A special meeting of the Board of Studies, Department of History, AMU Aligarh, was held on July 26, 2006. Of the 32 Board members who participated, four belonged to the Hindu community and the rest were Muslim scholars.

Prof Shahabuddin Iraqi presided over the meeting. After calling the meeting to order, the chairman initiated the proceedings to which Prof Shireen Moosvi objected, saying that the panels need not be resolved afresh and insisted that the previous panels of experts made during her tenure should be retained. The chairman and a majority of the Board members did not concede to her demand and while the names of experts were being discussed, Prof Moosvi accused the chairman of being a member of the RSS. She contemptuously remarked, "I do not recognise a Professor appointed under MPS/CAS to serve on a selection committee and my statements should be put on record".

She said, "the whole Board has become a body of the RSS". Dr Farhat Hasan, Mr SA Nadeem Rezavi, Dr Ishrat Alam and Dr S Jabir Raza tried to disrupt the proceedings. When the chairman and a majority of the members objected to such behaviour, Prof Moosvi, along with seven others, left the meeting. Some shouted derogatory remarks against the Chairman.

The chairman was then advised by other 23 members present at the meeting to continue with the proceedings of the Board of Studies. All members present discussed each proposed name on merit and unanimously recommended the panel of experts to the academic council. The eight members who boycotted were staunch followers of Prof Irfan Habib, who despite his retirement long back, continues to occupy a prestigious room in the department and carries on his politics not only in AMU but also at other academic centres and the All India History Congress. Those who had boycotted the meeting were mostly known CPM sympathisers. Out of the eight members who boycotted the meeting, two were Hindu scholars.

I have quoted from the minutes of the Board meeting just to underline how strong the RSS brand is. The label by itself is strong enough to defeat the scores of arguments. None of the faculty members in AMU is an RSS member or sympathiser. It also shows their commitment to gigantic lies.

Perhaps, the RSS has become the strongest brand in the Indian political parlance. If one affixes its label to a recognised secular fundamentalist, he would immediately forfeit his secular credentials. A lot of images have been submerged in the label called RSS; that it is reactionary, violent, anti-Muslim, anti-Christian, anti-modernism, anti-women and anti-Dalit. The list can go on adding ill names as per convenience of the day. The RSS label carries everything despicable, wretched, dangerous, cheap, mean, reprehensible, punishable and what not.

It also carries hundreds of images like khaki nikkerwala, lathi-wielding youth, rapist, gangster of Jhabua infamy, barbarians who burnt alive one Graham Stains, an Australian Christian missionary along with his two children. The list is unending.

As we all are aware, anything negative seduces the media, from the cub-reporter to the media-tycoon. In an age of cut-throat competition, negative stories, even without an iota of truth, are essential fodder for the media. It does not matter to them if truth suffers in the process or gets buried. In the torrent of propaganda, for half a century or more, the RSS has faced incalculable damage to its image.

The RSS started with the noble mission of nation-building and gained strength. Devotion, dedication and determination of its leaders and workers provided it the resilience of the first order. It was accused of Mahatma's murder. It was a total lie. The courts and commissions exonerated it. But even after almost six decades, a Doordarshan documentary, 30th January pointed an accusing finger at RSS in an implied manner.

The assertion of mass movement of the Ram Janmabhoomi temple was quite clear. It alarmed Macaulay products who believe there is nothing glorious about ancient India; it scared parties enslaved by vote-bank politics. By that time, the secular-communal divide had been sharpened. One, who was ever prone to romance with separatist Muslim interests and surrender of national interests at their altar, was regarded as secular, and the one who whispered about Hindu interests was a confirmed RSS member.

In the last 15 years, anti-Sangh Parivar propagandists used their skill to demolish Sangh with the weapon of lies. This was witnessed throughout the NDA regime. One can recall the devastatingly long media campaigns of Dang and Jhabua, Graham Stains, Godhra and after and many such episodes.

But the brand and label of RSS attained huge potential. It is not necessary to give an example from macro-level, for it is visible in the lies, both in written and spoken forms. I have given just one example from micro-level.

Courtesy: The Pioneer, August 13, 2006