‘Rational vs National,’ screamed the headline of the new pall-bearer of secularism, the magazine Outlook. ‘Fresh evidence available with Outlook revealed that not only has the ICHR (the Indian Council of Historical Research) was packed with “sympathizers,”’ the story announced, ‘but a new statement of objectives or resolution had been added, changing certain key words from the authentic Memorandum of Association of 1972, legitimized by an Act of Parliament.

While the original Memorandum of Association stated that ICHR would aim to give “rational” direction to historical research and foster “an objective and scientific writing of history,” the new resolution, which will be included in the Gazette of India, stated that ICHR now seeks to give a “national” direction to an “objective and national presentation of history.” So, “rational” had been changed to “national,” and “scientific” too has been changed to “national” ….’

‘Tampering with history,’ proclaimed the old pall-bearer, The Hindu. ‘Apprehensions of this kind (that the fabled “Sangh Parivar” is out to rewrite history) had been substantiated by a related decision. The resolution by the Ministry of Human Resources Development – the nodal Ministry under which the ICHR comes – that details the new nominations carry with it an amendment to the Memorandum of Association by which the ICHR was set up; while the institution was set up “to foster objective and scientific writing of histories such as will inculcate an informed appreciation of the country’s national and cultural heritage,” the new government’s mandate was that the ICHR will give a “national direction” to an “objective and national presentation and interpretation of history.” This amendment was certainly not just a matter of semantics. Instead, one can see in this an intention on the part of the  BJP-led government to rewrite history.’

The next issue of the CPI(M) mouthpiece, Peoples Democracy, reproduced this editorial! And carried an article by one of the ringleaders, KN Panikkar. ‘Saffronisation of historical research,’ proclaimed the heading. Panikkar repeated the charge of the word ‘rational’ having been replaced by ‘national.’ He added another: the Memorandum of Association of the ICHR mentions five objectives, he said, but the resolution put out by the saffron brigade notes only two.

Thus, the charge rested on three bits of ‘evidence,’ that the Memorandum of Association of the ICHR had been changed; second, that a word – ‘rational’ – in the resolution announcing the new members of the ICHR had been secretly replaced by another word – ‘national’; third, that while the original Memorandum of Association had specified five objectives for the ICHR, the new resolution cut out three of these.

Having been educated by The Hindu that the ‘nodal ministry’ for the matter was the Ministry of Human Resources Development, Arun Shourie inquired with the secretary of that ministry if the Memorandum of Association of the ICHR was changed? And got his answer in negative that no, it was not changed.

The statement of the Ministry of Human Resources Development [No. F. 30-28/86-U3] dated 6 October 1987, gives the text of the resolution of the Government of India announcing the new members – announcing, among other things, that Irfan Habib was appointed as chairman with retrospective effect from 9 September 1986. The corresponding expression was, ‘to give a national direction to an objective and NATIONAL presentation and interpretation of history….’

The statement of the Ministry of Human Resources Development [No. F. 30-13/89-U3] dated 15 May 1991, gives the text of the resolution of the government of India announcing the new members – announcing, among other things, that Irfan Habib was being reappointed as chairman with retrospective effect from 12 March 1990. The corresponding expression was, ‘to give a national direction to an objective and NATIONAL presentation and interpretation of history….’

The immediately preceding statement of the ministry [No. F. 30-3/94-U.3] dated 8 September 1994, gives the text of the resolution of the Government of India announcing the new members – announcing, among other things, that Ravinder Kumar, another ‘historian’ of the same hue, was appointed as chairman with retrospective effect from 8 September 1990. The corresponding expression was, ‘to give a national direction to an objective and NATIONAL presentation and interpretation of history….’

The resolutions going back to 1978 – that is, for decades have the exact words!

The research of the ministry's secretary and his colleagues established that –  the whole mystery had arisen from a ‘typographical error’: some typist banging away on his typewriter a few decades ago typed ‘rational’ as ‘national.’ As each typist, when asked to type out the subsequent resolution, copied the preceding one, that word continued to be typed as ‘national’ year after year. The leftists then inferred no conspiracy. But now that a BJP government was in power, figuring conspiracies – to use their favorite phrase – was a historical necessity. It was objective history! It was a progressive methodology! But it was not even little expected of them to put on their Sherlock Holmes caps again and establish that the governments of Mrs. Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi, VP Singh, and Narasimha Rao had all been in league with the RSS and, therefore, parties to this grave conspiracy!

Precisely the same thing held for that fabrication of KN Panikkar: about five objectives to become two. In every one of the resolutions – including the 1994 resolution during which Panikkar had himself been nominated to the ICHR, a resolution printed on page 342 of The Gazette of India, 22 October 1994 – exactly the same sentences were used.

