Author: R. Krishnakumar in Thiruvananthapuram
Publication: Frontline
Date: October 26, 2001
Introduction: The Congress(I)-led
government in Kerala wields the axe against a nascent historical research
institution.
The Congress(I)-led United Demo-cratic
Front (UDF) government has decided to do away with the Kerala Council for
Historical Research (KCHR), an institution that represented perhaps the
first serious attempt in Kerala to promote scientific historical research.
The KCHR was established in March 17, 2001, towards the end of the term
of the previous Left Democratic Front (LDF) government led by the Communist
Party of India (Marxist), by transforming the Kerala Gazetteers Department
into an autonomous organisation to "promote historical research" and act
as a "nodal agency for the generation of historical knowledge and its dissemination".
The order dissolving the Council
was issued on September 22, disregarding the fact that the KCHR was an
autonomous council formed under the Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific
and Charitable Societies Registration Act, XII of 1955, with clear legal
provisions governing its dissolution, even though it was only a government
department in its earlier avatar.
Chief Minister A.K. Antony, who
announced the Cabinet decision a few days earlier, said that the KCHR was
being dissolved because there were complaints about "procedural and financial
irregularities" and about its "approach to the writing of history".
The majority of the Council members,
including its Chairman K.N. Panikkar, renowned historian and Vice-Chancellor
of the Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit, Kalady, and Director
P.J. Cheriyan, had no inkling about the government's move. In a statement
to the press the next day, Panikkar said that the government had decided
to dissolve the Council without even observing the elementary courtesy
of informing the Chairman and that the reason appeared to be "political,
rather than academic and administrative". The government, he said, had
succumbed to the campaign by some historians and history teachers "working
in collaboration with the RSS (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh)" and that it
was regrettable that "the government of Kerala, led by the Indian National
Congress, which has a legacy of great secular tradition, has chosen to
go by the dictates of communal interests. Communal forces are engaged in
appropriating history for defining the nation in religious terms. Secular
history, which the Council advocates, is understandably targeted by those
historians who have chosen to serve the interests of the communal forces".
Panikkar also criticised the government's
decision to re-establish the Gazetteers Department. "The Gazetteers was
a creation of the colonial administration as part of its strategy to acquire
knowledge about its subjects. That is the reason why the Gazetteers Department
was progressively abolished by most States after 1947. Strangely, we in
Kerala seem to be going back in time, jeopardising in the process the possibility
of furthering historical knowledge," he said.
In a separate statement, a majority
of the Council members (except the government nominees) denounced the State
government's decision as "blatantly unjust, academically, ethically and
legally". The members - M.R. Raghava Varrier, Rajan Gurukkal, K.S. Mathew,
Kesavan Veluthatt, K.K.N. Kurup, S.M. Muhammed Koya and K.N. Ganesh - said
that the decision infringed on the autonomy of a registered society of
professional historians and raises the all-important question regarding
the relationship between autonomous organisations and the government. "We
consider that the dissolution is the result of unfounded charges and false
propaganda by a handful of people of communal political persuasion and
with certain vested interests," the statement said.
The members said that the Council
was dissolved for imaginary reasons rather than on the basis of well-founded
facts. "It is claimed that the Council is guilty of extravagant spending.
The Council has been in existence only for six months, a period when certain
steps were taken to create the minimum infrastructural facilities and to
initiate some preliminary academic activities for which a very small amount
has been spent so far," the statement said.
While the government and Congress(I)
leaders maintained a studied silence, the reaction came, significantly,
from M.G.S. Narayanan, Chairman of the Indian Council of Historical Research
(ICHR), who is known for his proximity to the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP),
and P. Parameswaran, the director of the Bharateeya Vichara Kendram. In
a statement published in a section of the media, Narayanan said that the
formation of the Council was "a Marxist party conspiracy to hijack history
for its destructive, sectarian purpose of party propaganda" and welcomed
the government's move to dissolve it. Narayanan alleged that the KCHR was
"hastily established" by the CPI(M)-led Ministry on the eve of the elections
and was "packed with party followers" and that "if the Marxist-led government
had a right to form a research council purely on party lines, the UDF government
was certainly within its rights in dismantling a camouflaged party machine".
In his press statement, Parameswaran
welcomed the government's move as a "signal service" to the people. According
to him, the real objective of the LDF government's projects such as the
KCHR was "to perpetuate cultural and intellectual domination of the Marxist
party in Kerala".
Parameswaran alleged that if the
KCHR was allowed to function, "it would have been converted as a centre
for Marxist studies of Kerala History". Though there was nothing wrong
in Kerala's history being studied through the lens of historical materialism,
it "need not, and should not be done by officially founded and government-supported
institutions", he said. Alleging that there was no scope for free intellectual
discourse in the universities in Kerala as they have "Marxist Vice-Chancellors
and Leftist-dominated ruling bodies imposed on them by the previous government",
Parameswaran said that "the Marxists wanted the KCHR to be a super academic
body to guide and patronise" the universities. In response to the criticism
that the concept of Gazetteers is a legacy of the colonial past, Parameswaran
said that "after the collapse of the communist empire, Marxist historiography
is also just a legacy of outdated communist imperialism and there is not
much to choose between the two".
Narayanan said that though the Gazetteers
Department was "not meant exclusively for history, historians who can recognise
that history does not mean merely political or party history will appreciate
the need for such publication (Gazetteers) in this democratic age". According
to him, only those who are "allergic to the sharing of information with
the public at large" would decry the decision of the government.
