Frontline's 'agenda' article on my term in ICHR - My respose

Frontline makes serious allegations in their article “A quiet invasion”,  Printed edition: July 21,2017.  My comments:

           

            The article in Frontline is basically intended to give a negative profile of the functioning of the ICHR during the period 2014-17 denouncing the policies and programs alleging that they promote “Hindutva”. The reporter had chosen some quotes out of context from my speeches at various places to legitimise their baseless accusation that the ICHR is pursuing the “Sangha” agenda. The reporter committed factual blunders in cooking up this story that ‘A Quiet Invasion’ is being attempted by the present team in ICHR under my Chairmanship.

·       In the present composition of the Council, the specialists in medieval history are adequately represented. Many specialised areas of study, like archaeology, art history, history of science technology, modern Indian history, are well represented. In all statutory and other academic sub committees. The reporter’s allegation that medieval history is neglected on communal lines is only prejudicial. Individual projects, seminars and fellowships are granted to various scholars from all fields without discrimination. These facts can be verified from the ICHR website, Annual Reports and periodical Newsletters.

·      An allegation was made that I got some photos removed, such as “Tantia Tope, Rani Laxmi Bai, and Bahadur Shah Zafar”, from the exhibition organised in connection with 150 years of the First War of Independence which was held some ten years ago i.e., in 2007. I assumed office in 2014, several years after the exhibition. ICHR doesn’t have any photo gallery for regular exhibitions or thematic presentations. Usually, when an event is celebrated, some photographs relevant to the subject will be organised in one of the small office rooms of the Council for display, and after a week or so these photos will be packed and safely placed in the store room. Even if it is alleged that I got them removed after I became Chairman, why should I remove the photos of those three while allowing all the others to stay? In fact, I have no first-hand knowledge of the exhibition, which had happened some seven years ago. On my enquiry I am told that all the exhibits are packed and preserved in the store. They are not art pieces. They are just pictures of old photographs.

Furthermore, if I truly had the ‘communal’ agenda she claims I have, why would I remove Tantia Tope and Rani Lakshmi Bai’s pictures? This allegation falls apart with the slightest thought, since one will notice the inconsistency between her allegation and the evidence she gives.

·        Another allegation is that I delayed the publication of the Volumes of Dictionary of Martyrs just because 35% of the martyrs were Muslims in the 1857 Movement. The project of the Dictionary was granted to the ICHR in 2007 to mark 150 years of the Great Rebellion, later known as the First War of Indian Independence.  During my term alone, the project has released 2 volumes over a period of 3 years and reached completion, while before my tenure, only 3 volumes were released over a period of 7 years. The funds for this project were very kindly granted by Department of Culture. The ICHR has also submitted a proposal to the Department of Culture to consider the extension of this project to cover post -1947 topics, up until total accession took place with the withdrawal of the French and Portuguese from India, which is in active consideration by the Government. This only shows the ICHR’s commitment towards the project during my term. In contrary to her accusation that I have delayed the project, I have actually accelerated it. The journalist was so eager to interpret this in a communal light to fit her magazine’s theme that she jumped to conclusions without verifying the facts.

·        Another baseless allegation is that the present Council has scuttled the “Towards Freedom” project. I am greatly surprised to see that the accusing finger is pointed at me. This project was envisaged even before the ICHR was born. From then till now it is still alive, outliving many Chairmen and Chief Editors and Coordinators. Many committees consisting of ‘eminent historians’ were constituted and replaced. The Project enjoyed many privileges, for example, its committees and editors are independent of the Council to prepare the print copy and forward it to Oxford for printing and publication, without any reference to the Council, its officials, the Member Secretary, or even the Chairman. Even the Council, it seems, has no authority according to the committee to verify or review what is written and what passes as an ICHR publication. So the ICHR does not have any knowledge of what is going on with the project except for the fact that the expenditure is borne by it. During my term, since this project was also moving at a snail’s pace and I wished to speed it up, I decided to keep a closer eye on the proceedings of the publications and so I asked to see the volumes before they are sent for printing. I received only one volume from its coordinator, Prof Arjun Dev. After vetting, the volume, it is referred to its Chief Editor, Prof Sabysachi Bhattacharya for his comments and recommendation to forward the project for publication. It is lying with him since then. The ICHR has yet to receive his recommendation, which is the cause for the delay. While this is a fact, allegations are still made by individuals and the media that publication is being stalled by the present body. Even the Indian History Congress (IHC) in its annual session in 2016 held at Trivendram had passed a resolution condemning the ICHR for the lapse. They could have had it verified with the Chief Editor, an ‘eminent historian’, who I am told was also present at the Congress. The ICHR, however, has not received a copy of the resolution by the IHC even after six months, for us to respond.

