ICHR – the politicization started with the Congress, Communists and Mohammedans and continues!

ICHR – the politicization started with the Congress, Communists and Mohammedans and continues!

The Politicization of ICHR and Savarkar: The politicization of ICHR has been started by historians themselves since early 1960s with the connivance of the Marxists and Mohammedans. This has been blatantly revealed through their manipulation of the proceedings of the ICHR itself. The proceedings of the IHC, particularly, the business session exposed many times, how the so-called great historians have been more unruly than the politicians in shouting and even ready to fight. Even in the recent Savarkar issue, they get exposed. Days after the Rajasthan Congress government removed “veer” from references to VD Savarkar from its textbooks, Rajasthan University has now declined a request from the Indian Council for Historical Research, an autonomous academic body funded by the Government of India, to have a seminar on the Hindutva figurehead[1]. The event, part of a multi-city talk series planned by the ICHR, backed by the history-rewriting wing of the RSS affiliate, Akhil Bharatiya Itihas Sankalan Yojana, “The truth about Savarkar” was launched, on the occasion of National Education Day, commemorated every year on India’s first education minister Maulana Abul Kalam Azad’s birthday[2]. The talk series will mainly focus on “confronting lies about Savarkar and his writings on the 1857 war of independence”, ICHR officials said.

Rajasthan University versus ICHR for conducting a seminar on Savarkar [November 2019]: Rajasthan university officials confirmed to ET that they had “declined” the request for space for the seminar as “certain aspects of Savarkar were deeply controversial”. The other seminars of ICHR on Savarkar were to be held in Jaipur, Guwahati, Port Blair, Pune and some other cities. “We had sought space and permission from the Rajasthan University to hold a talk series on Savarkar in their campus but they got back saying we could choose any other topic,” an ICHR functionary told ET. Pramila Poonia, head of the department of history and culture, Rajasthan University, told ET that they had not agreed when ICHR had presented them the proposal on hosting a seminar on Savarkar. “We didn’t refuse entirely but we asked them for time for a month, and more details because we need to consult others on this. There are aspects of Savarkar that are controversial and we did not want any problem.”

Historians biased on Savarkar: Recently, during the Maharashtra campaign, BJP had promised a Bharat Ratna for Savarkar that had led to a lot of debate. Rajasthan chief minister Ashok Gehlot had specifically criticised this, and had called the BJP “a party with a fascist ideology” with no regard for anyone’s sentiment. Balmukund Pandey of the ABISY, who looks after the Sangh Parivar’s “rewriting history from the Indian perspective”, project told ET that it is high time “the country got to know about the sacrifices made by Savarkar and his brothers”. “His ideas are important for the country to be on the right track.” At the ICHR, four research professors talked about ways to “confront the character assassination” of Savarkar, particularly about his mercy petitions to the British, which they said, “was typical of the language used by many leaders then”. “He was a trained legal mind who was aware of his rights, and he ended it every time saying if not him, at least his companions should be released”, Raghuvendra Tanwar, professor, Kurukshetra University, told the audience, adding the conspiracy to keep Savarkar out of mainstream politics was designed by the British because, he, unlike Swami Vivekananda or Lok Manya Tilak looked at the political revival of Hindutva. “He was the first leader who brought out the truth about the independence struggle of 1857 on a global platform with his book in 1909. For him, the essentials of Hindutva were the essentials of nationalism. We must never forget that Bhagat Singh had a lot of respect for him and was instrumental in getting his book published in Lahore.”

The left and Savarkar: Another speaker Himanshu Rai, who is a researcher at the Nehru Memorial Museum and Library, took on the writings of authors Tanika Sarkar, Shamshul Islam and AG Noorani, on Savarkar calling them “divisive”. “The left always had a problem with him, because even in jail he started the process of Shuddhi, of encouraging prisoners not to convert…” Rizwan Qaiser, professor, department of history, Jamia Millia Islamia, said it was inappropriate of the ICHR to honour Savarkar on Maulana Abul Kalam Azad’s birthday. “Azad was always very critical of the Sangh Parivar’s divisive politics and in 1952, in Rampur, he openly blamed them for driving the Muslims to the corner which led to the partition. Savarkar’s writings have always been exclusionary of the Muslims. Even his book on 1857 represents the struggle as a pan-India uprising which it was not. Some facts cannot be changed.”

Modi and Shah filling ICHR “historian with little or no professional standing” [December 2019]: Most importantly, they [Modi and Shah] have deployed their newfound and growing power with an alarming clarity of vision. To that end, they have appointed individuals with dubious intellectual qualifications to key governmental institutions with the explicit goal of promoting and disseminating a radical Hindu ideology[3]. For example, the government, even during its first term, chose a historian with little or no professional standing, to head the apex Indian Council of Historical Research. Since the council is responsible for directing the content of history textbooks, this appointment was fraught with significance[4]. Can columnist write in this way, as if she knows everything about ICHR and what has been going on since 1960s?

