Title: Leftist historians
and intellectuals afraid of accountability
Author: Rajvir Sharma
Publication: The Organiser
Date: March 5, 2000
It has become customary
with the political and academic forces opposed to the 'Sangh Parivar' to
criticise each and every action of the new regime at any level as an effort
to saffronise politics and academics. The two recent most examples are
the opposition to the decision to review the Constitution taken by the
government and the decision taken by the Indian Council of Historical Research
(ICHR) to review the work 'Towards Freedom'. The question that bothers
a neutral observer in the present situation is whether there is some truth
in the accusations levelled or these ideas are merely a product of fear
psychosis of the so called 'renowned' leaders and 'eminent' historians,
i.e. is it their obsession With the 'Sangh Parivar' that compels them to
say what they say or that they are really doing something which should
not have been done? On the face of it, most of criticism is apparently
unfounded and appears to be motivated by vested political and academic
interests.
Influenced by deprivation
It is a well known fact
that the Congress party and their leftist associates have been the beneficiaries
of various schemes and projects (political or academic) for a very long
period of at least four decades irrespective of whether the government
was run by the Congress itself or the National Front or the United Front,
etc. They were being partronized by the state. Now, it appears, the same
beneficiaries are not able to swallow the reality of the change of guards
at the Centre and are feeling completely left out. They are nursing a sense
of deprivation and, therefore, perfectly in consonance with their tactics
and strategies, are crying hoarse with a false hope of discrediting the
government and its actions in order to get rid of the present regime to
regain their past position. It is with this approach that they are trying
to create dissonance within- the members/partners of the National Democratic
Alliance (NDA) by raising the issues of the hidden agenda known only to
them or the issue of RSS or saffronisation. So far they have met with frustration
as their. moves appear to be very well understood by the NDA.
Double Standards
It has again become conventional
with the Congress, and its natural allies in the left (political or intellectual)
to bring in the issues of democracy, free flow of information, national
unity and integrity while working against the same principles. The renowned
academicians (read hidden leftists) denounce the proposal for review of
the Constitution which is a legitimate exercise to look back upon our experiences
in the last 50 years, though many of them were partners in the exercise
and approval of the wholesale amendment of the Constitution in 1976. Another
example of hypocrisy of the left is their opposition to the decision of
the ICHR to review the work done by the two known leftist academicians
on freedom struggle and justifying simultaneously the similar decision
taken earlier in the case of Dr P.N. Chopra. Let us examine this duality
in somewhat more detail.
The Arguments
The left and their ilk
are advancing the following arguments in their support: one that their
work was already approved by the ICHR and therefore, the decision to reopen
the issue and subject it to scrutiny again is motivated. True, but was
it not a matter between the left parivar that the work was cleared? The
earlier chairman was, let it be known, Prof Irfan Habib, not only a renowned
leftist but also an "eminent" scholar. So where was the hitch. Secondly
if they are so sure of the quality of their product, why are they so afraid
of a scrutiny by another set of people? There appears more than what is
visible in the opposition to this decision. Should they be permitted to
carry on party propaganda in the name of scholarly historical work? The
place given to Mahatma Gandhi and the CPI as is reported by the ICHR is
a pointer in that direction. Should such efforts be allowed to go on uninterruptedly,
as in the past, all in the name of high quality research? These are the
majority questions that have been raised by the present day ICHR.
The second argument is
that the present chairman has deliberately decided to get the work reviewed
in order to give a pride of place to the RSS leaders in the freedom struggle
where they have played no role. Is their view not tantamount to having
a person hanged without trial? In addition it also speaks volumes about
their prejudices and biases against the RSS' role in the struggle for Independence
of the country. Otherwise, would it not be desirable to wait for the outcome
of the review and, as true historians, participate in a debate if they
think that the additions were factually wrong. Is it not their fear that
they will loose the battle of debate that they want the decision to be
withdrawn and save themselves from exposure?
The third argument is
that Dr P.N. Chopra's work was withheld by the earlier chairman because
he found. the work 'inadequate'. Doesn't this argument look really funny
and illogical in the given case. In Chopra's case the judgement of one
individual on adequacy or otherwise of the work was a 'secular' decision
to promote national unity and integrity whereas the present decision is
rooted in communal agenda of the HRD Ministry! The leftisation of history
is in the national interest and the proposal even to peep into the pages
of history written by them, is anti-national! This argument is difficult
to believe by a detached and uninterested student of history or even by
a common citizen of the country who has a right to know in all its aspects
and dimensions, interpretations and understandings. For an apolitical citizen
unidirectional writings and interpretations may not be always an act of
eminence. Let others also have their say without any hindrance or ideological
oppositions in a democratic polity and a society which is being supported
to have a right to information and transparency.
The Reality
The fact behind all these
agitations, it appears, is the growing emphasis by the new regime on accountability
along with academic autonomy. The academic projects and their costs are
being subjected to scrutiny which may expose many of the so called eminent
intellectuals. They are, hence, following the principle of offence is the
best defence. Will they succeed? Or truth will take its own course?
(The author is Reader
in Political Science, A.R.S.D. College. University of Delhi.)