·      Another baseless allegation is that IHC has not been given ‘priority allocation’ for holding the annual conference and to publish its proceedings. IHC was never denied subsidies for holding the conferences and publishing the proceedings. In fact it is getting higher allocations than other organisations. The sanctions were made when the procedures stipulated in the RFR were followed. Most of the RFR organisers were very important functionaries during the previous terms. If there was any procedural delay, they should be very well aware why the release of funds was delayed since it was the functionaries themselves who made the rules.

·      There was another allegation that The Aligarh Historians Society was denied funds for holding its annual conference in Thiruvananthapuram. It may be one among many organisations, which could not be provided funds because of the limited resources of the Council. It greatly surprises me that a small, local organisation such as the Aligarh Historians Society, always plans to hold its events in far away places alongside or as part of the IHC with the same venue, dates, and timings, but still expects separate funds from the ICHR.

·      All the projects and academic programs conducted during the term received lot of appreciation from the specialists and general intelligentsia. There are many positive comments in the media condemning the false case pitched against me through this article in Frontline.

My personal but considered views expressed on historical developments and thoughts at various occasions are my own, and they have no reflections on the ICHR or Govt of India. A section of the media (both print and electronic) have consistently attempted to project me a ‘nationalist’ and ‘Hindu’ in a negative sense to condemn me as communal. But I have always definitely been a nationalist and Hindu in a positive sense. I can’t help it otherwise. I only spoke the truth on all the occasions mentioned by the reporter and I stand by my word.

Read more

Welcome address to the 3 day national seminar by ICHR on Antiquity, Continuity and development of civilisation and culture in Bharat

I heartily welcome you all to this gracious function to celebrate ICHR’s 45^th Foundation Day. On such occasions, ICHR usually organises a lecture by a distinguished scholar. During the first year of my three-year tenure, I had the honour of inviting Dr David Frawley, USA (Pandit Vamadeva Sastry ji) to deliver the prestigious lecture. In his scholarly lecture he drew our attention to the Vedic literature and explained how rich it is with historical content. Last year, we invited a distinguished professor, Dr Satish Chandra Mittal who presented an excellent exposition critiquing Indian historiography. This year, ICHR proposed to have a 3-day national seminar keeping in view of the sincere calls of these two eminent scholars who stressed the need for a fresh look on our sources of ancient history and to revisit our history narratives in colonial and post-colonial times. Further, we take this opportunity to take a step forward in this seminar attempting a critical assessment of the latest research finds in historical, geological, linguistic and other allied disciplines so that we can correct, reaffirm and update our knowledge about our past, both recent and remote.

Before archaeology has emerged as a science, Indian history writing was solely dependent on literary sources. Indian archaeology began in the second half of 19^thcentury as an amateur subject. It took about a century to grow as a scientific discipline. Organised archaeological exploration on scientific lines has started mostly after we became politically independent. After Harappa was found, the highly developed civilization was dated to about 4^th millennium BP (Before Present). Some Indian scholars argue that it was deliberately dated posterior to Assyrian and Babylonian civilisations.  We are also aware that many issues came up with the identity of the founders of the most ancient Indian civilization by the non-Indian archaeologists of the British times.

On this auspicious occasion, I respectfully remember my pujya Guruji Mahamahopadyaya Dr. Sivananda Murty who used to say that ‘our future lies in our remote past, not the recent past’. We, Bharatiyas (Indians), are very fortunate to take pride in our remote past, which needs to be brought into light with the application of modern scientific tools evolved by the allied disciplines like archaeology, geology, anthropology, environmental science, remote sensing technology etc. Though most of these science subjects and their super specialties have their respective limitations, they can still be of great help to us to develop proper understanding of our ancient culture and civilisation.

