Dr Deepak Pental, Vice Chancellor of Delhi University, was summoned by the court of Sub Divisional Magistrate Shri Rakesh Kumar in Dera Bassi, Punjab. Dr Pental has to appear before the court on April 22. He has been summoned for hurting the sentiments of Hindus in an article, ?Three Hundred Ramayanas?, being taught in Delhi University to the students of BA (Hons) second year as part of a history book Culture in India: Ancient. The article contains highly objectionable contents insulting Sri Ram, Sita, Hanuman, Lakshman and other Hindu gods and goddesses. The complaint in this case had been filed by Shri Anil Bali of Dera Bassi on June 13, 2008.
It is to be noted that Shiksha Bachao Andolan Samiti and some other Hindu social and religious organisations have been protesting against the objectionable textbook being taught in Delhi University and the matter was taken up in Supreme Court also. But Dr Deepak Pental, Vice Chancellor, was not even ready to listen to the grievances of the people. Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh'sdaughter, Dr Upinder Singh, is head of the History Department in the University.
?From the allegations contained in the complaint and the preliminary evidences led by the complaint in support thereof, a prima facie case is made out against the accused (Dr Deepak Pental, Vice Chancellor of Delhi University) for alleged commission of an offence punishable under Section 153-A, 295-A and 298 of the IPC. Accordingly, the accused is ordered to be summoned to face trial for the alleged commission of an offence for April 22, 2009,? the Magistrate said in his order announced on March 7. According to sources, the summon order has been served to Dr Pental.
The controversial book contains very abusive and libellous language used for divine Hindu deities by addressing Lord Hanuman as ?Henchman? and ?Tiny Monkey?, etc. The names of other Hindu deities have also been changed like as humiliated language. The contents were un-authentic, malice and banned under the law. Sita was stated as ?unfaithful?. ?The intention of the article was predetrimental. The complainant was also aggrieved to know that many false stories were quoted under one pretext or the other. This was matter of concern that popular beliefs and prevailing traditions of Hindu culture are projected in distorted manner,? the Magistrate states in his order.
(FOC)
Comments