Você está na página 1de 14

ANNEXURES

Annexure 1 Note on the Rohtas issue by the Principal Reverend Valson Thampu as attached to
an email sent to Justice Manmohan Sarin President of the Alumni Foundation dated November
18, 2012.
Annexure 2 Email exchange between Rohit Bansal and Sanjeev Bikhchandani of November
27 2012 upon perusal of the note mentioned in Annexure 1
Annexure 3 Email exchange between Diljeet Titus and Rohit Bansal with Deepak Mukarji and
Sanjeev Bikhchandani being copied
Annexure 4 Deepak Mukarjis email to the other trustees of the Alumni Foundation wherein
the dhaba has been descbied as illegal
Annexure 5 Note written by Raju Sharma and posted by Sangeeta Luthra Sharma on the
Facebook Group Laal Sitara giving some details about how Rohtas was systematically
persecuted in the last three years of his life
Annexure 6 Appeal put out by Ms. Nandita Narain on the Facebook Group Stephanians
Annexure 7 Note put out by the Principal Reverend Valson Thampu on his facebook page

ANNEXURE I
From: Valson Thampu
Date: 18 November 2012 11:30
Subject: Note on Rohtas
To: Manmohan Sarin
Dear Judge saheb,
As promised I have done the note. Please see the file attachment. Sorry, I could not do this
earlier. Have been a little tied down. Please feel free to edit the matter as you deem fit. I have
simply downloaded my mind, somewhat in a pell-mell fashion. A college teacher like me cannot
be expected to have the rigrorous training of mind that a distinguished career in law ensures.
It was indeed very gracious of you to visit the College. I look foward to the next opportuniy.
Warm greetings to Mrs. Sarin.
Sincerely
valson

< Attachment to above email >


The Rohtas Issue: A Factual Note
Most of us know the College from the time of Sukhia. Sukhia was a benign and matter-of-fact
presence, happy to blend with the College and eke out a living without undermining the
institution. He was not given to imbibing and, surely, did not drink on the campus.
Rohtas is not Suhia. Nor is Metro Rohtas.
Rohtas relationship with the College, as has become increasingly evident, is marked by an
imbalance between his interests and what is good for the College, the former taking precedence
over the latter. Ambition has tipped over into greed and needs multiplied. He is much less
sensitive to the College than Sukhia was. To Rohtas, St. Stephens is a tool.
This is the root of the present unhappy situation.
The Factual Matrix
1. Facts antecedent. Rohtas had made an unsuccessful bid to plant his son, Metro, in
the College surreptitiously during the tenure of Dr. Anil Wilson. This was detected and
Metro banned from the campus, as any responsible administration would do. It is
unthinkable to turn dynastic succession into a birth right in respect of institutional
spaces or facilities. It is done nowhere in the world. During Dr. Wilsons time, Rohtas
essayed a unilateral upward revision of rates for the items he was allowed to sell. He
was summoned, reprimanded and asked to stick to rates as approved. The principle
that Rohtas could not be a law unto himself was thus secured, even if it was too obvious
to need any assertion.

2. The Sequence
(i)
The Caf manager informed the Principal that Rohtas
had passed on the mantle to his son Metro and that the latter
was selling unauthorized items. The Principal called Metro to his
office, verified the facts, and asked him to revert to the original
position. He promised to do so. He went back and wept on
Nanditas shoulders, knowing fully well why he was doing so
and that he was, willy-nilly, politicizing the issue, as it indeed
happened.
(ii)
Metro had also increased his employees from one to
two. Since Metro had been declared a persona non-grata vis-vis the College by Dr. Wilson (which the present Principal did
not know in the first instance) the Principal asked Rohtas to see
him. In two successive meetings/occasions Rohtas was told: (a)
that the wall that he had raised without any information to, or
authorization from, the College was unauthorized and the same
should be dismantled. (b) That Metro cannot run the dhaba (c)
That only authorized items shall be sold from his dhaba. (d)
That Rohtas has to work within the framework of the institution
and not invoke outside interference. (e) That he cannot drink on
the campus and that he was to stop this breach of discipline
forthwith. (f) That he was not to sleep on the campus as he had
neither sought nor secured permission for the same.
(iii)
Rohtas, as is evident, did not keep faith. He has been
leaking information and involving outside elements in vitiating
the atmosphere of the College and in defaming it in the eyes of
the public. Metro continues to visit the dhaba. [Smeeta Narain,
for example, put up a FB post recently saying that Metro served
her nimbu pani when she visited the dhaba.]
(iv)
In the meanwhile Nandita Narain came out with the
canard that Rohtas was authorized to sell chicken rolls by her.
When she realized that she did not have the authority to
authorize anyone she said she and Rishi Nanda together
authorized Rohtas. Rishi Nanda (who also did not the authority)
denied the same to the Principal. Thereupon Nandita Narain
claimed that she had documentary evidence that carried the
Principals signature to prove her claim. Realizing this to be
untrue, she announced soon enough that the document had
been misplaced!
(v)
Rohtas continued his behind-the-scene maneuvers. A
bunch of six alumni -led by Amitabh Pande and Ashish Joshi-