Such forgeries and such allegations are the standard technology of this school. Fabricating conspiracy theories is their well-practiced weapon. And they have a network: stories containing the same ‘facts’ about the ICHR had figured prominently in the paper after paper. In The Asian Age on 6th June: ‘ICHR revamp has RSS tilt.’ The Indian Express on 8th June: ‘Historians cry foul as HRD Ministry paints ICHR saffron.’ In the Hindustan Times on 9th June: ‘Historians see saffron in ICHR appointments.’ In The Hindu editorial of June 12th: ‘Tampering with history.’ 

The frontmen having spoken, the ventriloquist had stepped forth – the Peoples Democracy of 21st June: ‘Saffronisation of historical research.’

The associated charge, repeated in Outlook and all the other publications, was that historians who had now been nominated to the ICHR were the ones who supported the proposition that there had been a Ram temple at Ayodhya before the Babri mosque replaced it. What about the members who had not been renominated? They were the intellectual guides and propagandists of the Babri Masjid Action Committee. They represented it at the meetings Mr. Chandrashekhar’s government had convened to settle the matter by evidence. That was an outstanding initiative of Mr. Chandrashekhar: for such contentious issues ought to be dissolved in the acid of proof.

These leftist ‘historians’ had attended the initial meetings. They had put together for and on behalf of the Committee ‘documents’. It was a miscellaneous pile. And it had become immediately evident that this pile was no counter to the mass of archaeological, historical, and literary evidence which the VHP had furnished, that, in fact, the ‘documents’ these guides of the Babri Committee had piled up further substantiated the VHP’s case. These ‘historians,’ having undertaken to attend the meeting to consider the evidence presented by the two sides, just did not show up!

It was this withdrawal that aborted the initiative that the government had undertaken of bringing the two sides together, of introducing evidence and discourse into the issue. Nothing but nothing paved the way for the demolition, as did this running away by these ‘historians.’ It was the last nail: no one could be persuaded after that evidence or reason would be allowed anywhere near the issue.

Not only were these ‘historians’ the advisers of the Babri Masjid Action Committee, its advocates in the negotiations, they simultaneously issued all sorts of statements supporting the Babri Masjid Action Committee’s case – which was the ‘case’ they had themselves prepared! A well-practiced technique, they are from a school where members have made each other famous by applauding each other’s books and ‘theses’!

And these very ‘historians’ are cited as witnesses in the courts' pleadings filed by the Sunni Waqf Board, which is considering the Ayodhya matter!

• Witness number 63: R.S. Sharma;
• Witness number 64: Suraj Bhan;
• Witness number 65: D.N. Jha;
• Witness number 66: Romila Thapar;
• Witness number 67: Athar Ali (since deceased); …
• Witness number 70: Irfan Habib;
• Witness number 71: Shireen Moosvi, also from Aligarh Muslim University;
• Witness number 72: B.N. Pandey (since deceased); …
• Witness number 74: R.L. Shukla; …
• Witness number 82: Sushil Srivastava; …
• Witness number 95: K.M. Shrimali;
• Witness number 96: Suveera Jayaswal; …
• Witness number 99: Satish Chandra; …
• Witness number 101: Sumit Sarkar;
• Witness number 102: Gyanendra Pandey; …

Their deceitful role in Ayodhya – which ultimately harmed their clients more than anyone else – was just symptomatic. For fifty years, this bunch was just suppressing facts and inventing lies. How concerned they pretend to be today about that objective of the ICHR – to promote objective and rational research into past events! How does this concern square with the guidelines their West Bengal government issued in 1989, which Outlook quoted: ' Muslim rule should never attract any criticism. Destruction of temples by Muslim rulers and invaders should not be mentioned?’ But incorporating their wholesale fabrications of the destruction of Buddhist viharas about the non-existent ‘Aryan invasion’,

is mandatory – to question them is to be a

communal, chauvinist! The capture of institutions like the ICHR has been bad enough, but in the end, it has been a device. The major crime of these ‘historians’ has been this partisanship: suppresso veri, suggesto falsi.

But these are not just partisan ‘historians.’ They are nepotists of the first order, evident from document records of the appointments in the Aligarh Muslim University. Their doings in the ICHR were true to the pattern. How is it that over twenty-five years, persons from their school alone had been nominated to the ICHR? How come that Romila Thapar had been on the Council four times? Irfan Habib five times? Satish Chandra four times? S Gopal three times?… The same pattern held for the post of chairman.

But we are getting ahead of the story: what was their answer when their fabrication – ‘rational changed to national’ – was nailed? A much-favored device: insinuate that the other man is privileged when caught peddling a lie! And that, as you are from the toiling masses, you cannot ascertain whether the facts he has stated are actual.

Therefore, what you stated must stand as fact. QED!

References:

Eminent Historians - Their technology, their line, their fraud | Arun Shourie