#dnaEdit: Historic blunder

Research institutions of repute should be led by high-calibre academics. That is of course the ideal state of affairs — as things should be. On the ground however, academic appointments are made as intellectual and cultural extensions of the political regime of the day. Therefore, its only in keeping with the usual scheme of affairs that the new BJP-led government has appointed a little known historian to head the Indian Council of Historical Research. Yellapragada Sudershan Rao, the new ICHR chairperson, has said with a dash of honest brazenness that he does not fight shy of declaring his appointment ‘political’. Implicit in such an assertion is the unsavoury legacy of the past when the Congress and the mainstream Left parties — during their political heyday — filled academic and cultural institutions with their handpicked appointees. Pliability or endorsement of the philosophy of ruling parties was always a top qualification for such posts, at par with the scholarly feats of the candidates.

What then is the hullabaloo all about? Perhaps it has to do with Rao’s seeming lack of qualification, his dearth of expertise, or the status of his proven calibre as a historian. According to eminent historian Romila Thapar, Rao’s work is “unfamiliar” to most in his profession. His research is little visible and the articles authored by him on the historicity of Indian epics have not been published in any peer reviewed journals. Rao is currently reported to be working on a project to “fix” the date of Mahabharata war. He rebuts the argument of historians like DD Kosambi that Ramayana and Mahabharata have different versions added to them over almost a 1,000 years. Instead, Rao believes that these were true accounts of the periods in which they were authored. He has also now certified the caste system as having “worked well in ancient India.”

The authenticity of the epics has been debated long and hard by historians of repute. Significantly even in this protracted discourse, Rao has not been able to leave his mark. Therein lies the question of his academic legitimacy and his claims to the post of the ICHR head. It’s of course pertinent that Rao’s arguments against “Marxist tools” of historiography resonate with the RSS’s viewpoints about Left perspective.

No doubt, difference over perspectives lends richness to academic discourse. But the differences — emanating from the Right or Left — have to be well grounded in research for them to acquire academic legitimacy. Rhetoric — a handy tool for politicians — is ill-suited for academic debate.

In one of his media interviews, Rao dismissed the “Western” notion of looking for material evidence of history. But as a researcher of ancient history, the professor should be aware that material evidence (archaeological artifacts) alongside texts constitutes an invaluable part of reconstructing history, particularly ancient history. Besides, historiography has come a long way from its obsession with dates. To enhance our understanding of the past and the present we must study the social and cultural lives of the people of those times.

The row over the new ICHR chairperson has renewed all over again the need to de-link academic institutions from political parties and ruling establishments. Unfortunately Rao’s nonchalance over his “political” appointment is of a fit with the prevailing culture of patronage promoted by successive ruling establishments. Mere ruing over the failing academic and research standards of premier institutions will not better them. Changing the unprofessional mode of appointments is in immediate order. Governments must stop leveraging research institutions to feed their narrow political interest