10-06-2003, 09:35 AM
[url="http://www.media-watch.org/articles/0300/60.html"]Arun Shourie exposes ICHR Scandals[/url]
Title: Arun Shourie exposes ICHR scandals
Author: N.S. Rajaram
Publication: BHARATIYA PRAGNA
Date: MARCH 2000 VOLUME 2 NUMBER 3
ICHR is in the news again, not for any scholarly contribution but
for political reasons, which is a fair reflection of its benighted
career under 'secularist' domination. From all the sound and fury
emanating from 'scholars' and their allies in the media, the average
reader may be excused for thinking that high principles are at
stake.
The reality is quite different: it is only a diversionary tactic
meant to save themselves from exposure as venal men and women,
caring nothing for truth and capable of stealing both money and
research. This is clear from Arun Shourie's thoroughly documented
"Eminent Historians". True to character, the English language media
has taken up their side without even mentioning their record, or
even Shourie's expose.
Here is the real story behind one of the major controversies. The
Government of India funded the ICHR to produce a comprehensive
multi-volume work on the Freedom Movement, to be called 'Towards
Freedom'. The importance of the project is not in dispute,
especially as the British produced a multi-volume work on the
transfer of power giving their version of the story. But the
'eminent historians' of the ICHR failed to produce the work even
though the funds allotted to the project were spent.
As Shourie points out: "An afterword is in order to this sorry tale
of the Towards Freedom Project. As far as history writing is
concerned, few things could have been more important than to bring
alive for subsequent generations what our leaders felt and did in
the long struggle to wrest freedom for the country. And just see how
these eminences have handled this responsibility: a project which
was to have been completed in five years and a few lakhs has been
dragged for twenty-seven years, a crore and seventy-odd lakhs have
been gobbled up in its name - and the volumes are still said to be
on their way. This is gross dereliction - independent of what the
volumes will contain, and what they would have left out."
[Correction: it seems the amount was more like four crores (forty
million).]
It is worth noting that an earlier effort on the history of the
Freedom Movement headed by the great historian R.C. Majumdar was
aborted by vested forces within the Congress. What was Majumdar's
crime? He refused to bend history to suit the interests of the
Congress. It was given to a greatly inferior scholar, one Tarachand,
who produced a worthless tract. Fortunately, Majumdar had the will -
and the scholarship - to produce without any sponsors the
magisterial three-volume "History of the Freedom Movement in India"
(Firma KLM, Calcutta). Majumdar went on to observe: "... It is an
ominous sign of the times that Indian history is being viewed in
official circles in the perspective of recent politics. The official
history of the freedom movement starts with the premise that India
lost independence only in the eighteenth century and had thus an
experience of subjection to a foreign power for only two centuries.
Real history, on the other hand, teaches us that the major part of
India lost independence about five centuries before, and merely
changed masters in the eighteenth century."
Returning to the Towards Freedom project, some of the details
ferreted out by Shourie are enlightening. Several historians claimed
that they worked on various projects in an 'honorary capacity',
implying that they took no money for their work. This was a
subterfuge. They invariably took substantial sums of money at the
beginning of the project, but were not given the final installment
due upon the completion of the project, for the simple reason they
never did complete the project.
This can be illustrated with a case involving a leading historian -
no doubt eminent as well - Bipin Chandra. This 'eminent historian'
was sanctioned Rs 75,000 for the year 1987-88 for the assignment
entitled 'A History of the Indian National Congress'. By 1989, he
had been given Rs 57,500 with the balance (Rs 17,500) to be paid
after the completed manuscript was submitted. He did not receive the
balance due because he never cared to submit any manuscript. Upon
inquiry, Shourie was told by the ICHR that the remaining balance is
yet to be paid because a "formal manuscript in this regard is yet to
be received." In other words, Bipin Chandra had taken whatever money
he could without producing anything. This is not the full story
however. Shourie writes (pp 15-16):
"Later I learnt that the Rs 75,000/- which had been allotted to this
"eminent historian" for this project - "the Oral History Project" -
had been but a part, a small part of the total take. Bipin Chandra
was given in addition Rs Two Lakhs by the ICSSR and Rs Four Lakhs
through the Jawaharlal Nehru University. Neither institution
received any manuscript from him." In other words, this eminent
historian was like a scam operator, taking money promising future
gains, and then disappearing with the cash. The sums involved will
seem small when compared to the crores and scores of crores looted
by politicians and scamsters. But if they stole relatively small
sums of money, it is only because that was all they could lay their
hands on. It was not thrift but lack of opportunity that prevented
them from scaling Boforsian heights.
It was not just money they stole, but also other people's research
as the following episode involving Irfan Habib and his protege
Tasneem Ahmad shows. In the year 1976-77, the late Dr. Paramatma
Saran, one of India's most distinguished medieval historians,
submitted to the ICHR the English translation (with annotations) of
the Persian work Tarikh-i-Akbari by Arif Qandhari. Soon the
manuscript mysteriously disappeared from its archives until it
resurfaced nearly twenty-five years later under bizarre
circumstances. In response to repeated inquiries by Dr. Saran's
son-in-law, and even an official inquiry, the Deputy Director of the
Medieval Unit of ICHR - one Tasneem Ahmad - reported that the
manuscript was "submitted but not traceable." The official inquiry
also somehow got killed, because of the involvement of a galaxy of
'eminent historians', notably Irfan Habib.