trespassed into the College under the pretext of handing over


cheques and DDs to Rohtas and, thereafter, insulted the
institution by flashing obscene signs, which was watched by
Junior Members in shock and disbelief. Rohtas, being the alibi
for their trespass, cannot absolve himself of responsibility in this
regard.
(vi)
Liquor is strictly disallowed on the campus. Consuming
liquor is a serious breach of discipline. Rohtas cannot be a law
unto himself, flying in the face of College discipline.
(vii)
To whip up sentimental support for Rohtas who,
otherwise, cannot be defended the canard is being dished out
that he is a poor man being targeted by the administration. As
per available information, Rohtas owns 18 acres of land in his
home town, which is not the benchmark of poverty in this
country! He has, besides, real estate assets in Delhi.
(viii) Rohtas health status is also being invoked sentimentally.
It is not unlikely that drinking has ruined his health. That cannot,
surely, be the ground for improvising irrational claims and
outlandish rights! [It is similar to the case of a young man in the
US who shot his father and mother and then filed papers for
Govt. doles, for being an orphan!]
(ix)
Mounting evidence proves that Rohtas is playing a
clever game, aided and abetted by some disgruntled elements
within and without the College. That being the case, he has
rendered his continuation on the campus wholly indefensible.
He is hurting the College (which I, submit, is more important
than chicken rolls) The College must take precedence over
vested interests and the ludicrous sentimentality of a few that
makes them march to the NHRC, waving chicken rolls all the
way!
Bravo, march on!
Rev. Prof. Valson Thampu
Principal

ANNEXURE 2
Pls read the thread from the bottom upwards
From: Rohit Bansal
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 12:01 PM
To: Sanjeev Bikhchandani
Subject: Re: !

is DM planning to run the dhaba ;) why else! lol


On 27 November 2012 11:56, Sanjeev Bikhchandani wrote:
No but I was listening when both DM and VT said that if we dont sack ROhtas now then VTs
term will be over and then how will he get sacked.
From: Rohit Bansal
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 11:54 AM
To: Sanjeev Bikhchandani
Subject: Re: Note on Rohtas-confidential. as discussed after the trustmeeting. for you only.
amen!

but was the hon. princi listening?


On 27 November 2012 10:30, Sanjeev Bikhchandani wrote:
No facts here. Only opinions and allegations.
The Hon. Judge hit the nail on the head when he said that we would prefer to be remembered for
moving forward on the vision rather than be remembered for throwing Rohtas out of College.
From: Rohit Bansal
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 10:10 AM
To: Sanjeev Bikhchandani
Subject: Fwd: Note on Rohtas-confidential. as discussed after the trust meeting. for you
only. amen!

warmly
---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Valson Thampu
Date: 18 November 2012 11:30
Subject: Note on Rohtas
To: Manmohan Sarin
Dear Judge saheb,
As promised I have done the note. Please see the file attachment. Sorry, I could not do this
earlier. Have been a little tied down. Please feel free to edit the matter as you deem fit. I have
simply downloaded my mind, somewhat in a pell-mell fashion. A college teacher like me cannot
be expected to have the rigrorous training of mind that a distinguished career in law ensures.
It was indeed very gracious of you to visit the College. I look foward to the next opportuniy.
Warm greetings to Mrs. Sarin.
Sincerely
valson

ANNEXURE 3
From: Deepak Mukarji
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 11:49 AM
To: Sanjeev Bikhchandani, Rohit Bansal, Diljeet Titus, Manmohan Sarin, Bobby Kewalramani
Cc: Valson Thampu
Subject: COLLEGE
Importance: High

