plain and the Ghaggar-Hakra valley, lasting from roughly 1200 BC to 600 BC.
Chairman and coordinator of AMU’s history department, Prof Syed Ali Nadeem Rezavi, said the archaeology section had a stock of around 9,000 artefacts but no record is available now. He said, “It’s a loss for the nation as these artefacts were a national treasure.”
According to Prof Rezavi, the university’s founder, Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, had himself collected a number of these artefacts, including rare Hindu and Buddhist sculptures. “The actual loss can only be confirmed after the inquiry is completed, as we are still quantifying them,” he said.
Dr MK Pundhir, who took charge of the archaeology section last year, said these antiquities were collected over a period of 40 years, but due to carelessness of the staff involved in the shifting of the stock, many of these priceless articles have either been misplaced or damaged. He said, “Many artefacts had no marking on them and they were dumped like useless items in bags, as no one knew what they were.”
Gender issues
Girls first elected to students' union cabinet in 2016
Anuja Jaiswal, In a first, girls elected to AMU students' body, Oct 10 2016 : The Times of India
In another step forward for gender equality at Aligarh Muslim University , for the first time in the institution's history , three girls were elected to the cabinet of the students' union.
The three female students -Ghazala Ahmad, Labeeba Sherwani and Sadaf Rasool -were elected to the 10-member cabinet
Minority status
Chagla’s 1965 Parliament speech
Sibal, Mehta spar over Chagla’s 1965 Parliament speech on AMU’s status
Mehta Quotes Sept 2 Address To Counter Sibal On Sept 3-6 Speech
Dhananjay.Mahapatra@timesgroup.com
New Delhi : What was the understanding of the Congressled Union government in 1965 about Aligarh Muslim University’s character — a nondenominational body or minority educational institution — when it amended the AMU Act, 1920, to shift the administrative powers from the ‘University Court’ to its executive council and ended compulsory religious instructions to Muslim students?
The September 1965 speech in Parliament of then education minister M C Chagla, the celebrated chief justice of Bombay high court and who had refused then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru’s offer for Supreme Court judgeship and who, later, served as education minister.
the speech Chagla gave in September 3-6, 1965 in the backdrop of a war-l ike situation with Pakistan. Chagla had said, “There is an undeclared war. We should do everything in our power to maintain communal harmony. We should not say a word which will inter fere with that harmony which exists, and which should continue to exist.” Sibal wished these words to reverberate in the present “intolerant” atmosphere.
Chagla had also said that the 1965 AMU (Amendment) Bill “will not in any way affect the special character of the University” and Sibal cited this to buttress his point that lawmakers had always co nsidered AMU to be a minority institution. He backed it by narrating historical facts leading up to 1920 when the Muslim community collected Rs 30 lakh (Rs 500 crore at present value) to establish AMU. Sibal further quoted Chagla: “It (AMU) should be the symbol of Muslim culture in the context of secular India. It should be an example to the rest of the world how different communities can live together in peace and harmony in our country... Aligarh should be strengthened and should become a modern progressive university, that it should be a shining light not only in India but abroad, of our great composite culture.”
Sibal asked, “Why should the government try to destroy the minority character of a university of national importance that has embodied the country’s composite culture? Why would the court rule that this is not a minority institution and destroy the century-old legacy.”
However, Mehta accused Sibal of quoting Chagla selectively and not placing Chagla’s entire speech before the court. He cited Chagla’s September 2, 1965, speech in Parliament in which he had said, “My submission to this House is that AMU has neither been established nor is being ad ministered by the Muslim Community... Sir Syed Ahmed had asked the British government of those days to establish a university and the British government established the university. Therefore, the establishment of AMU was by the legislature and not by the community.”
“I say that this institution (AMU) was not established by the minority; nor is it being administered by the minority community. That is the legal position as far as Article 30 is concerned,” Chagla had said.
Sibal, who was the HRD minister in UPA government, wriggled out of the sticky situation by saying a minister’s (Chagla’s) contradictory statements is of no assistance to SC in determining whether AMU retained its minority status right from inception and whether SC’s five-judge bench erred by ruling in Azeez Basha case in 1967 upholding the 1951 and 1965 amendments to the AMU Act and ruling that the university was not a minority institution.
1967, 1981
Dhananjay Mahapatra, January 9, 2024: The Times of India
AMU’s status: A ruling from 1967 & adoubt from 1981
In 1967, a five-judge Constitution bench in S Azeez Basha vs Union of India had ruled that AMU “was neither established nor administered by Muslim minority”, and consequently, held that it can’t enjoy protection for minorities to administer educational institutions under Article 30(1) of the Constitution.