Narayanan, however, said that on
the eve of the elections he had been invited by the LDF government's Minister
for Cultural Affairs to join the Council, but his letter asking for clarifications
and information about its rules and regulations was ignored. "When I contacted
the heads of departments of History in the Kerala and Calicut Universities,
they also denied any knowledge of the scheme. There seems to have been
a conspiracy to appropriate history by means of such hidden agenda and
secret manoeuvres," he said.
THESE allegations, especially the
one characterising the Council as a Marxist one, have been stoutly denied
by the Council members. They said in a statement that taking resort to
such allegations was a well-known rightwing ploy to win the sympathy of
the liberals and that the assertions by people like Narayanan were "not
only mischievous but also misleading".
Pointing out that a historian is
known by the intellectual tools and the methodology he employs, they said
even an elementary knowledge of historiography would convince anyone about
the influence of Marxism in historical research and analysis in the 20th
century. "Indeed some of the historians who are members of the Council
have drawn upon Marxist methodology, more accurately methodologies, which,
as M.G.S. Narayanan projects, is not the same as being the hatchet men
of any party. To M.G.S. Narayanan and people of his ilk, 'Marxist' appears
to be a metaphor for abuse. This is not a criticism of historiography but
an attempt at slander," they said.
Denying the charge that the formation
of the KCHR was part of the political agenda of the CPI(M), they said that
the idea of the Council was first mooted in a workshop organised by the
Gazetteers Department in 1989, in which several historians from Kerala,
including Narayanan, were present. "The proposal, though submitted to the
State Planning Board, did not materialise. About two years back the proposal
found acceptance in the Governor's address to the State legislature. It
is thus not an 'illegitimate child born in the Marxist cattle-shed' as
Narayanan alleges, but in whose birth he himself had some responsibility.
It is a different matter that when it actually materialised he chose to
keep away by raising the Marxist bogey. By then, however, the BJP had come
to power at the Centre and he had eventually become the Chairman of the
ICHR."
Endorsing their statement, Cheriyan
told Frontline: "The government could have been misled as well. I wish
the Chief Minister read our Memorandum of Association and the Annual Action
Plan of the Council. It is unfortunate that merely by raising the 'Marxist
bogey' people can undo such noble ventures. The primary aim of the KCHR
was to further the cause of first-class scholarship in historical research.
But the mainstream media, in their over-enthusiasm to support the allegations
made by one or two historians with Hindutva connections, interpreted it
as the promotion of Marxist historiography, which the myopic political
establishment took as the promotion of Marxist political interests. That
seems to be the reason that ensured the death of the KCHR."
Cheriyan said that out of the nine
historians to be included in the executive council, the original list had
five who could not be described as "Marxist". Only one among them showed
the courtesy to join, he said. "Narayanan asked for some details but he
now refuses to acknowledge my e-mail and telephone calls offering to explain
the nature of the council to him. It is very easy later to argue that the
Council is full of Marxists. It is very unfortunate that the government
should have gone ahead to order the dissolution of the Council without
looking into the vision behind the KCHR, how it was constituted, or the
nature of its activities," he said.
In their statement, KCHR members
said that during the short period of its existence the Council had drawn
up an academic programme that would considerably enrich the field of historical
research in the State. It included an annual Elamkulam Kunjan Pillai memorial
lecture (which was to be delivered this year by the British historian Lawrence
Stone), in-service training for college teachers, a series of publications,
a local history project for schoolchildren and the setting up of a resource
centre by acquiring sources from institutions such as the India Office
Library in London and the Nehru Memorial Museum and Library in New Delhi.
According to Cheriyan, other programmes for the year included establishment
of history societies across the State, an oral history project for school
children on the ecological history of Kerala's villages, and a history
colloquium in which a select group of social scientists, teachers and students
would interact with prominent historians and discuss their methodology.
The Council and three of its members
have challenged the government's decision in the Kerala High Court. The
government decision, they have said, is without the authority of law and
jurisdiction, apart from being arbitrary, illegal and void. The KCHR, according
to them, is a society registered under the Charitable Societies Act and
it can be dissolved only by the decision of three-fourths of its members.
The government, they argue, has no power to dissolve the society registered
under the Act or to take over its assets and properties. On September 25,
the High Court ordered a one-month stay on the implementation of the Government
Order.
THE Kerala government's decision
has been criticised by prominent historians and social activists. Several
well-known historians, including Irfan Habib, R.S. Sharma, Satish Chandra,
K.M. Shrimali, D.N. Jha, Sumit Sarkar, Tanika Sarkar, Mushirul Hassan and
Arjun Dev, issued a joint statement, urging the government to reconsider
its decision. They said: "The production of historical research on scientific
and unbiased lines is a very important task today. This is especially so
for all State governments that do not subscribe to the anti-secular measures
taken by the present BJP government at the Centre in the realm of education
and research." The historians said that much was expected of the newly
established Council. "No one can be convinced by the argument that its
functions can be performed by the newly established Gazetteer Department.
While no one can have any quarrel with the proposal to prepare and publish
new editions of District Gazetteers, this work cannot possibly encompass
the larger cause of promoting research in the history of Kerala as well
as general history... We are also surprised that such a step should be
taken when the Congress leadership itself has been highlighting the threat
of saffronisation and stressing the need to foster the proper projection
of history to our people."