Crowdfunding Countercurrents

CC Archive

Submission Policy

Join News Letter

Defend Indian Constitution





CC Youtube Channel

India Burning

Mumbai Terror


Peak Oil



Climate Change

US Imperialism








Book Review

Gujarat Pogrom

Kandhamal Violence



About Us

Popularise CC


Fair Use Notice

Contact Us

Subscribe To Our
News Letter



Search Our Archive

Our Site






AMU Centres: Present And - Past Tense

By Dr. Anwar Khursheed

05 March, 2016

I distinctly remember the fierce debate when proposal of off campus AMU Centres was first mooted by the MHRD. Out of the university fraternity some opined them illegal, some considered legal but unfeasible; and rest perfectly in tuned. The then University VC Mr. Naseem Ahmad rejected the idea initially but the next VC Prof. Azis placed it before University authorities and got their endorsement.

The story starts in 2002 when the then CM of Madhya Pradesh Mr. Digvijay Singh as the Chief Guest in the Sir Sayyed’s Day function on October 17 put up proposal of establishing off campus centres. Mr. Singh also offered 100 Acres of land for this purpose to the Gharib Nawaz Foundation (GNF). The Secretary of GNF visited AMU and met with the VC in 2003 and then GNF 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 VC, AMU). The Under Secretary MHRD wrote a letter to UGC on April 21, 2005 on the same line and then on August 28, 2006 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 story does not end here, it has another episode also. In 2007, the Belgachia Education Trust (BET) through Chief Minister of West Bengal also requested the PM to establish an institution in WB on the model of AMU at Murshidabad. The MHRD then wrote to AMU to establish a centre u/s 12(2) of the AMU Act. In view of no affirmative response by the then Registrar the MHRD in June 2007 reprimanded him repeatedly.

The initial concept of Centres in minority dominated areas was a very catchy idea, since it was a step towards fulfillment of Sir Sayyed’s dream of furtherance of education among Muslims. However, the moment the above details came to light, there was a surge of queries, doubts, apprehensions and uneasiness besieged people’s mind. The most obnoxious action is the request of private trusts to promulgate an ordinance, who is this GNF and what locus it did posses to ask this 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 indiscipline now, what they will do in future? And their impudence, asking for ordinance, and above all the arm twisting tactics of the MHRD.

The University virtually becomes sandwich in case of these centres; first we were pressed to establish them and now the same MHRD is bent upon to close them or if not so then create a situation of their slow death. The initial financial proposal was of Rs. 1400 Crore for Malappuram and Murshidabad Centres but as ever the dubious Congress sanctioned Rs. 349.55 Crore in XII five year plan and till date only Rs. 130 Crore is released. Only one year is left in this plan and the present government is in no mood to give anything more.

Sec 5(9A) of AMU (Amendment) Act, 1972 provides “University shall have power to establish within a radius of twenty five kilometers 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”. While Sec 12 (2) of AMU (Amendment) Act, 1951 confirms that 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.

Reading section 5(9A) with 12 (2) provides that establishment of Centers subject to approval of the Visitor is legally permissible, since sec 12 (2) was enacted in 1951, while sec 5(9A) was subsequently incorporated in 1972, which empowers the University to establish Centers without Visitor’s approval but within a radius of twenty five kilometers of the University Mosque. These two sections are therefore not contradictory and for the same reason 12 (2) was not struck down when 5(9A) was incorporated in 1972. Nevertheless no such centers could be legalized without framing necessary statutes and ordinances vide statutes 23(2), 28(6) and 29(1), which the university did in the mean time.

The Preamble of the AMU Act of 1920 provides “An Act to incorporate a Teaching and Residential Muslim University at Aligarh”, the debate on residential character of the institution as per the preamble of the Act can only be decided by studying the all important question whether the Preamble is a part of the Constitution of India or not. The preamble to the Constitution of India sets out the guiding purpose and principles of the document. For some time it was assumed that like the preamble of a statute, the preamble is not an integral part of the Indian constitution, however, Kesavanada Bharati Case has created a history and for the first time, Supreme Court has recognised that the Preamble to the Constitution of India is a part of Constitution, Preamble is not a source of power nor a source of limitations and Preamble has a significant role to play in the interpretation of statues, also in the interpretation of provisions of the Constitution. The inference drawn is that residential character is a part of the Act but not absolute and there is certainly no ambiguity in the establishment of campuses/ Centers and this is perhaps the reason that hostel is not compulsory for the students since its inception and therefore provision of nonresident students does exist. The President of India as the Visitor of the University accorded approval for the establishment of these centres under Section 12(2) of the University Act. Allahabad High Court comprising then Chief Justice F. I. Rebello and Justice A. P. Sahi dismissed a writ petition challenging the decision to establish two new centres of AMU at Malappuram and Murshidabad, since the same was duly approved by the President of India as the Visitor of the University. The Kerala High Court bench comprising Chief Justice J. Chelameswar and Justice P.N. Ravindran had earlier rejected the prayer for interim relief against the establishment of Aligarh Muslim University centre in Kerala.

The MAO College at the time of its establishment in 1877 by Sir Sayyed possessed only 78 acres of land which has now expanded to more than a thousand acre; almost another thousand acres of land is now further gifted by the respective states of Kerala, Bihar and West Bengal, which is a big leap. Still the full benefits of such centers to the community may be far from reality in the absence of restoration of Minority status of the University pending before the Supreme Court, but whatever service AMU is rendering to the community the same these Centers are doing.

The AMU is always a victim of the politics be it Congress or the BJP the two sides of the same coin. First it was Congress through M.C. Chagla and Prof. Nurul Hasan and now it is BJP through Smriti Irani. How pitiable it is on part of the Cabinet minister of HRD that she is totally ignorant about the history of creation of these Centres and putting blame on the present VC Lt. Gen. Zameer Uddin Shah, being a brave soldier and veteran of many battle fields he will settle his score. But the ultimate victim is same; the underprivileged AMU despite ranked second among Indian Universities. Mrs. Irani is not speaking on her own rather it is the words of others in her mouth. Unfortunate reality is that some aligs are misguiding MHRD. Earlier only these elements and the BJP/RSS were opposing these Centres now the same BJP is at the helm of affairs so the morals of these people is high; nevertheless the fence is clear that all those opposing Centres are on the side of communal forces.

Dr. Anwar Khursheed
Professor of Environmental Engg. &
University Engineer
Former Principal FCI & Director Computer Centre
Department of Civil Engineering
Z. H. College of Engineering & Technology
AMU, Aligarh-202 002, India
akhursheed @ rediffmail.com



Share on Tumblr



Comments are moderated