Ali Nadeem Rizvi, professor of medieval India at Aligarh Muslim University, wrote an article about the naming of Aligarh, which was published in The Hindu group's magazine Frontline. The piece went viral on Twitter after Delhi-based professor S. Irfan Habib shared it on Twitter.
Bharadwaj, who goes by the handle @BharadwajSpeaks on Twitter, pointed to many factual inaccuracies in the article. Later, Habib deleted his post.
The thread is as follows:
He is an "eminent" historian. He quotes another "eminent" historian from AMU. In a single article, they make several BLUNDERS. They cannot even get their basic dates right. Their claims are factually incorrect and FAKE. This thread is a FACT CHECK of their claims.
The heading of @Rezavi's article says "Historical records show it was Marathas who came up with the name of Aligarh. Their governor Najaf Ali Khan renamed it as Aligarh."
This is the central claim of the article. And it is a FAKE claim.
Najaf Ali khan was NOT Maratha commander.
Unlike these "eminent" historians @irfhabib and @Rezavi, I have sources.
Here is a snippet from "Aligarh Statistics" by collector JR Hutchinson (1856).
It clearly mentions that Najaf Ali Khan was a "Mughal general" and NOT a Maratha general.
He renamed Ramgarh to Aligarh.
In fact, Najaf Ali Khan was the sword arm of Mughal Emperor Shah Alam II. Najaf Ali Khan was NOT a Maratha governor. In fact, no Maratha governor ever existed by the name "Najaf Ali Khan" in the ENTIRE 18th century. Snippet from "The Fall of Mughal Empire" by Jadunath Sarkar.
Who was Najaf Ali Khan?
A Persian, Najaf, came to India along with his sister, who married a Mughal official. He joined the Mughal service.
Far from being a "Maratha governor", he fought battles AGAINST Marathas (English waged wars against Marathas in the name of Mughal emperor).
In this article, @rezavi says
"Madhav Rao Scindia captured Aligarh in 1759 along with French commander De Boigne".
Ha ha. De Boigne was an 8year old kid in 1759. And he was in France. He did not come to India until 1778.
This is the level of these eminent AMU historians.
Fake quotes, fake dates, fake claims. This is the reality of these eminent historians. They have no knowledge, but they pose as scholars.
But at the core, they are political propagandists. "Marathas named it Aligarh, so don't change its name" is their argument. FAKE premise.
Here is another factually incorrect claim of @Rezavi.
He claims that it was Jats who named it as Ramgarh in 1753. This is FALSE.
It was known as Ramgarh even before Jat Conquest. The Hindus addressed it as "Ramgarh" since at least the 16th century and possibly much earlier.
I challenge @irfhabib and @Rezavi to refute my thread.
If they are too scared to do that, they should at least make corrections to their FAKE article. But I am pretty sure they won't do either.
I have a simple question for eminent historians @irfhabib @Rezavi
Who on earth is "Madhav Rao Scindia"? Madhav Rao was Peshwa, NOT Scindia. Mahadji was Scindia.
Even a school student knows the difference between Scindia and Peshwa. And you call yourselves historians? SHAME!
You say -"De Boigne worked for Madhav Rao"
Wrong. He did NOT. Madhav Rao died BEFORE De Boigne even came to India. This is ELEMENTARY!
A simple google search could have saved you from such embarrassment. But these eminent historians are hell-bent on exposing their ignorance.
Comments