ISSUES IN FOCUS

The falsification of history

The latest ICHR-sponsored assault on academic freedom is just one of several official actions under BJP rule in the realm of education and research that are aimed to disseminate the Hindutva version of history.

PARVATHI MENON

AEVEN Saket Ram, the Hindutva protagonist of the 'Hey! Ram', who builds a dangerously sympathetic case for Mahatma Gandhi's assassin through the greater part of the much-publicised film, is shaken by anger and revulsion when Nathuram Godse, a Hindu fasci st, shoots the peace-loving and trusting mass leader at point blank range. However, for the Publications Division that functions under the Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, one of the most dastardly assassinations of our times could have be en carried out by anybody. Or nobody. Why else would a compact disk (CD-ROM) on the life of Mahatma Gandhi produced in 1999 by a private software company for the Publications Division choose not to mention the name, and the philosophy which inspired, Ga ndhi's assassin? (The CD-ROM was reviewed in Frontline, February 18, 2000). Who killed Mahatma Gandhi? The answer, quite simply, does not qualify as history.

S. MAHINSHA
Prof. K.N. Panikkar.

Both in its Introduction, which is a multimedia run-through of the life of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, and in a section called Landmark Events, a sound-and-image treat which offers the user 40 landmark events of Gandhi's life to browse through, the CD-RO M's narrative offers the information that Gandhi was assassinated on January 30, 1948. It then proceeds to discuss the reactions to his death with images of his funeral. There is no naming Godse; there is not even an allusion to the political forces of t he Hindu Right that were arraigned against Gandhi or why they opposed him.

There could be two reasons for this glaring omission. The first is that commercial logic prompted the creators of the CD-ROM to keep on the right ideological side of the sponsors of the project; the second is that the Ministry itself planned the project choosing to delete this uncomfortable piece of history. After all, Gandhi was murdered for his unshakable faith in the secular and pluralist basis of the Indian nation. His assassin Nathuram Godse was a Hindutva fundamentalist and a one-time member of th e Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (as his only living brother Gopal Godse has proudly testified to several times in the recent and not-so-recent past). The political and ideological forebears of the Bharatiya Janata Party, in power today at the Centre, kille d Gandhi. It is therefore logical to assume that the absence of an important piece of historical information in the CD-ROM could hardly have been oversight.

The whitewash job on Gandhi performed by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting is of a piece with a string of actions taken by the Union Ministry of Human Resource Development in the direction of officialising history. In their justification of th e official withdrawal of two manuscripts of the "Towards Freedom" project of the Indian Council of Historical Research (ICHR), BJP spokespersons have repeatedly alleged in the media and in Parliament that Gandhi has been given a raw deal in the manuscrip ts, that a great Indian has been relegated to the footnotes of history by 'leftist' historians. Their own version just cleanses him away. It is significant that the CD-ROM, at Rs. 2,500, is affordable only to schools, libraries and institutions - which a re now the targets of Hindutva organisations and governments for the dissemination of their version of Indian history.

S. SUBRAMANIUM
Prof. Sumit Sarkar.

History, history teaching and historical research have together become an arena where a political battle for a nation's identity and future is being waged. In this battle zone, two historical traditions face each other. On the one side is a historical tr adition- by far the more influential and robust - of critical, rational historical enquiry that draws upon an expanding base of historical evidence, which affirms the composite nature of India's culture and heritage, and which is itself a product of the diverse nationalist streams within the freedom movement. On the other side is a historical tradition exemplified by the Hindutva view of history (after Partition its Muslim counterpart found a 'national' homeland in Pakistan). In this perspective, religi ous communities are distinct political entities, even nations. That India's heritage is Hindu is the premise, and in its effort to 'prove' this thesis and deny the plurality of India's past, it resorts to every subterfuge - falsification of history, doct oring of historical data, and now, the suppression of historical research through official channels. Thus must today's Hindutva-ite see the remains of a temple in every mosque, historicise myth in various ways including underwater explorations in quest o f a supposed Golden Age of Hinduism, stop publications that would reveal uncomfortable truths of the past, terrorise "enemies" for the alleged historical wrongdoings of their forebears, seek changes in democratic instruments such as the Indian Constituti on, itself the product of the nation's diversity and multi-facetedness which Hindutva seeks to deny and suppress, and so on.