When government changes, all the departments and institutions, rearranged: As the political parties have been ruling, it is quite natural that their appointees occupy positions in every department, institution, courts and other places. ICHR has been thus dominated by the Communists and Mohammedans of all sorts, whereas, the paper says, that “the Indian Council for Historical Research (ICHR) has disbanded the advisory committee of its journal comprising 21 eminent historians from around the world”, including Romila Thapar and Irfan Habib[5]. The council’s member-secretary Gopinath Ravindran opposed the decision taken during a meeting of the journal’s editorial board held this week, people familiar with the matter told ET[6]. That means it is only between him and the paper. The decision to “disband the committee” is among the first taken by the country’s top historical research body after it was reconstituted by the NDA government in January, 2015. Yes, as UPA did and earlier Congress did. The Indian Historical Review is the refereed journal of the ICHR that has been publishing research work in history since 1974. It is one of the few Indian journals found on the prestigious Thomson Reuters list. The panel was disbanded in a meeting of the journal’s editorial board, headed by ICHR Chairman Y Sudershan Rao, on Tuesday, May 15, 2015.

Advisory Committee and all are just ornamental and they do not do any work – a known fact [2015]: The membership of the new advisory committee is now limited to the 18 historians on ICHR’s governing body. The advisory committee included Satish Chandra, Muzaffar Alam from the University of Chicago, Richard M Eaton of the University of Arizona, BR Tomlinson from London’s School of Oriental and African Studies and JS Grewal, former vice-chancellor of Guru Nanak Dev University in Amritsar. Although the advisory members are not actively involved in producing the biannual journal, they help in reviewing articles that appear in it. “A panel of eminent historians lends lustre to the journal. It adds to its credibility,” said Professor BP Sahu of Delhi University, a former ICHR member. Ravindran, who also serves as the managing editor of IHR, opposed the decision on the grounds that it wasn’t backed by any “academic logic”, one of the persons cited earlier said. Ravindran, a professor of history at Jamia Millia Islamia in New Delhi, who was appointed as ICHR’s member secretary under the previous UPA II government, declined to comment on the matter. Rao, however, defended the decision saying the appointment of the advisory panel for IHR is purely the prerogative of the journal’s editorial board. “There is nothing unusual or wrong about this,” he said.

Professor Dilip Chakrabarti of Cambridge University is the new chief editor of the journal: Thapar told ET that Romila Thapar had received no official communication about her removal from IHR’s advisory panel. Asked if she was surprised by the news of her removal, she said, “Not really. One can see from the membership of the new council which direction they are heading into.” Reacting to the decision to limit the panel’s membership to just ICHR members, she said, “The whole point of the advisory board is that you can search far and wide for people who have expertise in various subjects. If you limit the membership of the advisory board to just members of the ICHR, you are, in a sense, annulling the purpose of the advisory board, which is to get as wide an opinion as possible on what to put into the journal.” This development comes close on the heels of historian Sabyasachi Bhattacharya’s resignation from the post of chief editor of the journal last month. Although Bhattacharya gave no official reason for quitting, media reports suggested he was unhappy with the “direction” the ICHR is taking. Professor Dilip Chakrabarti of Cambridge University is the new chief editor of the journal. What is the problem for Romila Thapar or Irfan Habib? Do they expect that they should e there forever!

Left versus Right: If the left now feels that they are getting less postings, it is natural because, they have been enjoying government postings, grants and all other facilities since 1960s. As they have monopolized ICHR, ICCSR, UGC etc., now they feel so. It is also corruption and sickness of their highly intellectual minds to insist and persist that they should continue. There is no meaning in accusing BJP or RSS, as they have been working with their outfits that have been dominating since 1960s. The regulars of IHC and ICCSR conferences and seminars have noted the fact. How the grants for publication and foreign travel were distributed among themselves also consciously noted. Now perhaps, their share would get reduced and that is why they start crying and shouting. Had they been real historians, they would be contended and quite without raising noise and crating controversies getting exposed in this way. When all are retiring, these people should also retire, as they have become senile.

© Vedaprakash

25-12-2019

[1] Economic Times, No space for Savarkar: Rajasthan University tells ICHR, By  Vasudha Venugopal, ET Bureau, Nov 12, 2019, 09.14 AM IST.

[2] http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/no-space-for-savarkar-rajasthan-university-tells-ichr/articleshow/72016518.cms

[3] Foreign Policy, Secularism Is Dying in India, by Sumit Ganguly, December 11, 2019, 7:41 PM.

[4] http://foreignpolicy.com/2019/12/11/secularism-is-dying-in-india/

[5] Economic Times, ICHR dissolves advisory panel comprising Romila Thapar & Irfan Habib, By Ritika Chopra, ET Bureau, May 16, 2015, 04.00 AM IST

[6] https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/ichr-dissolves-advisory-panel-comprising-romila-thapar-irfan-habib/articleshow/47303073.cms?from=mdr&fbclid=IwAR0WvTbTLm1xr_wAjaOgUI7sikO_m0CXCJZVJwhGVpFG00JHf4nGDR9rByQ