National
A glimmer of hope for historians
By Anjali Mody
NEW DELHI, JAN. 1. The President, Mr. K.R. Narayanan, has strongly favoured a historian's right to pursue his/her profession without political interference.
Mr. Narayanan's short and unequivocal message goes to the heart of the issue that has exercised historians since the Union Minister for Human Resource Development, Dr. Murli Manohar Joshi, unveiled his politico-cultural agenda.
Although addressed to the annual meeting of the Indian History Congress in Bhopal last week, the President's message seems to have been directed towards the Government and its agenda of re-writing history. Though abundantly measured, it seems to be a slap on politicians who interfere in history writing.
He endorses the ``scientific tradition of history writing'' that exists in India and says that ``departure or deviation from this will reduce history to fiction, spelling disastrous consequences for the country.''
He quoted a 1967 High Court judgment on re-writing of history: ``History is not to serve as a hand-maiden of a particular school of thought ... To re-write history according to the views which are popular or which are necessary for bolstering up nationalistic egoism or jingoism is perversion of history''.
Historians who attended the Bhopal convention view the message as a positive intervention in an unequal debate between academics and politicians; It is the ``voice of reason'' against ``political manipulation''.
However, the President's taking a strong public position on a matter of Government policy will not be greeted with the same enthusiasm everywhere. Accusations of partisanship are sure to follow as has been the case whenever Mr. Narayanan has chosen to speak his mind on state policy.
For example, the President's warning earlier this year against the tinkering with the Constitution for short-term political gains (seen as a criticism of the Constitutional review process started by the NDA Government) or pursuing economic policies that exclude the majority of Indians (a criticism of economic liberalisation) were seen as a transgression of his role.
Yet, in the absence of any positive leadership in Parliament, the responsibility seems to fall on the President to stand above the fray on issues that involve the public.
In the context of the so-called ``history debate'', academics in universities have been battling with a Union Minister who has labelled them as ``dangerous terrorists.'' The Prime Minister, Mr. A.B. Vajpayee, had said: ``if history is one- sided it should be re-written''.
Had he said, ``Our responsibility to facts... must be paramount, regardless of their being bitter or sweet, so that history is not abused for political or ideological purposes'' there would have been no reason for the President to make a comment.
Send this article to Friends by
E-Mail
National
|