This process became ever more purposeful and directed once the BJP-led coalition came to power. The takeover of the ICHR is a case in point. It is clear from the growing evidence that is now in the public realm, including what Frontline has publis hed, that the demand to recall the manuscripts of K.N. Panikkar and Sumit Sarkar was made by B.R. Grover, Chairman of the ICHR, as early as August 1998 in the first Council meeting after the reconstitution of the ICHR with historians sympathetic to the B JP. We know now that following the reconstitution, pressures were almost immediately applied on the then Chairman of the ICHR, S. Settar, to give in on two issues. These were the recall of the manuscripts (which neither Grover nor any of his group had re ad), and the withdrawal of the annual ICHR grant to the Indian History Congress (IHC), an organisation which meets annually and which has an impressive record of scholarship in its over seven decades of existence. The antipathy of Grover and his fellow h istorians in the Hindutva camp to the IHC stems from its fiercely independent stand on issues of historical and political importance (including a spirited opposition to the use and abuse of history by the Sangh Parivar), and its promotion of rational and scientific academic research.

B.R. Grover's letter to the Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, running to four pages, reproduced in PDF Format. In the letter, the top line on page 4 is out of the page.

Please note that the file is in PDF format you require the Acrobat reader to view this. Click here to read the text.

The text of two annexures (except a section giving the budgetary details) is given below. I Ever since the Indian History Congress was established in AD 1935, being an autonomous unregistered Society of the historions, it remained self-financed body. Of course, the host State Universities helped in the arrangement of the annual sessions of the Congress. Even the University Grants Commission has been giving some financial assistance to the host University for academic purpose. It was only in AD 1973-74 when late Professor S. Nurul Hasan was the Hon'ble Minister of Education that for the first t ime, the Ministry of Education gave financial subsidy of Rupees Ten thousand only for holding the annual session as well as for publication of the proceedings of the Congress. However, in the meantime, the Indian Council of Historical Research was establ ished by the Government of India in AD 1972-73 and it started functioning effectively only thereafter. As the Council was fully financed (with cent per cent grant) by the Government of India, it was decided by the Government around AD 1974 that hencefort h all grant/ financial assistance to the Indian History Congress would be given by the ICHR and not directly by the Central Government, a practice which continued till AD 1990. It was only in AD 1990-91 when Shri Arjun Singh was the Hon'ble Minister of E ducation that purely out of political consideration, the Ministry gave financial grant of Rupees three lakhs to the Indian History Congress for holding its session in Delhi. In fact, the Congress Session in December, 1990 had to be held at Ujjain (Madhya Pradesh) but the Indian History Congress on the pretext of not having received the financial assistance from the local host/ Madhya Pradesh Government in time shifted its venue later to March, 199- at New Delhi. As a matter of fact, the real reason for shifting the venue in an arbitrary and unpresented manner, and even against the Rules of the Congress, was the fear of challenge to its left-ideological supremacy by the other Group of independent and scientific historians at Ujjian who might over-throw their supremacy in the election. Ever since then, the Indian History Congress has been getting annual grants from the Ministry of Human Resource and Development, Government of India, regularly till date. At the same time, as before, it has also been gett ing annual grants from the ICHR both for holding sessions and publication of the proceedings. Moreover, it has also been getting financial assistance from the host University/ State Government for the local hospitality. The host University gets some financial assistance from the UGC as well. Of course, the delegates attending the Congress also pay registration as well as delegation fees for local hospitality. It was only in AD 1991-92 that the Indian History Congress go t itself registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (Act XXI of 1860), as the registration of the Society was essential for getting annual grant from the Government of India which would equally insist on the submission of audited accounts by a registered Society through a Chartered Accountant/ Company. For the 59th sessions of the Indian History Congress held in December, 1998, the Congress got grant from the ICHR; Rupees three lakhs from the Punjab State Government and as per announcement by the Organisers, it is likely to get Rupees two lakhs from th e Ministry of Human Resource and Development, Government of India. It was also announced at the Business Session Meeting (30 December, 1998) that the grant of Rupees three lakhs to be received from the Punjab Government would be shared half-each by the h ost University and the Central office of the Indian History Congress. This is rather unprecedented. Apart from this, the Congress would, as usual receive considerable grant from the ICHR. A close look at the Statement of Receipts and Payments from 1-4-98 to 30-11-98 and more especially at the Budget (Estimated Income and Expenditure) 1988-99 (enclosed for perusal) would clearly show the unnecessary huge expenditure involved in Travel and Expenditure, Establishment and Office Equipment which could be con siderably cut. This is true of any another item. But despite the savings, lavish budget is prepared only because the Indian History Congress is getting lavish grants from the ICHR, Government of India and the hosting State Government. II Resolution 3 The Indian History Congress from its very inception has supported the cause of a scientific and secular approach to History and the vision of a comprehensive history. It has held firm positions on free enquiry, and was the only academic body to criticise its suppression under Emergency; and it has also opposed the tendency to introduce unscientific and parochial concepts in text books and syllabi. Since the 58th session, there have been some controversial measures adopted by the Central Government, which are the cause of some disquiet. The new composition of the Council of the ICHR especially has led to fears that an attempt to impose a disturbing ly one-sided view of Indian history is in the making. Certain State Governments have similarly introduced changes in text books and syllabi which tend to impose unhistorical cults and concepts through official fiats. The Indian History Congress calls upon all authorities to refrain from acts of such interference, and to so conduct themselves that the study and teaching of History is pursued on independent and scientific lines.