The historicity of many events and personalities of so called ‘pre- historical’ ancient Bharat as known to us even today through its ancient literature - Vedas, Puranas, epics, kavyas etc – has yet to be proven to satisfy modern intellect. Our concepts of life, its goal, ways and means to achieve one’s goal and nation’s character are well described, preserved and conveyed to us through generations by our ancient oral and literary traditions. Unfortunately, we are not able to put it in a precise time frame through geographical locations of many an event are clearly indicated with traditional dating in our literature. This is the major problem relating to the dating of major happenings in India in its remote past.

Now, the main question before us is, what is this remote past? Was it entirely a savage and barbarian past as archaeology points out? Archaeology cannot take us back to more than 10,000 years for the transformation of the homo-sapiens to homo-fabers which witnessed the gradual evolution of civilisations and cultures at various places of world, whereas literary sources are pointing to indefinite periods beyond 10,000 BP (Before Present). We are not able to bridge the gap between these two types of sources.

The major questions arise here in the context of ancient Indian history. When we are sure that a high standard of urban civilization could be dated back to 6-7 millennia BP and recent excavations vouchsafe that urbanisation was widely prevalent in India, then why should we doubt the existence of the Vedas in an oral form from the same time period? Were both material and Vedic traditions developing simultaneously? If it is so, like the civilization, the Vedic literary tradition and knowledge systems might also be gradual developments. Can we trace the beginnings of these traditions, which have no parallels in the world? To what extent can we push back our historic antiquity?

When we look at our recent past of proto-historic and historic civilisations we have similar problems. Experts in the field state there occurred urbanization for the first time in India in about 7^th millennium BP and  then the second urbanization only started around the 3^rd millennium BP. There is a long gap between these two phases stretching over 2-3 thousand years. The knowledge of the first urbanisation washed out with the disappearance of River Saraswati and second urbanisation occurred in River Ganga plains. Many explanations are given for this historic gap.

This seminar is making an attempt to address the recent finds of researches in various allied disciplines and the problems and limitations of these disciplines, which are making serious efforts in delving into our past. Since 1920s, archaeological exploration activities have picked up speed. Scientific methods have been introduced and new methods and disciplines have been involved in this brisk activity. European and Indian archaeologists jointly and severally were taking up projects. In the post independent era, this archaeological research has gone entirely into the hands of Indian specialists. In the first phase, major projects were designed and executed by the experts mostly with governmental support.

A historian has to interpret and understand the objective finds from archaeological researches taking into account other collaborative evidences. All the sciences we are employing today also have their own limitations but under these limitations what best we can draw out of them is a historian’s job. How the projections of these results of archaeological and other scientific researches could throw light on our remote past is now lurking in the minds of all the experts assembled here. We have amidst us a father figure like Dr. BB Lal who is going to deliver a keynote address on recent developments in the proto-history archaeology.

We have received a good number of papers from allied disciplines by experts in their fields for this seminar. We intend to allot sufficient time to everyone for presentations and discussions.  That is why this seminar is planned for three days. I must say that I have no claim for the theme of the seminar. We have involved many experts from various disciplines who are dealing with varied topics in building a scientific and true history. Therefore, the explicit theme of this seminar is not one person’s idea or design. Every line has been chiseled by the respective experts.

The object of this scholarly endeavor of this three-day seminar backed up by at least two years constant consultations is to kick start a multi-disciplinary approach to understand the major problems in constructing the true ancient History of Bharat, presently called India. Many people have discussed these problems on many platforms but they still linger on because, like habits, psyches also die hard. It is no surprise that these predicaments would surely remain even after many such seminars.

This seminar has been planned to have five academic sections, history, archaeology, geology, literature and philosophy:

There is a session which is devoted to study historical perspective. Since the present genre of history has developed in the past two centuries, many assumptions were made by the early European historians without proper critical analysis and assessment of Indian literary and archaeological sources. The early European historians had no proper knowledge of ancient past of India and of Vedic literature. Most of them had not lived in India. Most of them were interested in their present and their interests in that particular present. In the modern times, our contemporary historians are applying social science theories, methodologies and techniques to historical studies. Is history a pure science? Is it a pure philosophy? Or is it about only politics? Or only a critique of social milieus?  In other disciplines like economics, sociology or political sciences there are many schools of thought and we are trying to apply them in historical research. If you think closely about how these schools came into existence in the past 100 or 150 years, we find that most of these schools are based on hypotheses or speculations. Their influences on historiography turns history a mere speculative social science. While arguing that history should be true to its original sources, the perspectives developed in presenting the past in the then contemporary light has become a far cry.  That is a major problem we are facing today. So much of literature has come up in history on so many aspects of the present time and looking into our past from the problems of the present. But history was not the same; society was not the same; and the economy was not the same in the past. So, the relevance of modern social science theories to historical research has to be examined carefully. We have with us a very distinguished international scholar and octogenarian, Prof Sivaji Singh to present a key-note address for this section who explains the heart of History. 

