Appointment of a non-hindu in Sanskrit Dharm Vigyan Sanakaya of BHU

I am translating a facebook post written by Dr. Saurabh Dwivedi, a former Ph.D. student of the incumbent head of the department Prof Umakant Chaturvedi, who is mainly responsible for this appointment. The original post can be accessed here.

Dr. Firoz Khan has been appointed in the Sahitya department of Sanskrit Vidya Dharma Vigyaan Sankaya of Banaras Hindu University. This appointment is being opposed. In this regard, few issues need to be understood.

The Sahitya department is headed by Prof Umakant Chaturvedi. He is my research supervisor. He joined the university as an associate professor about five years ago. Formerly, he served in the Jaipur campus of Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan, to which he is still attached. His confidants are at Jaipur itself. He is an embodiment of financial lust. Anyday, a conversation lasting fifteen minutes with him can validate this fact. If things go his way, he will insist on his students sharing a part of their fellowship with him.

Prof Chaturvedi is the main culprit behind this appointment. If an impartial inquiry is conducted, I believe he could be caught red-handed. Lust for money is the driving force behind this appointment. Dr. Firoz Khan was the safest bet for soliciting the bribe. He is a student of his former institute - Jaipur campus of Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan and belonged to the OBC. A total of ten students were invited for the interview, among which few were research scholars from BHU. The HOD couldn't trust
anyone from BHU for asking money to secure the appointment. He was confident that only Dr Firoz can maintain that secrecy. However, he couldn't foresee that the selection of a Muslim candidate can create a controversy.

He invited his former colleague Prof Tarashankar Sharma Pandey, who is possibly his close confidant and is very pliable. I do not know much about him. The second expert was Prof Radhavallabh Tripathi. In terms of ideology, he is opportunistically 'centrist-liberal,' sometimes he is a 'traditional scholar' and sometimes 'contemporary critique of Sanskrit Literature.' He was the vice-chancellor of Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan during the rule of Congress. He has decorated many prestigious positions. He has also worked very hard to enrich the Sanskrit literature. His scholarship is undisputed. However, the unfortunate aspect is that he misused his scholarship and authority to appoint people who are favorable to him. His clout has extended to all university appointments in the last twenty years. In every Sanskrit institute, a nexus exists of people appointed by him. This nexus forbids anyone apart from their circle to secure an appointment. To an extent, he could be compared to a famous critique in Hindi literature of a bygone era.  

These three scholars belong to the same nexus. They are scholars and capable. Therefore, questioning an appointment made by them seems outrageous from a common man's perspective. This group considers and proves that only person among them is most eligible for an appointment. With Prof Umakant Chaturvedi at the helm of affairs, no selection can be made without the exchange of money. However, it is also true that had the selected candidate been a Hindu, no one would have questioned the appointment. Irrespective of the government at the center, the university appointments are steered by people of a specific ideology.  

The fourth person is the dean of Sanskrit Vidya Dharm Vigyan Sankay Prof Vindheshwari Prasad Mishra who is great scholar and a very straightforward person. The last person is the Vice-Chancellor of BHU Prof Rakesh Bhatnagar. He is from JNU. People consider him a leftist. He was a VC at a small university but could not perform well. But today, he is the VC of a large university. It is suspected that he has been appointed on the recommendation of the RSS.  

The question is: who are these students who are not able to accept a Muslim Sanskrit student as their teacher? Is it an orthodox impulsive mob? Are they opposing the appointment of Dr. Firoz Khan in the university? 

The answer is no. The students are opposing the appointment of a non-Hindu in the faculty of Sanskrit Dharm Vigyan Sanakaya. They would not have opposed the appointment in any other faculty of BHU as a Sanskrit teacher. The non-Hindu nature forms the core of this protest. The protesters are traditional Hindu students who are wary of the consequences of this appointment. They fear that fifteen years from now, when there will be a Muslim professor, HOD, or dean, more such appointments will be made. There will be a time when the faculty of Dharm Vigyan will be run by non- Hindus. This will directly impinge upon the objectives of establishing the institute.  

To understand this protest, one needs to understand the structure of the faculty. The name is Sanskrit Vidya Dharm Vigyan Sankaya'. It has two parts - Sanskrit Vidya and Dharm Vigyan. The discerning point is that Sanskrit Vidya can be attained and taught by anyone. But when it comes to Dharm Vigyan, there are concerns to ingenuity if a person belongs to a different religion. That is why this faculty is different from any other faculty of Sanskrit in India. Malviya Ji had established this faculty in a 'Hindu' university to conserve and promote Sanskrit knowledge and to explain the scientific aspects of the traditional Hindu beliefs. When any Hindu belief is ridiculed by pseudo-intellectuals (usually supported by Islamic and Christian organizations) as obsolete, then it is the responsibility of this faculty to show the scientific validity of that ritual. A temple-like entrance to the faculty hosts the Vigraha of Shankar and Parvati standing on two adjacent pillars. Most professors enter by doing a Pradakshina of these murtis.  The Panchang published by the Sanakaya is used to resolve doubts and queries related to the festivals and dates of Hindus across the world. Unfortunately, many in the university itself do not know about it. The concern is that twenty years from hence, when non-Hindus will run the faculty, we do not know what kind of explanations will be given about our traditions. 

 Hindu institutions do not enshrine the prohibition of non-Hindus in the constitution, but they get it engraved on stones and consider it to be the preservation of the tradition. Therefore, the opposition to the appointment is not constitutional or legal, but emotional. Muslim organizations do not make any mistakes in this regard. 

In this modern world, you can consider these protesting students as traditional, orthodox tribals who are resisting the invasion on their land. They are challenged by powerful VC, government, HOD, experts, and officials. They also have to fight the liberals who seek so-called modernization. They see themselves as future Kashmiri Hindus, whose exile is imminent. The tragedy is that this exile is being scripted in an RSS supported Hindu government's rule. 

x