On November 26, 1981, a two-judge bench of the SC in Anjuman-e-Rahmania vs District Inspector of Schools questioned the correctness of the Azeez Basha ruling and referred the matter to a seven -judge bench. While the matter was pending consideration of a seven-judge bench, petitions were filed before Allahabad HC challenging AMU’s decision to reserve seats for Muslims in postgraduate courses. The HC on January 5, 2006, declared that AMU was never a minority institution, and that reservations for Muslim minority in postgraduate courses was declared as unconstitutional and impermissible.
In addition, the HC struck down three important changes introduced through the AMU (Amendment) Act, 1981. Abatch of eight petitions, including one by the Union government, challenged the correctness of the HC verdict in the SC. The Centre, during the UPA government’s tenure, had supported the minority status for AMU. The NDA government in 2016 withdrew its appeal from the SC and said AMU was not a minority institution.
Though the controversy arose 57 years ago with the Azeez Basha case ruling and was referred to the sevenjudge bench for reconsideration nearly 43 years ago, the issue remains unresolved. A seven-j udge bench comprising CJI Chandrachud, and Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Surya Kant, J B Pardiwala, Dipankar Datta, manoj Misra and Satish Sharma is scheduled to commence on Tuesday proceedings on eight petitions in addition to the referred questions.
AMU, in its written submissions, finalised by senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, cited the historical facts including transformat ion of Mohammedan Anglo Oriental College into AMU and the architecture of the building — use of a deep green colour, domes, Quranic inscriptions — to buttress its argument about the Islamic character of the university.
The emblem of AMU contains a Quranic verse which is also its motto; has a university mosque; employs muezzins; has separate departments of studies for Sunni theology, Shea theology, Islamic studies, Arabic language and literature, Persian and Urdu, Islamic philosophy and Quranic studies — are the other characteristics which AMU cited to get back minority status. “AMU made accommodations for female students to observe purdah,” the AMU said.
Ramzan
Non-Muslims are served lunch
Non-Muslims at AMU to get lunch during Ramzan, June 1, 2017: The Times of India
University Clarifies After Protests In The Last Few Days
Faced with sudden criticism over “not providing“ lunch to non-Muslim students in hostels during the month of Ramzan, Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) has clarified that food is available “on demand“ to such students.
In a statement the central university said: “Dining halls of various residential halls and hostels in AMU are serving food during lunch hours in the holy month of Ramzan to students who are not observing the fast.“
Following “protests“ by some students in the last couple of days and the corresponding controversy that erupted on social media, the varsity has been hard put to explain its stand.
Many teachers and students have, however, maintained that this is a “non-issue“ and is being given an “unnecessary a communal colour“. Shahzad Alam Burni, former president of AMU stu dents' union, said the practice had been going on for “ages“ but no one had ever objected. He alleged that this year a deliberate attempt was being made to give a communal tinge to the matter.
Former students, including Hindus, said everyone in the past “cooperated on this convention to respect the sentiments of fasting students“. Prof Syed Ali Nadeem Rezavi, chairman of AMU's history department, said, “Besides, there are dozens of big and small eateries in the vicinity and nobody really bothers about just one meal.“
Prof Shaefy Kidwai, member in-charge of AMU's public relations office, said non-Muslim students never objected to this ageold practice in the past.
“But since they have, lunch will be provided to them on advance notice,“ he added.
The controversy started with a tweet from Prashant Patel, a Delhi high court layer, highlighting the “problem“. As it went viral on social media, with people's opinion divided on both sides of the debate, a number of AMU students, both Muslims and Hindus, joined it.
Rashmi Singh, who resides in Begum Sultan hostel of the varsity , wrote in her Facebook post that the students are getting breakfast and dinner as usual. “They are getting a light lunch because the number of students having lunch is less,“ she wrote, adding that she is getting to enjoy sehri and iftar as well.
Sports
Distinguished alumni
Ishita Mishra, December 10, 2018: The Times of India
Anees-Ur-Rehman, a former Indian international hockey player from the mid-80s and current deputy director of the AMU sports committee.
AMU has boasted of many illustrious male hockey (and football) players through the decades, with former 1980s captain, Zafar Iqbal — born in Aligarh, his father was head of the Chemistry department at AMU — being the last Olympic gold medal winner (Moscow 1980) from the university.
Other stalwarts include Masood Minhaj (Los Angeles Olympics, 1932), Ahsan Mohammad Khan (Berlin Olympics, 1936), Lt A Shakoor, Madan Lal, Lateef-ur Rehman, Akhtar Husain Hayat (all of whom played in London Olympics, 1948), Jogendra Singh (Rome Olympics, 1960) and SM Ali Sayeed (Tokyo, 1964) among others.
See also
Aligarh Muslim University (AMU)
Aligarh Muslim University: Vice Chancellors (1920-79)
Aligarh Muslim University: Vice Chancellors (1979 onwards): list
Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) Women’s College