Another section is exclusively earmarked to deal with the major limitations of archaeological studies. Most archaeological discoveries were chance finds. An archaeologist might dig with an expectation, but end up finding something unexpected. An archaeologist is forced to accept what he finds irrespective of his hypothesis. Another major problem is with the dating and interpretation of the object. Many assumptions were made by the early archeologists, which have been deciding the destiny of our country’s history. This will be discussed in Dr B B Lal, the well-known Indian archaeologist’s, keynote address for the archaeology section.

Yet another important section and a major issue we have taken on is about the geological formations of India. We have 5 eminent scholars specialising in Geology. They are holding an exclusive section in this seminar. They will look into geological formations and how they influenced rise and fall of civilisations; how the rivers have been changing courses; how some of them disappeared and reappeared; and how the fluctuations in sea-levels changed the course of history on the coastal lines. In this seminar, the distinguished scholars in Geology who are currently working on the disappearance of the Saraswati River are presenting papers in that exclusive section. The keynote address of this section is being presented by a very eminent, internationally known geologist, Dr Valdiaji.

The fourth section of the seminar focuses on taking our culture back to ancient times and dating events in history based on astronomical data drawn from literary sources. Our team of experts are aware of the limitations in using astronomical data when writing history. Many historians have reservations in accepting the astronomical data, as it does not come anywhere close to archaeological findings or dating. Nonetheless, an event in history cannot be termed myth or imagination on the grounds of not being able to arrive precisely at an agreeable date from literary source. The events described in literary sources deserve consideration rather than being stroked off as a myth.

This section is devoted to discussion on the specificities of Linguistics and Literature and also on their limitations. Languages and vernaculars transform over time. For example, the vernaculars spoken in India currently are only 1000 years old, but a different set of local languages was there some 2000 years ago. Specialists have to look into developments and draw connections. Unfortunately, some judgments have been made by European scholars about our history with limited knowledge of our linguistics. Europeans started making judgments based on their own knowledge of Greek, Latin and then drew a few analogies to the newly learnt Sanskrit. They concluded that there are commonalities in all these languages so they are contemporary languages and therefore contemporary civilisations. If they are all contemporary ancient languages and civilisations then why don’t we have literature in those languages as old as the Vedic literature? Since we have never looked into this from the Indian point of view, we are accepting their theories dating Sanskrit as 2000-2500 years old, and that Sanskrit has come from the earlier Prakrit. We accepted this theory by the West that linguistic development happened in a linear progression. The course of languages has to be tracked carefully with open mind.

Now, looking at literary sources like Rig Veda and other Vedas to build a chronology and periodisation of history one encounters with a few limitations. Which part of the Vedas came first? Who wrote it and how many Rishis were involved? What were the times of those Rishis? Were all of them contemporary? What are their lineages? Many seminars were held and many theories were made but the answers are eluding our search. We have a list of lineages of sages and Kings in ancient history. When we look closely at the approximate reigns of kings in each dynasty, how can we strike accurate averages to their reigns? It is very difficult to work out the reigning times of the kings by just having a list of kings on hand. We have invited Dr David Frawley (Pt Vamadeva Sastry, USA) a renowned Vedic scholar to present a keynote address for this section.

The fifth most important section of the seminar is the continuity of philosophical thought from Vedic literature down to Buddhist literature. This section is led by a very eminent international scholar and thinker, Prof S R Bhat, Chairman ICPR. He will be speaking on the continuity of philosophical thought in Bharat right from the Vedic times through to the Buddha. While Jains claim contemporaneity with Vedic tradition, the Jain thought shares much from the Vedic and vice versa. A careful study of ancient philosophical thought would reveal that the basics of the tradition is still seen and practiced in Bharat.