Failing in their attempt to pressure Settar in what has been described as a "stormy" two-day session of the Council in August-September 1998, the group then bided its time till his term finished, all the while preparing the ground for the next strike. Se ttar's interview points to what is likely to be next on the agenda of the ICHR, which is to render ineffective the IHC by choking it of funds.

A confidential letter written by Grover to P.R. Dasgupta, Secretary in the HRD Ministry, a copy of which is in Frontline's possession, supports this contention. The undated letter of Grover's was written in mid-March 1999 (as the date of receipt o f the letter by the HRD Ministry suggests). In it Grover, who is still only a member of the ICHR, makes a case to stop funds to the IHC. He questions the logic and necessity of funding an organisation that bites the hand that feeds it. "...Despite the fa ct that it receives considerable grants from the ICHR and the Ministry of Human Resources and Development, it has been moving resolutions and even condemning their policies on one count or another." Here is an organisation, he says, which has passed reso lutions "purely on left-oriented political and ideological considerations relating to lack of adequate environmental protection to Taj Mahal (Agra); assumed wasteful expenditure on the under sea excavations at Dwarka by Prof. S.R. Rao for unearthing the Mahabharata antiquity; the Hazrat Bal Incident at Srinagar (J & K); the collapse of the disputed structure at Ayodhya (December 1992); the school level text books on history and various other political matters from time to time." Grover's own political s ympathies are made abundantly clear in his indignant outburst against the "dominant group" in the IHC who carry out "malicious propaganda against the present 'BJP' Government in the media all over India..." Once he became Chairman and with the support of the HRD Ministry and a majority of Council members, Grover was free to act. He recalled two manuscripts of the "Towards Freedom" series which were in the press with Oxford University Press on the grounds that they had to be reviewed. Explanation for thi s is provided in the Minutes of the 43rd Council meeting held in December 1999 under Item 11. It states, "Regarding the manuscripts of the two "Towards Freedom" volumes being edited by Professor K.N. Panikkar and Professor Sumit Sarkar of the years 1940 and 1946 respectively sent for publication in 1998, it was decided that if the ICHR have not received all the proofs thereof, the publications of the same should also be temporarily stopped and the manuscripts of the said volumes be sent to the Council/R eview Committee for their perusal." At least one member of the Council who was present at the meeting, Pratipal Bhatia, has contested the veracity of the Minutes. In a statement to the press, she has denied that the Council ever took a collective decisio n to withdraw the manuscripts. To Frontline Settar described as "shocking" the very idea of redrawing the Minutes of previous Council meetings by the present Chairman. Item 1 and and a supplementary item to Item 2 of the Minutes of the 43rd Meetin g authorise Grover to "redraw" the Minutes of the 42nd, 39th and 38th Council Meetings.

The ICHR-sponsored assault on academic freedom is just one of several official actions in the realm of education and research both at the Centre and in States ruled by BJP governments. Of even greater concern is the penetration of a communalised and warp ed notion of history into school textbooks, a project that the various organisations of the Sangh Parivar have been successful in promoting, and which, unfortunately, the high calibre historians who constitute a majority have been largely ineffective in countering.