Dear Justice Sarin


I have just seen the story you called me about this morning.
I am truly fed up with the attention media gives to trivial issues of internal management confined
to the College. I am not whether it is because of the undue influence of joshi as a government
official or his ability to jump the gun or whether it is truly the lack of relevant stories available to
media. Either way its annoying.
In this case, I am not sure my speaking to the Principal will help. Personally, I believe him to be
in his rights to manage College. While I liked your suggestion about the inclusion of omeletteparantha in his menu, asking him to deliver this is not a solution. In the first place College cannot
be seen to ask him to do anything. The dhaba is illegal. Always has been. At best we can a blind
eye so long as it does not interfere with the caf. Any menu evolution must per force come from
Rohtas himself. College can then consider it and verbally allow him to do so or not. Please note
that the Science Dhaba serves omelette-slice/toast, so this may compete with that as well.
I suspect any attempts at licensing him to sell or not sell will get the College into a legal jam with
a guy who will then claim legitimacy and tenancy rights which can then be sold or transferred.
Rohtas son is patently not interested in this as a career. It is thus entirely conceivable he will
sell out to the highest bidder at the earliest opportunity and we will be accused by the same gang
of lunatics of having stood silent while College was being sold out. I have briefly met the man
inexplicably called metro he lacks the Sukhiya-Rohtas earthiness and thus their earnestness.
I would not put it past him.
I do not think we should ascribe any seriousness to the NHRC threat as described in the media
story below. It is a laughable tactic. I am not certain but I suspect that legally the one to suffer
will be Rohtas not College. We are already under notice. The dhaba is a key offender in the eyes
of MCD. It is easiest for College to shut it down under legal protection. Our attempt must be to
try and save Rohtas if that is truly what we want without compromising College.
Heres a solution I would like to suggest most humbly for consideration :
1. Get Rohtas to participate in a press conf organized by the official
alumni association to describe his angst if any and thus show the
renegade group to be a bunch of self-serving mad-caps

2. Advise Rohtas to ask permission verbally to serve a omeletteparantha type of healthy add on
3. Work with the Principal to request he does not deny Rohtas a
limited but somewhat expanded menu
This solution must be done at the earliest possible to make it workable.
I will await your wiser council and thoughts from Bobby Diljeet and of course Rohit and Sanjeev
Warm regards
Deepak Mukarji

NEW DELHI: Alumni of St Stephen's College who have taken up the cause of Rohtas dhaba, run
on the premises, are now planning to file a complaint with the National Human Rights
Commission. They regard the banning of Rohtas from selling rolls by college authorities as
a violation of human rights.
Senior teacher of Mathematics at the college, Nandita Narain, had first alerted students and
alumni through a post in a closed group on a social networking site that Rohtas had been stopped
from selling rolls. College authorities had argued that the dhaba, for which the family doesn't
have to pay anything, can't be allowed to compete with the cafe. Since then, alumni, especially
members of the Old Stephanians' Association, have been running an online campaign to reclaim
for Rohtas - whose father, Sukhiya, ran the stall before him - the right to sell what he likes.
"He once sold cigarettes but now he can't. He was selling rolls as that made his business viable.
Now a situation in being created in which he may have to close shop. At his age, he can't take up
any other job," says Ashish Joshi of the association. He had started an online petition that, by
Tuesday morning, had garnered over 860 signatures from alumni.
The decision to complain has been made because college authorities have not made any formal
statement on the subject. "They have not yet issued a formal statement guaranteeing justice for
Rohtas and allowing Rohtas to sell more items including rolls to make his small business viable
and sustainable," says a note by Joshi. The association is giving the authorities, including the
principal, governing body and the official alumni association till October 4 to reply.

ANNEXURE 4

From: Diljeet Titus


Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 11:53 PM
To: Rohit Bansal
Cc: Sanjeev Bikhchandani, Deepak Mukarji
Subject: Rohtass Dhabha

He has lesser rights as is than under a lease. He is in possession under a lease currently a
tresspasser!
If you charge lease rent he will raise prices and as also hackles from Nandita and the students.
That said, I am all for Rohtas staying on in College and offering a range of services realistic to
the present needs of students. As a tresspasser.
Kind regards,
Diljeet Titus
----- Original Message ----From: Rohit Bansal
To: Diljeet Titus
Cc: Deepak Mukarji, Sanjeev Bikhchandani
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 2:49 PM
Subject: Re: Scanned copy of Rohtas's son statement

hmmm...but diljeet isn't he vested in the College anyways? and College footing his bijli, paani,
night stay, and audit objection @ Rs 469/- sq metre?
is not doing anything too much of a risk from the long-term point of view?
shouldn't a non-renewable lease (and an alum/bleeding heart like nandita possibly paying up in
lieu of a small pn tutorials banner on the dhaba) making the costs explicit and market-based be a
solution?
also, shoudn't someone think of students, the core clients here, and allow cafe and dhaba to offer
a range of services that go beyond nostalgia and full-fat samosas?
warmly

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 2:54 PM, TitusIndia <titus@titusindia.com> wrote:


Rohit,
If college were to give a lease to Rohtas; (a) it will be difficult to make him leave even
after the Lease expires, due to the number of years the dhabha has been on College

grounds (assuming he challenges any termination or failure to renew in the future); (b)
he will then compare with what other dhabhas are selling in other Colleges and due to
the Lease and attaching rights will be allowed to expand product range, under Court
orders. A Lease will produce many other complications and problems.
My suggestion: College should not do a Lease with him
Diljeet Titus

ANNEXURE 5
Sangeeta Luthra Sharma

February 9 at 5:31am
How Rohtas lived his last three years
A homage of contrition
Dr Raju Sharma
(Alumni, 1976-81, formerly in the IAS, resident on campus for 13 years)
In an article in First Post, Rohit Bansal has reproduced an unedited text of a note authored by
Principal Thampu as Principal. In that note there is a claim that Rohtas was filthy rich, he owned
large tracts of land in his village and real estate in Delhi. Elsewhere the Principal has claimed
that Rohtas is fifty times richer than the poor Principal himself.
The legion of Rohtas lovers deserve to be told how this rich samosa peddler, loved by us all,
spent his days and nights in the last three years of his curtailed life. And what afflicted and
frightened him in his own home. And home was St Stephens College. What else was home for
Rohtas? The dhaba where he worked, lived and slept.
In the bitter cold days of the winter of 2012-13, Rohtas would come to us many times during the
day and night, and speak of histerror of being rendered homeless at night. Every night, one or
more minions of the Principal would come to his charpoy at various times of the night and wake
him up. Rohtas slept in the open space behind the dhaba. You cant sleep here, he would be
warned. You are an outsider. You are a security risk. How can you sleep here? It is illegal. So go
away, and dont sleep here from tomorrow. Night after night it went on, until Rohtas himself was
no longer sure whether indeed he was doing something which was illegal, for which he could be
punished, even jailed. That is why his terror stricken face asked us repeatedly: Where can I
sleep? It took us many, many days to convince him to simply ignore anything verbal. And just
request the messengers with folded hands that if he is not to sleep at night at his home, his dhaba,
then please let him have a written order. No written order or notice was ever served, as expected.
Yet he was woken updaily and threats whispered in his ears. We doubt whether Rohtas could
ever muster the courage to say anything to the official minions or demand a written order. Those
who remember the feisty, proud, spirited Rohtas would find it difficult to believe this, but by this
time the long, insidious arm of administrative authority of one man, and one man alone, had
defeated him. Rohtas, his terror and panic mounted. So we invited him to spend his nights at our
house so long as he felt unsafe, a fugitive, hounded.
For a fortnight, Rohtas spent his nights at our house. He would come in quietly, after ten, through
the back gate, and leave early in the morning around five. We only knew of his presence from his
regular coughing. I am sure it was not tubercular coughing in the winter of 2012, but coughing
brought on by intense fear and a sense of doom.
Things quietened after about a month. Rohtas must have kneeled before the Reverend and asked
a thousand pardons for sins not committed. So, the hunger for vengeance on the part of authority
was temporarily sated.

Just before Diwali, in 2015, there occurred a minor skirmish between one of the guards at the
Allnut Gate, the same ones who put out a lock on the day of the prayer meeting, and the
kaarigarwho assisted Rohtas in the making of Samosas. Again, a verbal diktat was issued. No
entry into college for any kaarigar for Rohtas. Again, no written orders, no process. Everything
by whispering in the ears. Again terror took complete hold of Rohtas, this time with a far greater
intensity. His dhaba remained closed for nearly a fortnight. Rohtas was a broken man. All he
would say was: What am I going to do? Frankly, we had nothing to offer him. All efforts to
beseech the Authority through possibly viable channels failed. Finally, all we told Rohtas was
this: Please go to the Principal, apologise a thousand, a million times, seek his benediction and
raham. Obviously Rohtas did more than that, and things somewhat normalised after a while. The
official exercise of insidious (never reduced to paper or documentation) power was temporarily
assuaged. But Rohtas knew it would happen again. Again and again.
Rohtas was never the same man again. He never recovered from this silent beating, this
encounter with the absolute power of authority. In order to humour him, we kept telling him
during all these last few months: Rohtas, there is a March after February. It will be spring time.
Be patient, have patience.
Rohtas died before his time. This, we guarantee, is a true, factual description of the last years of
the very rich samosa peddler. The guarantee is that we saw it all with our own eyes.
Sorry, Rohtas, for letting you down. May you rest in peace.

