Indian Express Interview 26 th June 2015
Original Transcript
1. What are your future plans
for ICHR?
A. The founders of ICHR identified as many objects as ‘a’ to ‘x’
leaving only two letters unrepresented of the English alphabet. Their
successors consider it a sacrilege if one wants to review these dictates. This
tendency creates a big problem where to begin and how to fix priorities. After
the second world war, the informative and descriptive historical narratives are
replaced by empirical, analytical and theoretical discourses which would
require scientific and non-scientific methodologies. The results of scientific
methodological approaches are tentative, every problem is revisited,
reinvestigated, refined or rejected. Thus historical exercise has become the
most complicated pursuit. The
results of such researches, instead of being factual, are more critical,
elitist and interpretative hovering high over ground. These writings defy
common man’s understanding. Imparting Historical knowledge to every one as
common and minimum education program is not attempted. India, being the oldest continuous
civilization and modern largest democracy, should plan to see that the common
historical knowledge reaches the doorsteps of every citizen. In fact, India had
enjoyed such kind of education reach every door in attractive art and theatrical
forms. ICHR may take up publication of children history books, preparation of
historical documentaries etc. India had a great tradition of writing ‘kshetra
or sthala puranas’ , brief histories
of important places, ‘kula puranas’, the histories of communities etc.
People’s history must reach people. We should train ‘barefoot historians’ and
disseminate historical knowledge
to educate common man. ICHR should also think of offering consultancy services
to the corporates, business houses, commercial concerns and can offer
tailor-made projects for them, keeping in view, the varied needs of each field
of commodity production, like textiles, pharmaceutics, building construction,
urban development, tourism, heritage protection, education, town planning,
handicrafts, cosmetics, entertainment programs, advertising, art and
architecture - the list can go endless. If ICHR is allowed to work on its own
unhampered by unhealthy politics, it can show that history can do wonders. In
the present genre of history, politics and precisely political economy dominate
and the useful and purposeful history is forgotten. Different biased schools of
historiography have emerged and the real spirit of history is buried
underground.
2. Do we see a new fresh re-evaluation of the
National Movement leading up to Independence and the post-Independence period emerging? People and individual leaders who
have not got their due, research and books into their contributions?
ICHR has started the project
on freedom movement some 3-4 decades ago. It seems that the ICHR had born only
for this project. May be, the project was inspired more by the ‘Time-Capsule’
episode rather than giving a true and descriptive account of the saga of
struggle. In the post independent era, ‘leftist’ or ‘Marxist’ or ‘progressivists’
were looking for legitimizing the role of Communists in the freedom struggle.
They wanted to denigrate any mass movement or any mass leader and to highlight
micro incident or any protest, which was not even distantly related to question
of British rule. So, emerging as a distinct school, they took up this major
project as an ICHR project. The project was not allotted any fixed annuities,
no estimates, no separate accounts of expenditure. The same case is with other
ICHR projects running for decades. These projects are treated like
administrative sections of the Council, which go along with the general and
compulsory expenditure. It is also
surprising that files connected to these projects are not traceable from their
beginning. We cannot find any one knowledgeable person to review the progress
of these projects. The present Council has taken up this review job.
The project on ‘Towards
Freedom’ shows itself clearly that the advisers and compilers of this project
were not willing to term it a ‘National Movement’ because of their reservations
for the term ‘nationalism’. This is how the whole project had become a controversy.
With this background, what would be the fate of post-independent history?
3. Also a re-orientation, re-interpretation,
research into Ancient and Medieval India, which many feel is much needed?
Also into what is termed as the ancient Vedic
heritage?
This dominant section of
historians considers what they wrote final and unalterable. Their scientific
approach is only applied against other approaches. ICHR, in its four decades of
existence, did not take any mega project on ancient or medieval or pre-history.
4. Are you planning to expand the scope of
historical research, include scholars, researchers from other domains, disciplines to contribute and expand the horizon? A
sort of cross-fertilisation of idea?
There were no distinct disciplines before the
scientific revolution of 18th century. Later they grew up like watertight
compartments and expanded overgrowing their optimal sizes. By the mid of last
century, they were branching off into specialties. Towards close of that
century the need for multi-disciplinary approach is seriously felt. Historical
research is no different. It is multi-disciplinary with its sub-disciplines
like archaeology, epigraphy, numismatics etc at primary level of research,
other basic and applied sciences like astronomy, geology, botany, anthropology,
mathematics, statistics, cosmology etc at middle or analytical level and
theories and methodologies of social sciences, philosophy, literature and
interpretative faculties at the final stage of presentation.