These are the major questions before us. We have all these distinguished scholars here to deal with these major issues in writing our history. This seminar is only a beginning to find solutions to the major problems in writing history of our ancient past. ICHR should continue to work on these particular issues to establish history of our remote past. For the present, our objective is to examine whether there was continuous development in all aspects from 7^th millennium to 2^nd millennium. The recent finds suggest that there is a linkage between these civilisations and it was a surely continuous civilisation for at least past 5000 years, archaeologically proven.

I am very happy to receive prompt and positive responses from the distinguished specialists in history and its allied fields. We expect that the scholars attending this seminar may be raising some key questions in each special section requiring some intensive workshops for further discussion as follow up action.

Finally, I humbly acknowledge my irredeemable debt to my Guruji Mahamahopadya Dr. Sivananda Murty for my understanding of ancient Bharat. 

I thank you, one and all.

Read more

Valedictory speech at the Three day ICHR seminar on Antiquity, Continuity and development of Civilisation and Culture of Bharat

Here is my Valedictory speech at the concluding session to the Three day ICHR seminar on Antiquity, Continuity and development of civilisation and culture of Bharat (India) upto 1st millennium B.C.
https://soundcloud.com/sudershan-rao-yellapragada/valedictory-speech-29-mar-17

Read more

Comment given to Indian Express on 29th of Nov 2015

Here is the comment given to indian express on 29th of Nov 2015

The ICHR reviews the Research Funding Rules from time to time. This is a routine exercise. A committee of the heads of relevant sections and the RPC would review the rules and recommend amendments to the Council for approval.

Q.   Why the exception in case of additional funding for the annual conference of Indian History Congress been removed in the new funding rules? 

A:    Under my Chairmanship, the Council has ended the discrimination shown in the grants to professional organisations. Earlier, the Indian History Congress enjoyed special status. Annually IHC was granted money over and above ceiling for hosting its annual conference. Lump sum amounts and additional grants were also paid separately for holding panel discussions, symposia and other academic programs as part of the conference. The ICHR also reimbursed for travel of the foreign delegates to the Congress. We have corrected this anomaly. Only the previous Councils can do justice to this question as to why IHC has to be granted a special status over other organisations in this huge democratic country.

Read more

Comment given to Deccan Herald on 30 th Nov 2015

ICHR has given a special status to IHC for past couple of decades by granting money for hosting its annual conference, which always exceeds the ceiling. In addition to this lump sum, large amounts were paid for holding panel discussions, symposia and travel reimbursements for foreign delegates attending the conference. Earlier, if my memory is correct, IHC was not depending on the Government or its institutions for financial assistance. If I am right, it did start only with Warangal session when Prof Irfan Habib was the Chairman. I am subject to correction. I agree that it is one of the oldest and most reputed bodies of Historians but over time many other South East Asian, national, regional and thematic organisations have come up. ICHR being a government body cannot make discriminations by giving a particular organisation a special status and ignore the rest of the organisations in a democratic country. Until now, ICHR has not attempted to prepare guidelines for assessing each organisation when considering for grants. We are also planning to convene a meeting with the representatives of registered organisations to work out parameters to accord financial help (you can see this on the ICHR website). The rationale for sanctioning grants to hold annual conferences of the professional bodies has to be worked out.

Read more

ICHR to map ancient Indian scientific achievements - Indian Express

ICHR to map ancient Indian scientific achievements

http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/history-council-to-map-ancient-indian-scientific-achievements/

Q: In what could define the thrust of historical research under the NDA government, the Indian Council Of Historical Research (ICHR) has decided to pursue two new projects, including one on mapping the country’s scientific achievements starting from the Vedic era up to the 18th century.

A: The council, reconstituted by the Ministry of Human Resource Development nine months ago, met on September 23, when it also approved a proposal to map the history of environmental science in the country from ancient times to the modern era.

The ICHR will draft historians to study ancient literature — Vedas, Puranas, Dharmasastras, Artha Sastra, Vedanga Jyotisha, Rasasastra and Vastu Sastra — to trace the country’s achievements in astronomy, chemistry, cosmology, botany, ayurveda, architecture, aesthetics and military technology, among other technical and scientific disciplines.

“Early orientalists like Sir Monier Williams were surprised to see great advances of ancient Indians in the development of various disciplines of science and art. The development of Indian sciences had been continuous till our colonial beginnings. We also find amazing strides in the development of science in Pali literature — both Buddhist and Jain — and later in Persian literature and vernacular literatures,” ICHR chairman Y Sudershan Rao said in an email response to The Indian Express.

