Title: Towards unfreedom
Author: Saradindu Mukherjee
in defence of the ICHR
Publication: The Hindustan
Times
Date: March 14, 2000
Attempts by some 'progressive'
and 'eminent' historians to 'construct' a controversy over a routine administrative
request by the ICHR to the Oxford University Press (OUP) to "temporarily
withhold" the publication of two volumes of the Towards Freedom project
has sparked off an unnecessary noise.
Their tale of victimhood
carries little conviction since the general editor of the series, Prof
S. Gopal, who has been a leading light of their camp, happens to be the
only historian bestowed with Padma Vibhushan by the BJP Government. So
much for the intolerance of the 'fascists'! And this award came to him
despite his edited book, Anatomy of A Confrontation: The Babri Masjid-
Ramjanambhoomi Issue (Viking 1991). Yet, the Left fascists and their collaborators
- Pan-Islamic fundamentalists - expect the world to see a perpetual halo
around them.
A cursory glance at the
official records would reveal that the Towards Freedom project (Rs 4 crore
spent so far), conceived by the Government in 1972-73, was initially entrusted
to the National Archives of India and the ICHR, and it was to be completed
by the end of the fifth Plan (1977-78). S. Gopal was associated with the
project since its early days and ultimately resigned in 1977. By then,
not much progress was made. Subsequently, the deadline for completion of
the project was extended to 1985.
Prof P.N. Chopra was
appointed the chief editor in 1982. The first volume relating to 1937 and
published in 1985 was well received in the Press. Subsequently, when Prof
Chopra submitted volume II (relating to 1938) in 1987, Prof Irfan Habib,
who was then chairman of the ICHR (1986-93), wanted inclusion of certain
pro-Communist documents and deletion of some other documents. Prof Chopra
pointed out to him that all relevant documents have been included. Despite
Prof Habib's assurance, that volume was never published.
But in this case, the
mere 'withholding' of a manuscript by the ICHR is being projected as something
unprecedented, unpardonable and counter-revolutionary! Common sense suggests
that every such manuscript and the accompanying introduction must be examined
thoroughly. Ideally, Prof Habib being an Aligarhian mediaevalist, should
have requisitioned the services of a historian of Modern India specialising
in the developments of 1930s. Certainly, the historian concerned deserved
a more dignified treatment. Instead, he appointed an evaluation committee
on the published volume (1937) and withdrew its copies from the market
resulting in heavy financial loss to the ICHR. The draft of the third volume
relating to 1939 was also prepared before Prof Chopra's services were abruptly
terminated on February 26, 1988. So much for academic freedom and concern
for truth.
Later, Dr Basudev Chatterjee
was appointed as coordinating editor and entrusted with the work of the
volume covering the developments of 1938. In a subsequent restructuring
of the project, the ICHR changed the basic guidelines finalised earlier.
According to the original guidelines, the documents were to be arranged
in a chronological order with a comprehensive index on the model of the
Transfer of Power volumes. But, under the new guidelines, the documents
were to be arranged thematically and every editor was given freedom to
identify his own theme and was to submit an approach paper for his specific
volume.
It is true that the series
is not an "interpretative study". But if the compilation of documents are
selective, they can certainly introduce some thematic bias. Anyway, the
restructured project was scheduled to be completed by December 1990. When
this was not done, Prof Habib approached the Government for further extension
of the project.
The Government extended
the project on three conditions: The complete Press copy of all the nine
volumes including the editor's introduction would be ready by December
31, 1992. The general editor's introduction to all the volumes would be
ready by December 31, 1992. And all the volumes should be published by
March 31, 1994, but in no case later than March 31, 1997. When the project
could not even meet the above deadline, the Government stopped the funding
of the project on April 1, 1992, and interestingly enough, Prof Habib declared
the Towards Freedom project wound up. However, the project was continued
under a new nomenclature - the Special Publications Programme. This, in
brief, is the history of the project.
I will make a few comments
on the three volumes compiled by Dr Basudev Chatterjee. He writes in the
introduction that Jinnah was raising the cry of "Islam in danger" (xvi).
But he misses out Jinnah's statement on the possibility of "communal war"
which he made in Lucknow (October 15, 1937). Incidentally, the text has
a reference to the Lucknow session.
Dr Chatterjee also misses
out mentioning in the introduction the significance of Jinnah being "presented
with a Koran and a sword by the Pesh Imam in Gaya" in January 1938. The
document on the latter is, however, there (page 140I). Perhaps he could
have mentioned and explained the key concept of threat (or politics of
street violence) in Muslim League's strategy, its incapacity for civilised
public debate and a few things about the concocted nature of Muslim grievances
which were important strands in their communitarian political stance before
the Lahore resolution.
It may have, thus, dealt
another blow to the Cambridge revisionist thesis on Partition. Similarly,
Dr Chatterjee's assertion that the Hindu Mahasabha "asserted itself as
the Hindu mirror image of the League" (xvi) is not substantiated by appropriate
evidence. Coupland had also observed that many of the League's "charges
were exaggerated". Though there are 18 pages on Palestine, yet its implication
- the pull of Pan-Islamism and Indian Muslims' extra-territorial loyalty
- is not mentioned in the introduction.
Similarly, to equate
Tabligh and Tanzim with Shuddhi and Sangathan betrays an NCERT text book's
political approach. Certainly, the core ideology behind tanzim and tabligh
has a hoary origin. Let us face facts, however unpalatable they may be
to successful politicians. Thereby, the so called 'communal' Hindu response
may have been better appreciated. I do not suggest that it is deliberate
but that is how a historian's craft turns crafty.
Though there are about
200 pages (documents) on the economy, there is very little of it in the
introduction. Similarly, documents on cinema, film etc, just do not fall
within the ambit of this kind of work. Various other documents on dance,
sports, painting etc, (pages 959-971) are also not relevant.
Then, if the All India
Village Industries Association was such an important organisation, why
was no document concerning its activities included? It would have been
interesting to know how it was helped by the Congress ministries since
its "political value became apparent during the election campaign in 1937"
(xxxii). At least the index does not show that.
In fact, an inadequate
index is a major drawback in this series consisting of 4,000 pages with
1855 documents. Just one example would suffice - while communists, socialists,
Royists have 78 references in the index, the Indian National Congress has
no mention except under the heading "corruption, indiscipline, bogus membership"
and that also merely five references.
A researcher would have
certainly gained if there were references to at least Mahatma Gandhi, Subhash
Chandra Bose and Jawaharlal Nehru. Part III of Dr Chatterjee's volume,
dealing with political affairs in the Indian States, includes all sorts
of documents. Greater caution should have been exercised in reprinting
documents which are easily available like the Linlithgow papers or Choudhary's
Rajendra Prasad Correspondence.