5. What do you think is the reason that ICHR
remains a body so prone to controversy? Is it because questions/debates on Indian contemporary history as also the past has
not been settled yet? Or because ICHR has been mostly dominated or been an
exclusive club of a group of historians who have resisted others, ideas
contrary to theirs?
This I have already explained at Q3.
6. In fact, they raised issues about your
appointment as Chairman as well....what do you’ve to say on that?
I have clarified this point
several times during my one year in Office. My name is dragged to the fore at
every issue – connected or unconnected to my work -- by those who question my
credibility. After one year of my
patient waiting, can I ask for their credibility to question me? They promoted ‘intellectual feudalism’,
sorry for using their Marxist jargon, by usurping Indian History Congress (IHC)
and founding the ICHR of the ‘eminent historians’ by this clan of ‘eminent
historians’, for the ‘eminent historians’. The MoA of the ICHR also speaks of
the ‘eminent historians’ at every place. Then, who are they? Their democracy allows them to keep the
executive of IHC in their firm grip for all time to come. They wanted that ICHR
should be like a branch of IHC asking for their role to nominate ICHR members. The
IHC and other like ‘professional’ bodies should play such role in the
constitution of ICHR according to the report of the review committee appointed
to suggest amendments to the rules and regulations of the ICHR (see the report
in the ICHR website). In return, the ICHR has to give a special status to IHC
in getting grants for their conferences and publications and other programs
over and above the limits identified for others (see for the funding rules in
the ICHR website). So they would definitely raise questions on my credibility
because I do not belong to their clan of ‘eminent historians’, I am not
surprised. The question of my credibility is being constantly raised by them
through their numerous pseudo bodies and also through their sympathizing political
party leaders. They tried enough to put the Government on defense for my
appointment. The matter is also raised in the utmost legislative body of this
great Nation. They got the answers quite firmly and clearly by the Government.
At least now, they should mind their work of writing ‘eminent’ histories. I love
to read them.
7. Are we going to see a new Editor the ICHR
journal--what led to Sabyachachi Mukhrejee's departure or scrapping of the committee? A new chairperson of course has a right
to choose his team members...
Prof Dilip Chakravarti will
be the Chief Editor. Every new Council normally reconstitutes the committees.
It is not what they describe as ‘scrapping’ but it is only reconstitution.
8. And, Gopinath Ravindran's who cited the above
reasons? Your side of the story?
I
have clearly explained this issue to media only after Pof Gopinath Ravindran
came out in public
stating he had resigned because he had to leave on my account. Gopinath
Ravindran had enjoyed unlimited freedom in administration, finances and
academic activities. During his tenure, there was literally no Chairman for a
long time before I joined and also later as I was away from Delhi due to
back-bone injury for about three to four months. In all meetings of the Council
or other committees, he was the lead. Even when I was totally bed-ridden he
refused to postpone the committee meetings and the meeting of the general Council.
In other instances like memorial lectures or foundation day celebrations of the
ICHR, he freely commented not observing the minimum decency, decorum and
courtesy being a host. Inspite of that, I have always been cordial to him. When
he surprised me with his offer of resignation, I gave him time (not ‘no time’ as
reported) to reconsider. I relieved him asking for his convenient date after
following the procedure he suggested and cordially bid him farewell in a staff
assembly. (Economic Times, 26June2015)
9. What promopted you to invite David Frawley
for the ICHR annual day? Was his lecture a success or the controversy
overshadowed the event?
As I said earlier, history writing depends on many sources, literary,
archaeological and others. Nowadays Oral historical sources are also given
importance. Dr David Frawley is a serious scholar of Vedic and Sastra
literature. He presented a scholarly discourse on historical material from the
Rgveda. It is on our website. A historian should be open minded to receive any
source form anywhere. Of course, his ‘rigors’ in the terms of ‘eminent
historians’, should be applied in accepting its authenticity and acceptability.
10. How do you think ICHR can and should
contribute towards popularising history reading among children? For inculcating pride in the nation?
I have explained this in the
beginning. In the modern system of education, children books are not published
in large number. The West takes good care of the children’s education, but we
have yet to pay much more attention.