India’s achievements in science and technology have been in focus ever since Prime Minister Narendra Modi used examples from the Mahabharata and Ramayana to illustrate the country’s scientific temperament in ancient times.

Rao said he was certain the new proposals will not ruffle any feathers. “I am speaking of objective history of the past. I don’t think any historian would have any reservations for these efforts of ICHR. However, I welcome any suggestions for the refinement or improvement of these projects. I welcome any constructive criticism for improvement of the themes and methodological approaches,” he said.

The council’s second project aims to map “the history of environmental consciousness in the country”, which is “very much evident in our ancient texts starting from the Vedas”. 

“It seems the ancient people were very cautious in preserving the environment even while they were planning to expand their economic activity to meet the demands of growing population. Today, it is the other way around. This project will trace the history of our effort in safeguarding the natural environment and strategies adopted for healthy living,” Rao said.

The ICHR’s aim is to finish the projects in three years. The council will constitute an expert committee, an advisory panel and a monitoring committee for each of the two proposals to finalise their implementation. While the council has not earmarked a budget for the ambitious projects, it wants to raise funds from external sources, in addition to regular grants from the government.

“The corporate, business houses and philanthropists may come forward to sponsor major research projects for general good of humanity and society,” Rao said. The ICHR’s annual allocation for 2015-16 is approximately Rs 19 crore, of which Rs 8 crore is allocated for research and fellowship grants.

Apart from the two proposals, the Council has also approved the translation of Dutch texts on Indian history, in addition to the ongoing translation of French sources.

Read more

Business Standard interview - Original Transcript

Interview given to Business Standard.

Sir, you have been a target of a concerted campaign by a section of historians and academicians. The allegation against you is that you have been appointed to appropriate history to suit RSS’s notion of history. Even Amartya Sen had said that you have not done any worthwhile historical research. What do you have to say about it?

A : Prof Amartya Sen’s coin, ‘Argumentative Indian’, very well applies to the present generation of Indian intellectual class. Ancient Indian intellectual tradition was based on Tarka wherein two discussants would put forth before the assembly of scholars what all they know about the contested topic supported by pramana. The merits and demerits of this intellectual exercise were assessed by the collegium and one would gracefully acknowledge the weakness of his proposition. The judgement was objective and impartial. You can take the example of Sankaracarya and Mandana Mishra where Mandana  Mishra’s wife was the judge. Mandana Mishra accepted his defeat, took to sanyasa  and became Sankara’s disciple. The present class of ‘argumentative intellectuals’ thrive by condemning others and their views. Their arguments mostly follow their political ideologues. The idea of ‘appropriating  history’ is generated from the idea of political aggrandizement. One becomes vocal and vociferous when he imagines a threat to his holding. Not being an ‘ Argumentative Indian’, I might have disappointed Prof Amartya Sen and the like. Their disillusionment is unbearable to them that they set aside minimum decency and courtesy to condemn the other without atleast knowing about him. However I thank them for showing interest in me and I take their comments in good stead for my introspection.

In one of the interviews, you have said that there was a need to look history from an Indian perspective. What is the problem with the Marxist or for that matter Western narrative or approach to historiography?  Why at all there is a need for an Indian perspective?

A: Your question itself says that we have been ‘looking’ at our history from the Western window. The post independent historiography till now is dominated by the Marxist thought. All our historical perspectives are based on the Western theories on society, economy and culture. We can easily identify the birth of these social theories in the ‘Enlightenment Era’ in Europe. These theories and understandings, are, thus, based on the European experience limited to a few centuries. Even if we apply empiricist methods of Social Sciences to the historical studies, the wider sample is always desirable. In such case, India offers a huge corpus of inscriptions, artefacts and monuments dating back to atleast 4 millennia. The much developed orature backed by continuous, well developed civilization, stable society, prosperous economy and diversified religious practices, profound knowledge systems and philosophies from times unknown must be more welcome for an unbiased historian to work on. Let us see history as it stands before us without using a coloured glass in the guise of ‘proper’ perspective.  General people believe that intellectuals would lead them to know what is/was real. We historians have greater responsibility than a general intellectual.

According to newspaper reports, there is an effort to push back the antiquity of the Vedas by some Vedic scholars.  Is ICHR associated with this project? What is your idea of the antiquity of the Vedas?

