|
|||||
|
THE country's most prominent historians are once again locking horns with the Central government. The current dispute is over the Union Ministry of Culture's decision not to celebrate Mughal Emperor Akbar's 400th death anniversary this year. The Indian History Congress (IHC), an independent body comprising more than 17,000 historians, is up in arms, especially since the Ministry has not given the reasons for the decision.
The IHC had sent a proposal in November 2005 to the Ministry of Culture, that the anniversary should be celebrated spread over a year from October 23, 2005. However, on January 9, the Ministry sent a letter to the IHC saying that the proposal could not be considered since it "does not cover under the scheme [sic.]". The letter does not mention which scheme it refers to, though the IHC assumes that it refers to the scheme under which the nation's most prominent historical personalities or events are commemorated.
The IHC passed a resolution protesting against the decision at its 66th annual session held at Santiniketan in West Bengal in January. The resolution stated: "The IHC regrets that no reason has been given for this decision. In 1999, the Government of India refused to celebrate the memory of the second centenary of the fall of Srirangapatnam and Tipu Sultan's death. Now, in 2005, it has, for no stated reason, held that Akbar does not deserve a place amongst the great personalities of Indian history."
This year's IHC president, Prof. D.N. Jha, pointed out that the government had never had a consistent policy on celebrations of this kind. He said: "Funds are set aside in the Culture Ministry's budget for such celebrations, which are meant to recognise the contributions made by important personalities by bringing out calendars, authorising biographies, issuing stamps, giving grants for seminars, workshops and such activities. The government can either organise it directly or support independent organisations such as the IHC, who come up with proposals. In previous years, governments celebrated many different historical figures such as Rana Pratap, Shankaracharya, Premchand, Dr. S. Radhakrishnan, and Dr. B.R. Ambedkar. We would like to know by what logic Akbar has been left out." Jha added that while it may be too much to expect consistency from the government, it was time to have some sort of policy for historical commemorations.
Prof. Shireen Moosvi, a former secretary of the IHC, was the one who first took the proposal to the government. She said: "We first approached the Human Resource Development Ministry, which told us that centenaries would now be celebrated by the Culture Ministry. So we wrote to the Culture Ministry. I was also representing the Aligarh Historical Society, which was planning to organise a talk on composite culture in Indian history. The then Minister, S. Jaipal Reddy, was very encouraging and said the Prime Minister would constitute a special committee. When we raised the question of grants for the two organisations that were already making plans, the Minister said there was `no reason why you shouldn't get it'. We consequently applied formally to the Culture Secretary. First we were told orally that our request was rejected. Then, on January 9, we got a letter from an Under-Secretary. This was only after The Times of India reported the issue."
When news of the IHC's protest was reported, Ambika Soni, who recently took over the portfolio of culture, went on record as saying that she did not know about the proposal and would look into the matter. Despite repeated attempts, Frontline could not elicit a response as to when she would take a decision. Meanwhile, the IHC has formally registered a protest demanding that the decision be reconsidered and sent copies of its Santiniketan resolution to the Minister for Culture and the Human Resource Development Ministry.
What is really surprising, say the historians, is that Akbar should be ignored by the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government, which avows a secular outlook. Asoka and Akbar have long been hailed as two of the few "nationalist" monarchs, who represented and upheld India's composite culture. Akbar, especially, promoted the idea of the essential unity of all religions and emphasised the concept of sulah-qul, a secular principle of universal tolerance and accommodation on which his empire was built. The refusal to celebrate Akbar is being viewed as a refusal to celebrate India's composite culture.
Shireen Moosvi told Frontline: "We have seen something similar happen under the NDA [National Democratic Alliance, led by the Bharatiya Janata Party] government; there were proposals for both Tipu Sultan's bicentenary and the Khalsa centenary. The NDA didn't do anything about Tipu Sultan, though we wanted to celebrate it as a mark of resistance against colonialism. The Khalsa got Rs.5 lakhs from the Culture Ministry. Private firms such as Infosys gave us the funds for celebrating Tipu Sultan's bicentenary. We had expected such decisions under NDA rule, but we were disappointed by the UPA government's reluctance to celebrate a period of reason and tolerance."
She recalled that a similar proposal was drafted for Akbar's 450th birth anniversary, but that did not receive any support from the government either. "In 1992, we celebrated the 450th birth anniversary of Akbar, though the state hadn't given us much support. In any case, we did celebrate it, through our own efforts and with support from the ICHR [Indian Council of Historical Research]. But it was not like this under Indira Gandhi. In 1980, she even tried to celebrate what was perhaps a non-event, the sulah-qul, in a major way at Fatehpur Sikri. Under the present dispensation, they don't seem to be interested. Maybe Indira Gandhi had a better sense of history."
One historian who did not want to be identified said that the probable reason for the government's decision was that it was still wondering how the celebration would affect the public perception of the Congress. He said: "The Congress has been dilly-dallying like this for years now. They must first figure out whether this will lead to political gains or losses. Akbar is perhaps not the best symbol to celebrate because he was never very popular with the Muslim vote-bank. He had initiated his own faith [Din-e-Ilahi] and was not orthodox. Schools and colleges in Pakistan simply do not teach Akbar; he has been cut out of the history syllabus entirely. Now, he is being ignored in India as well, it seems."
The IHC is one of the few academic bodies that upholds secular ideals and has a scientific approach to studying India's past. It was set up in 1935, at the height of the nationalist movement in the country, but has consistently opposed the attempt to misuse history for political gains. As far back as 1935, the IHC's first president, Sir Shafaat Ahmad Khan, stated that the body "knows no politics... " and was "not the forum for the dissemination of theories of racial supremacy or political predominance, and nothing can be more fatal to the healthy formation of a sound opinion on the history of India than the manipulation and distortion of facts".
Prof B.P. Sahu, the current secretary of the IHC, pointed out that attempts to distort history continued under successive governments. Among the resolutions passed this year, one pertains to the Tamil Nadu government's circular sent to all schools asking that a certain key phrase be removed from history textbooks. "The history textbook stated that Gandhiji was killed by Nathuram Godse. The government wants Godse's name to be replaced by a `militant Hindu'. We don't agree with such creation of ambiguity. What is the purpose?" he said.
It was fitting, then, that the IHC presidential address this year, delivered by Jha, investigated claims about the prevalence and nature of Hinduism in ancient India. He ended the address, titled "Looking for a Hindu Identity", by pointing out that "historians cannot be the custodians of religion: our task is to critically examine it".
In keeping with this spirit, the IHC has consistently opposed attempts to suppress a given point of view or squash certain historical facts, whether this was during the infamous years of the Emergency or during the growth of religious fundamentalism in the late 1980s. In 1986, at its Srinagar session, the IHC passed a resolution unanimously opposing the disturbing "attempt to convert centuries-old places of worship of one community into those of another... The allegations about ancient act of vandalism amount to the misuse of the name of history for pernicious purposes". Clearly, the government had not been listening. It remains to be seen whether or not the current government is listening.
Printer friendly
page
|
