'The boot is on the other leg'

Union Human Resource Development Minister Murli Manohar Joshi speaks to Sukumar Muralidharan on the reconstitution of the Indian Council for Historical Research. The following is a verbatim account:

There is a view that only historians of one particular persuasion have been accommodated in the reconstituted ICHR.

Each one of them is a highly qualified historian. Each one of them is either a Professor or an ex-Director-General of the Archaeological Survey of India. None of them is a member of any political party.

Some of them do have an association with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, perhaps not formally, since the RSS does not maintain membership rolls.

No. Nobody has been attending their programmes or shakhas. Because somebody has a different view from you or me, therefore he becomes persona non grata - this is not a correct view.

What is being said is that earlier all viewpoints used to be accommodated, whereas now only one has been...

A. ROY CHOWDHRY

No, no. Earlier, there was a predominance of one viewpoint. The boot is on the other leg.

That, people say, is not quite correct.

The ICHR is a body which should contain persons of high academic qualifications. It is not a body of a particular political view or a particular 'ism'.

Four of the new members of the council were associated with the panel of historians of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad which submitted evidence to the Chandra Shekhar Government. Another four were actively involved in the campaign.

This is all very myopic and untrue.

B.P. Sinha, B.R. Grover, B.B. Lal, K.S. Lal...

They were all Directors-General of the ASI much before the BJP was born.

But they were all associated with the VHP's panel of historians.

So somebody else could be associated with some other panel. That does not mean I should condemn him.

Yes, but the point is made that earlier there were both Mandir and Masjid historians in the ICHR. Now there are only Mandir historians.

All this is false. Somebody could say that formerly there were only Masjid historians.

That is incorrect.

That is correct. Because nobody in that group has ever supported Mandir.

Professor M.G.S. Narayanan was Member-Secretary of the ICHR...

But he never came out openly.

He has. He is on record in Frontline in 1992 (issue dated September 11, 1992).

You now interview them, they might come out openly. In history, the basic thing is that persons who are fully qualified, they should be there. I can understand any criticism on the basis of academic incompetence.

The question is not of incompetence but of bias. B.B. Lal, for instance, was accused of the suppression and falsification of evidence.

That was by some people.

Also by the World Archaeological Congress.

That is again a body. If you accept that there are groups of historians, then one group says something, the other group says something else. In another conference somebody else could be castigated for something else.

As a physicist yourself, you should be aware of how the scientific community deals with these differences. These are normally dealt with in a spirit of openness, all the evidence is shared - it is all placed on the table.

Yes, we are dealing with it. It has been placed on the table. But it is up to you whether you close your eyes or keep your eyes open.

B.B. Lal, for instance, has refused to submit his site notebooks and excavation records from Ayodhya for scrutiny by other historians.

Is this an interview or are you entering into a debate? You may have your own personal view, but as a correspondent you should be conducting an interview.

Table of Contents

Home | The Hindu | Business Line | Sportstar