A: Vedic studies is not a recent phenomenon. The study of Vedas has been continuous since times much before our ‘historical’ period has begun. We need not try to ‘push’ its antiquity backwards. The efforts of dating Vedic literature by the Western scholars and English knowing Indian scholars are also known to us from atleast two centuries. In the pre-independence  period, the problem drew the attention of both Colonial and National intellectuals and in the post independent period the Marxist school took the brief from the Colonial and Imperialist school coming in the way of every sincere effort to find the truth. Not only archaeologists, many other scientists belonging to disciplines, geology, anthropology, astronomy etc have attempted in their ways to find the antiquity of ancient civilization in India. A scientist searching for truth must be open minded to accept what comes out in his research. The present trend of hypothetical research and trying to justify our own hypothesis does harm  historical studies. A historian should allow himself to be led by his data. He should not resort to select data to confirm his opinion. Marxist school starts with the assumption that the present is definitely better that the past. This determinism conditions the writing of history. While Marx could substantiate this linear progression with his understanding of European past, India offers a totally different picture where astonishing culture and civilization coexisted with uncivilized but cultured tribal life each thriving in peaceful coexistence. Civilisation too had several levels of  development simultaneously at several pockets. The same phenomenon still continues in India while the West has gone for a uniform pattern. These aspects of Indian life and culture offers great inspiration and scope to the present genre of historians to work on.

This move will bring back the debate on the Aryan invasion theory. What is your view on the Aryan invasion theory?

The fathers of this theory have denounced it after they realized during the Second World War that they burnt their fingers. But it was continued in Indian intellectual circles further for some years in the post independent era but they too had to moderate the theory as ‘Aryan Migration’. Colonial mind is  deeply entrenched in  Indian psyche that they some how want to keep it alive for purposes better known to them.

Read more

ICHR Projects: Native states

ICHR Projects: Native states 

ICHR has identified certain new areas in the ancient, medieval and modern periods of Indian History which have hitherto been paid no attention by the ICHR so far and very less attention was paid by individual scholars. The projects on history of Indian Science and Technology and Environmental history will be covering both ancient and late medieval times the project on Indian Princely States, another area which did not attract much attention by Indian scholars where as the western scholars are divided into two groups arguing for and against the Indian princes. Western scholars, like Barbara Ramusack, Ian Copland, Thomas R Metcalf, John McLeod, Manu Bhagawan, Waltraud Ernst and Biswamoy Pati, have attempted critical assessment of their role in the British period of Indian history. Some others tried to attract the lay readers with spicy tales about some princes.

There were about 565 princes by the time when the English withdrew from India. Most of them were very insignificant estates. But, almost one-third of India was under their direct rule. Surprisingly, most of them enjoyed respect and reverence of their peoples till the last and their influence was also felt much on their respective areas in the coming three general elections. Nawab of Bhopal said at one time that his people, most of them were Hindus, regarded him as a deity while his Muslim subjects though loved him had reservations. Most of the present works were mostly concerning about major states like Mysore, Hyderabad, Baroda, Bhopal. But, the other medium level states like Cooch Bihar, Travancore were not sufficiently focused. Some of them had survived many vicissitudes braving the rough tides for about a millennium. They strove to preserve, protect and keep alive, though playing at low key and handed down to us whatever we call it ‘Indian’ today. Most of ancient manuscripts can still be traced in the estate libraries.

The part of India under the Princes’ rule is quite justifiably referred to ‘Native India’ during the British period. But they were not considered sympathetically by the Colonial  writers and the Marxist analysts for obvious reasons. Surprisingly, the nationalistic scholars were also not sympathetic to them though most of these princes had attempted modern reforms –social, economic, educational, administrative and political- within their capabilities and resources.  In the post independent era, they disappeared unceremoniously and unwept.

This project covering those states which did not receive much attention of the scholars like Cooch Bihar in the first phase and the others in its second phase is approved in principle and the members of ICHR, Prof Nikhilesh Guha, Dr Saradindu, Prof Purabi Roy in association with other experts in the field will fine tune the project and place on the web-site for comments and suggestions very shortly.

Read more

Indian Express Interview 31st Oct 2015 - Original Transcript on intolerance issue

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.

Read more

Interview Economic Times - Re Gopinath Ravindran 26th Jun2015

Read more

Indian Express Interview 26 th June 2015

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 18^th 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.

Read more