But surely we can do without this historical sparringThe writing of history is quite distinct from the writing of myth and fable.It is a well-recognised discipline dating back to the days of Herodotus andThucydides. While there is room for a fair degree of subjectiveinterpretation in historical research, in the final analysis its credibilityis based on the authenticity of its source material and its faithfuladherence to the basic tenets of historiography. It is therefore disturbingin the extreme to witness the increasing politicisation that has come tomark the teaching and writing of history in the country today. The latestepisode concerns the withdrawal of two volumes in the `Towards Freedom'series edited by Professor Sumit Sarkar and Professor K.N. Panikkerrespectively, by the Indian Council of Historical Research (ICHR), even asthey were in the process of being printed.The ostensible reason for this move was that the volumes were given inwithout ``authorisation'', a fact that the two historians deny. Sarkar andPanikker argue that their volumes were edited and cleared by the `TowardsFreedom' series editor, Professor S. Gopal. Clearly, the ICHR had erred anderred badly in in its handling of the entire issue. By its own admission,the historians had handed in their manuscripts between August 1998 and June1999. Why then did the august body have to wait so long before it sought thetypescripts from the publisher? Besides, the fact that it did not think itnecessary to inform the authors about this move only goes to fan suspicionsthat it was something of an undercover operation. A national body that seeksto oversee the writing of history in the country should surely haveconducted itself with more accountability and transparency than the ICHRseems to have done. If the ICHR is indeed not acting as an extension counterof the Ministry of Human Resource Development (HRD), as it maintains and theHRD minister insists, then it should have ensured that it does not standrevealed to the world like a ham-handed Inspector Cluedo.What is at stake here is the very principle of academic autonomy andintellectual freedom. Very likely, Sarkar and Panikker hold views that arediametrically opposed to those held by the current political dispensation.But if they are to be challenged, it must be done strictly within theframework of academic discourse, through credible scholastic work, throughthe citing of authentic sources, in short through employing the tried andtested instruments of historiography. To stymie their efforts in this crassfashion only exposes important institutions like the ICHR to charges ofpolitical sycophancy and worse. The ICHR chairperson, Dr B.R. Grover, mayrecall the controversy that accompanied his appointment some months ago. Bynot following the rules and courtesies expected of public institutions likethe one he is presiding over, he has only helped the case of his detractorswho accuse him of partisanship. He must now ensure that the two volumes inquestion see the light of day immediately. The writing of history cannot,must not, be held hostage to political expediency. This is not just anacademic issue, it is a democratic one.>
