The
Indian Express:
1. Do you agree with the sentiment
expressed by historians in the statement given below? Do you feel
there is an atmosphere of growing intolerance in country.
A: Every sensible civilian would condemn any crime whether it is
done to an intellectual or any other. The citizen forums can bring pressures on
the Law and Order machinery to take immediate action and book the criminals
when such offences become more
frequent. The intellectual section of the population may discuss and suggest
ways and means to prevent such crimes being more frequent. Protests against any
crime is welcome but not ‘in any form’ one chooses as Prof Irfan Habib decrees
(TOI, 31oct). The writers and artists are by nature more sensitive and
emotional than others. A few of them might have reacted in a haste
instinctively and emotionally. The protests from others that followed are quite
deliberate. The work of art receives honours and recognition for its merit but
its merit is not dependent on them. The art remains for any longer and through
it the artist is remembered. The awardees accepted the awards, felt greatly
elevated, have been enjoying the pride by inserting them in their CVs, enjoyed
several felicitations on this account and received recognition in the society
for years. Now what are they going to surrender? The value of it or the letter
of its communication? They should realise that each award has
an inestimable value which is intangible. So, we earnestly appeal to the
artists and writers kindly to retrospect and retain their awards not for
anybody’s sake but for their works which gave them recognition in the society.
But, the protests of Scientists
and Social Scientists who claim to
have been trained in the application of
‘analytical tools’ with ‘rigours’ backed by ‘scientific temper’ are quite un’professional’ and
unwarranted. Let them think coolly, employ their ‘tools’, deliberate on
‘growing intolerance’ and come out with their suggestions to curb or curtail
‘intolerance’ instead of resorting to political strategies. Among all others,
historians have a greater role to play in identifying the causal factors for the ‘growing intolerance’.
2. Ministers in the central government
have called protests by writers and other personalities as
"manufactured protests". Do you agree with that?
A: Any thing produced by human action is known to have been ‘manufactured’. The Social Scientists
are aware that the man is known as ‘maker of tools’ applying which he produces
the goods or commodities. The
process of this exercise is generally known as ‘manufacturing’. The signed
protest from various scientists and social scientists among whom there are some
‘eminent historians’ drawn from different places of the country did not descend
from the Blue as a flash. It was a product of a coordinated human effort backed
by a premeditated plan of action, of course ‘rigorously’ pursued. Any doubt?
3. The statement by
historians says, "What the regime seems to want is a kind of
legislated history, a manufactured image of the past, glorifying certain
aspects of it and denigrating others, without any regard for chronology,
sources or methods of enquiry that are the building blocks of the edifice of
history." Your response.
A: These historians have been engaged since at least four
decades in producing the school text books, reference books for colleges,
prescribing syllabi for the universities and all competitive examinations,
holding their firm grip on all academic funding bodies and central
universities. So far what ever is read or studied at popular level in the name of Indian history are only
the products of this section of historians. Can they name any single work or
any research endeavour from ICHR during this short span of one year which could
be termed as ‘legislated history’.
The above complaint or condemnation would comfortably apply to the
products of history commissioned
by this ‘group of historians’.
4. Lastly, sir, what is your opinion on
the current debate on beef eating? While some quarters have called for a
national ban on sale and consumption of beef, others have protested saying that
what one eats is a matter of privacy and the state has no right to
legislate on that. Your view.
A: I am surprised every time our so called ‘intellectuals’ raise
an issue which fails to satisfy common sense. They stretch the concept
individual freedom too long that
the term ‘freedom’ looses its sense. Let them define what is ‘privacy’. Now a
day, people are not feeling shy for eating whatever they want in public
restaurants. These ‘intellectuals’ shout from roof-tops claiming the civic
rights for the convicted ghastly criminals and plead for the rights of those
who took to arms against civil government and kill the citizens. One way, they
demand that the animals should not be used for entertainment in Circus or
films. But they can kill and eat the animals and sell the food products for
commercial exploitation. Don’t they know how these animals are skinned and
their bones are mechanically separated from flesh while making them stand alive
in the so called modern abattoirs. The compassion they plead for wild animals
and birds is not observed for killing, packing and exporting the meat for
profit. Some animals and birds are reared for food and some for load bearing,
agricultural operations and transport. Leaving aside the religious sentiments
of the people, man at least for his own selfish needs
should allow such animals with their calves to live till they are able to serve
him.