A case of utter irresponsibility - one might say - but the story is
only beginning. The very same 'submitted but not traceable'
manuscript was submitted as a Ph.D. dissertation by none other than
Tasneem Ahmad, the Deputy Director of the Medieval Unit of the ICHR!
He even had the temerity to publish it under his own name with a
foreword by Irfan Habib who showered fulsome praise on his protege.
"What it [Tarikh-i-Akbari] needed," wrote the eminent historian
Irfan Habib in his Foreword to the stolen work "was a full-scale
English translation. This has been provided by Dr. Tasneem Ahmad in
a very competent manner, aiming at faithful accuracy and at a
critical assessment of the information here received by comparing it
with that offered by other sources."
The 'eminent' Professor Habib of the Aligarh Muslim University,
twice Chairman of the ICHR and five times its member, did not stop
there. He lauded the pilfered work as a "notable contribution to the
National celebration of the 450th Anniversary of Akbar's birth. I
feel confident that it would reinforce the interest in Akbar's age
widespread among those who have a care for the long process of the
creation of a composite culture and a unity that together constitute
what is India." Habib's is now one of the loudest voices complaining
about the politicization of the ICHR! Of course, "Brutus is an
honourable man."
As we examine the work of these 'eminent historians' and their modus
operandi, plagiarism and corruption - though heinous in themselves -
are not their worst sins. They are guilty of the far greater sin of
'corruption of the spirit' - as Veda Vyasa called it - of forging an
ideology and methodology built around institutionalized lying. It is
an ideology that simply refuses to acknowledge the existence of
truth. Whatever suits their self-interest is held up as truth - to
be imposed on the nation.
In this context, it is worth recording what Koenraad Elst had to say
about Sita Ram Goel's Hindu Temples, What Happened to Them (Volume
II). Elst observed: "If this book ever gets the publicity it
deserves, negationist ['secularist'] historians will find it
difficult to show their faces in public. They stand exposed, and
only their control of the media can save their reputation by
censoring their career-long efforts at history falsification."
That day has hopefully dawned with the breaking of the 'secularist'
monopoly over the ICHR and other institutions. And the 'secularist'
noise about the Towards Freedom Project and cries of
'Saffronization' are nothing but diversionary tactics meant to save
themselves from exposure and public disgrace. Thanks to Shourie's
Eminent Historians, they can run but cannot hide.
Title: Arun Shourie exposes ICHR scandals
Author: N.S. Rajaram
Publication: BHARATIYA PRAGNA
Date: MARCH 2000 VOLUME 2 NUMBER 3
ICHR is in the news again, not for any scholarly contribution but
for political reasons, which is a fair reflection of its benighted
career under 'secularist' domination. From all the sound and fury
emanating from 'scholars' and their allies in the media, the average
reader may be excused for thinking that high principles are at
stake.
The reality is quite different: it is only a diversionary tactic
meant to save themselves from exposure as venal men and women,
caring nothing for truth and capable of stealing both money and
research. This is clear from Arun Shourie's thoroughly documented
"Eminent Historians". True to character, the English language media
has taken up their side without even mentioning their record, or
even Shourie's expose.
Here is the real story behind one of the major controversies. The
Government of India funded the ICHR to produce a comprehensive
multi-volume work on the Freedom Movement, to be called 'Towards
Freedom'. The importance of the project is not in dispute,
especially as the British produced a multi-volume work on the
transfer of power giving their version of the story. But the
'eminent historians' of the ICHR failed to produce the work even
though the funds allotted to the project were spent.
As Shourie points out: "An afterword is in order to this sorry tale
of the Towards Freedom Project. As far as history writing is
concerned, few things could have been more important than to bring
alive for subsequent generations what our leaders felt and did in
the long struggle to wrest freedom for the country. And just see how
these eminences have handled this responsibility: a project which
was to have been completed in five years and a few lakhs has been
dragged for twenty-seven years, a crore and seventy-odd lakhs have
been gobbled up in its name - and the volumes are still said to be
on their way. This is gross dereliction - independent of what the
volumes will contain, and what they would have left out."
[Correction: it seems the amount was more like four crores (forty
million).]
It is worth noting that an earlier effort on the history of the
Freedom Movement headed by the great historian R.C. Majumdar was
aborted by vested forces within the Congress. What was Majumdar's
crime? He refused to bend history to suit the interests of the
Congress. It was given to a greatly inferior scholar, one Tarachand,
who produced a worthless tract. Fortunately, Majumdar had the will -
and the scholarship - to produce without any sponsors the
magisterial three-volume "History of the Freedom Movement in India"
(Firma KLM, Calcutta). Majumdar went on to observe: "... It is an
ominous sign of the times that Indian history is being viewed in
official circles in the perspective of recent politics. The official
history of the freedom movement starts with the premise that India
lost independence only in the eighteenth century and had thus an
experience of subjection to a foreign power for only two centuries.
