The Hindu : Revive MEA's Historical Division

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Thursday, May 02, 2002

Opinion

Opinion - News Analysis

Revive MEA's Historical Division

By Inder Malhotra

Mourning for Sarvepalli Gopal, the eminent historian and biographer, has been as sincere as it has been widespread. Sorrow is by no means confined to his friends and admirers, whose number is legion, of course, it is shared also by those who knew him only remotely. The reasons for this are obvious: Gopal's excellence in his chosen profession of historiography and his endearing personality that combined a high degree of erudition and seriousness with an equal measure of good humour and informality.

Of his brilliant contribution to the writing and teaching of history several of his peers have written at some length, drawing pointed attention to his outstanding work other than the famous three-volume biography of Jawaharlal Nehru. But strangely missing from the touching obituary tributes to him so far is any reference to Gopal's remarkable role in building up the late, lamented Historical Division of the Ministry of External Affairs and in the making of foreign policy, especially on China. Even those who accuse him — wrongly — of ``having created the border problem with China'' are only underscoring his importance in the foreign policy establishment during the 12 years he was its member and a prominent figure on the New Delhi scene. As it happened this period broadly coincided with his illustrious father, S. Radhakrishnan's tenure as Vice-President first and then as President.

Gopal arrived at the MEA's Historical Division as its third Director since Independence — K. Zacharia and J.N. Khosla, also distinguished historians both, had preceded him — in 1954 and left in 1966 to be a professor at Oxford. By this time, the division was at the peak of its performance. It also had one of the finest libraries on history, diplomacy and international affairs.

Paradoxically, this was precisely the time when the inexorable slide towards the Historical Division's demise also began. For this there were two reasons, both typically Indian, that would have been rejected with horror in any modern and civilised Foreign Office. The first was the average Indian's inexplicable disinterest in history. Henry Ford's dictum that all history is ``bunk'' apparently has more adherents in this country than in rest of the world put together. Unsurprisingly, some Foreign Service professionals were able to argue that a separate Historical Division was a ``wasteful irrelevance''.

Secondly, and sadly, the historians and scholars working as research officers had started agitating for foreign postings and indeed for their own absorption in the IFS. This, they should have known, was impossible in a country swept by the closed shop mentality on the one hand and a yearning for iron-clad security of service on the other.

The process of the strangulation of the Historical Division, however, was also characteristic and chaotic. It was abruptly merged with the Policy Planning Division in 1980 and was separated again four years later, without any convincing explanation for either action. It was at the time of the massive financial crisis in the early Nineties that the Historical Division itself finally became history, its last Director having been sent to Cuba as Ambassador and various scholars and researchers shifted to territorial divisions. Almost all of them have since retired. Nothing like historical or institutional memory on vital subjects like China and Pakistan survives.

Incidentally, since nothing can be more contagious than a bad example, the Ministry of Defence, existing cheek by jowl with the MEA in the South Bloc, has also virtually abolished its History Division. But that's a different though no less painful story to be told separately.

Meanwhile, the experiment of merging the Historical and Policy Planning Divisions in the Foreign Office has turned out to be a classic case of two drowning men clutching at each other and thus going down together. Occasions when the PPD might have done any useful work have been few and far between. At one time the late D.P. Dhar was appointed Chairman of the Policy Planning Committee primarily to enable him to coordinate the handling of the Bangladesh crisis and the war that inevitably followed. During her second innings as Prime Minister, Indira Gandhi used the same perch to enlist the late G. Parthasarathi's services as her principal foreign policy adviser. For the rest — let it be said bluntly — the Policy Planning Division has been little more than a dumping ground for officers not particularly in any other section of the foreign policy machine.

A comprehensive rectification of this sorry state of affairs would doubtless take time. But surely the powers that be could have revived the Historical Division that should never have been wound up. Not only several retired and serving diplomats have been suggesting this but also Parliament's Standing Committee on External Affairs has formally asked for the disbanded division's revival. The External Affairs Minister, Jaswant Singh, too has been anxious to streamline the Foreign Office. But nothing has come of his various ideas evidently because the routine is the worst enemy of the innovative.

Gopal's passing provides an opportunity to bring the Historical Division back to life without any further delay, if only as a merited tribute to him.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion