The resignation of Mahesh Rangarajan shows that post-Independent India is yet to find ways to nurture a productive dialogue between academia and democratic politics.
Even as one who would be labeled a sickularist in this day of charming Internet invective, I can understand, not appreciate mind you, that a new government would want to populate state-sponsored cultural agencies with those who share their ideologies. So, having someone whose credentials as a historian are suspect as heading the Indian Council of Historical Research was par for course. Ditto with the social sciences and the Indian Council of Social Science Research. But this history does worry those of us who care deeply about the prospects of the one of the few world-class institutions of research in the humanities and social sciences that exist in India. Why mess with the Nehru Memorial Museum and Library (NMML)?
Recent contretemps over the removal of the Director of the NMML are only a small part of the reason why many scholars are upset about the direction in which things appear to be headed in the NMML. To make my own biases even more clear, I should note that I did know the recentlyformer director quite well, having spent time with him as a fellow-student in Hindu College, Delhi, many decades ago. The NMML, by its own charter, is supposed to be an autonomous body. Yes, the Central government always appoints the President and Vice President of the Society that runs the institution. And yes, one can see the influence of the current government in the current composition of the NMML Society. This is simply politics as usual.
The remaking of the Society, for instance, is not so different from the timing and fashion in which the decision was taken to
extend Dr. Mahesh Rangarajan’s tenure at the NMML by the previous government. But, surely that doesn’t mean that the Central government should seek to undermine the ethos of the institution, or justify efforts to turn it into an ideological mouthpiece for a vision that does not in any way reflect the person after whom it is named?
Despite the presence of purely political appointees, and the undoubtedly ex-officio appointments of bureaucrats, there are academics of good repute amongst the people in the current NMML Society. Without more interference, it is quite possible that the NMML can continue to be the vibrant hub of a body of national and international scholarship on modern and contemporary India that it is. Pick up almost any book by a reputed scholar of modern India, and I would wager that the majority of them would include references to research they conducted at the NMML . This was made possible by a careful selection and acquisition of a wide array of historical and political resources by former directors such as the historians B. R. Nanda and Ravinder Kumar. From an institution that specialised in only the study of the national movement, and that too from a certain location, the NMML evolved to a location where the latest and most significant ideas about Indian society, politics, and history were debated, discussed, and published. There are few comparable institutions in India, or indeed the world.
I can understand why a government that came to power based on well-deserved critiques of dynastic politics of the Nehru-Gandhi clan would want to underplay the historical legacy of Jawaharlal Nehru. As a historian, I may not agree with this project, just as I certainly do not agree with some of the fawning hagiography that surrounds our first Prime Minister. But, is taking over old memorials (or renaming old roads) all that this government is capable of? I seem to recall a much more positive agenda being touted a little over a year ago. I would welcome initiatives that might bring a fresh perspective to intellectual debate, even if those came from a political perspective I did not appreciate. But, create something new, support alternative ideologies, don’t simply undermine that which already exists.
There is, for instance, a Deendayal Research Institute. Based purely on its website, it does not appear to be producing a great deal of new research. Why not support its efforts, given how much the ideologues of this government claim to support ideas of Integral Humanism, as opposed to Nehruvian Liberalism? Or, even better, why not start a Golwalkar Institute of Indian Studies? Give it funds, attract real scholars who can debate the liberals and the leftists who truly do dominate the higher echelons of humanities and social sciences scholarship in India. By all means, create a world-class intellectual hub for the humanities and social sciences in India. Make sure a truly Bharatiya vision of history and Indic civilisation (however erroneous or frightening) will emerge from its portals. My point is, do what you must to challenge the hegemony of the entrenched liberal elite, but do that by supporting an alternative vision.Unless, of course, all you are interested in is destroying the old. That would put you in the same league as Pol Pot, the Taliban, or the Islamic State. Is that the legacy you wish to leave?
The reason why people like me are worried about the
NMML is history. Well before NaMo was a household mantra in Delhi, the NMML suffered because of political intervention. I am not referring to the previous Bharatiya Janata Party government in Delhi, but rather to the Grand (for how long?) Old Party. In 2009, political interference was decried by by a number of scholars, most of whom would probably wear the label of ‘sickularist’ with honour. They circulated petitions, wrote letters, sought public support against political intervention that they argued was undermining the scholarly ethos of the institution. They did not succeed immediately. But, the appointment of the now-former Director, Prof. Rangarajan, certainly brought with it some hope of renewal. My point is not so much to bemoan his loss, though a loss it may well prove to be for the institution. Nor am I invoking some idyllic world where power and knowledge remain in their separate spheres. I know enough history to know that has never has been and never will be. My purpose with this article is simply to suggest that rather than destroying the old, any government, any cultural movement that sees a future for itself, has to have a positive agenda. It must build something new, and not undermine the old.
Perhaps, in our concern with what is happening around us, we forget to locate our own present in a long-enough historical context. Two of the scholars who were most critical of political interference in the workings of the NMML in the first decade of this century, were, ironically the two who have been among the ones most frequently targeted by supporters of the current regime. In a lead essay in this paper, Romila Thapar and K.N. Panikkar wrote this about the NMML, and there is hope in their wise words, hope that we should keep in mind:
“Parties come and go, as do governments, and from a longer perspective some elements of politics become a game of the evanescent. Those running institutions should recognise the impermanence of persons in power, and at the same time, the permanence of the institution.”
(Sanjay Joshi is Professor of History, Northern Arizona University.)