Real history, on the other hand, teaches us that the major part of
India lost independence about five centuries before, and merely
changed masters in the eighteenth century."
Returning to the Towards Freedom project, some of the details
ferreted out by Shourie are enlightening. Several historians claimed
that they worked on various projects in an 'honorary capacity',
implying that they took no money for their work. This was a
subterfuge. They invariably took substantial sums of money at the
beginning of the project, but were not given the final installment
due upon the completion of the project, for the simple reason they
never did complete the project.
This can be illustrated with a case involving a leading historian -
no doubt eminent as well - Bipin Chandra. This 'eminent historian'
was sanctioned Rs 75,000 for the year 1987-88 for the assignment
entitled 'A History of the Indian National Congress'. By 1989, he
had been given Rs 57,500 with the balance (Rs 17,500) to be paid
after the completed manuscript was submitted. He did not receive the
balance due because he never cared to submit any manuscript. Upon
inquiry, Shourie was told by the ICHR that the remaining balance is
yet to be paid because a "formal manuscript in this regard is yet to
be received." In other words, Bipin Chandra had taken whatever money
he could without producing anything. This is not the full story
however. Shourie writes (pp 15-16):
"Later I learnt that the Rs 75,000/- which had been allotted to this
"eminent historian" for this project - "the Oral History Project" -
had been but a part, a small part of the total take. Bipin Chandra
was given in addition Rs Two Lakhs by the ICSSR and Rs Four Lakhs
through the Jawaharlal Nehru University. Neither institution
received any manuscript from him." In other words, this eminent
historian was like a scam operator, taking money promising future
gains, and then disappearing with the cash. The sums involved will
seem small when compared to the crores and scores of crores looted
by politicians and scamsters. But if they stole relatively small
sums of money, it is only because that was all they could lay their
hands on. It was not thrift but lack of opportunity that prevented
them from scaling Boforsian heights.
It was not just money they stole, but also other people's research
as the following episode involving Irfan Habib and his protege
Tasneem Ahmad shows. In the year 1976-77, the late Dr. Paramatma
Saran, one of India's most distinguished medieval historians,
submitted to the ICHR the English translation (with annotations) of
the Persian work Tarikh-i-Akbari by Arif Qandhari. Soon the
manuscript mysteriously disappeared from its archives until it
resurfaced nearly twenty-five years later under bizarre
circumstances. In response to repeated inquiries by Dr. Saran's
son-in-law, and even an official inquiry, the Deputy Director of the
Medieval Unit of ICHR - one Tasneem Ahmad - reported that the
manuscript was "submitted but not traceable." The official inquiry
also somehow got killed, because of the involvement of a galaxy of
'eminent historians', notably Irfan Habib.
A case of utter irresponsibility - one might say - but the story is
only beginning. The very same 'submitted but not traceable'
manuscript was submitted as a Ph.D. dissertation by none other than
Tasneem Ahmad, the Deputy Director of the Medieval Unit of the ICHR!
He even had the temerity to publish it under his own name with a
foreword by Irfan Habib who showered fulsome praise on his protege.
"What it [Tarikh-i-Akbari] needed," wrote the eminent historian
Irfan Habib in his Foreword to the stolen work "was a full-scale
English translation. This has been provided by Dr. Tasneem Ahmad in
a very competent manner, aiming at faithful accuracy and at a
critical assessment of the information here received by comparing it
with that offered by other sources."
The 'eminent' Professor Habib of the Aligarh Muslim University,
twice Chairman of the ICHR and five times its member, did not stop
there. He lauded the pilfered work as a "notable contribution to the
National celebration of the 450th Anniversary of Akbar's birth. I
feel confident that it would reinforce the interest in Akbar's age
widespread among those who have a care for the long process of the
creation of a composite culture and a unity that together constitute
what is India." Habib's is now one of the loudest voices complaining
about the politicization of the ICHR! Of course, "Brutus is an
honourable man."
As we examine the work of these 'eminent historians' and their modus
operandi, plagiarism and corruption - though heinous in themselves -
are not their worst sins. They are guilty of the far greater sin of
'corruption of the spirit' - as Veda Vyasa called it - of forging an
ideology and methodology built around institutionalized lying. It is
an ideology that simply refuses to acknowledge the existence of
truth. Whatever suits their self-interest is held up as truth - to
be imposed on the nation.
In this context, it is worth recording what Koenraad Elst had to say
about Sita Ram Goel's Hindu Temples, What Happened to Them (Volume
II). Elst observed: "If this book ever gets the publicity it
deserves, negationist ['secularist'] historians will find it
difficult to show their faces in public. They stand exposed, and
only their control of the media can save their reputation by
censoring their career-long efforts at history falsification."
That day has hopefully dawned with the breaking of the 'secularist'
monopoly over the ICHR and other institutions. And the 'secularist'
noise about the Towards Freedom Project and cries of
'Saffronization' are nothing but diversionary tactics meant to save
themselves from exposure and public disgrace. Thanks to Shourie's
Eminent Historians, they can run but cannot hide.