ANNEXURE 6
Dear Stephanians,
Now, more than ever we need to stand by Rohtas and his family, who are an integral
part of Stephania. Future generations of students should not be deprived of the rich
legacy of Sukhia and Rohtas. Metro, his son, must be allowed to continue the dhaba
with dignity and respect.
Meanwhile, it is no secret that Rohtas and Metro were subjected to great emotional
stress and financial hardship by curtailing their business through high-handed measures
such as cancelling their supply of gj's to the Mess etc. As a result, they were forced to
take loans to make ends meet.
I appeal to all Stephanians to pitch in with financial assistance. It is the least we can do,
given the fact that we could not stop his harassment for the last three years(see Raju
Sharma's post).
Those wishing to help could send a cheque or directly contribute to Metro's account as
per the following particulars:
Sushil Kumar Sharma. AC no 24112010020790.
Syndicate Bank, Extn Counter, St. Stephen's College.
IFSC: SYNB0002411 (CBS)
Nandita Narain

ANNEXURE 7

Valson Thampu

February 7 at 9:51pm
ALUMNI AND SAMOSA WORSHIP
Some of them move on their bellies.....
"How come a samosa-wallah is so important," a venerable friend of mine asked me on phone this
morning after reading the newspaper reports on memorial panegyrics lavished on the late Rohtas.
Being a man of some understanding he went on to ask, "Did he supply something more than
samosas?" I could hear him laugh under his breath.
"When Mr. Mathew died, where were these bandicoots?" the parent of one of the current
students, who knows the College well, asked me, again on phone. "None of them was to be seen
anywhere near the College. Shows their taste and contempt for academics."
I felt deeply embarrassed. For a few old boys and a faculty member stomach seems to be all that
matters. And that is the condemnation. There is laughter all over the city.
I am sure all of you have bought and even consumed samosas from various dhabas. Have you
felt, ever, the urge to worship the dhabawallas, having paid for the samosas? Eating is not my
forte; so I have to go by your advice. So, please tell me. For the life of me, I cannot understand
how a peddler of samosa is more important than the Bursar of the College or the College itself on
which he thrived; so much so that politics can be unleashed around his death to the
embarrassment of the College. And that is done by those who will, without a sense of shame, say
-"I am what I am because of the College"! (Each time some of these guys say this, my skin falls
off!) I doubt if any other College has alumni of this kind. I hope not!! Even a handful of such,
produced over a century, are enough to doom the institution forever.
Now a thing or two about some alumni -led by that Aesopian historian (see the bullfrog story),
Guha- beating their breasts about being stopped at the gate on Saturday (6. 2. 2016). According
to the said Guha, who has some pretensions to being a historian, I am a fascist because I was not
at the gate to usher him in, when he came uninvited with the express intention to gatecrash. He
and his gang were simply trespassers. No permission was sought to hold any meeting on the
College campus by any of them. The College had NO INFORMATION whatsoever that they
were coming or a meeting was to be held. Surely, they think that St. Stephen's is their public
thoroughfare! Someone has -I know not who- conferred on them the birth right to gatecrash into
the campus at will. It is a campus where a large number of lay students live. I should let these
trespassers footloose and fancy free on the campus, risking everything.
The guards at the gate are under standing instruction to allow in only those who reside on the
campus after 2 pm. They were doing their duty. I am told that they were threatened and abused.
For what? For doing their duty? I doubt if this is what St. Stephen's has taught them. Rohtas, for
whose sake they are willing to insult and defame the College, could have been -who knows?their guru in this respect. If the source is different, do correct me. One thing is for sure -mere
samosas don't explain their fervor and anger and the eagerness to bring a bad name to the
College.
The Indian Express report states clearly that the reporter does NOT know if the guards stopped
the so-called alumni at the orders of the Principal. But does it matter to a trigger-happy Ram
Guha? He issues the final condemnation on the Principal. "The Principal if a fascist", he
thunders. Being a historian, he is not obliged to know either the facts in the given situation or
what fascism means. So let it pass.
Guha is sulking. He predicted, in an Outlook article in 2007, that the College would perish under
my stewardship. That did not happen. The contrary happened. The College reached
unprecedented heights and has been at the national pinnacle in the recent years. How can he

stomach that? Isn't it immoral and impertinent for the College to prove his prophecy wrong? That
is the essence of the "fascism" that Guha attributes to me.
In all of these, my only sadness is that those who carry the label of Stephanians are cutting a
sorry figure in public. People are amused. They are having a hearty laugh. To that extent people
like Guha are doing some social service!
Thanks, Rohtas-devotees, for your sense of humour...
Principal Thampu
Under whose instruction the guards will stop all trespassers and gate-crashers.

Interesses relacionados