Arun Shourie
How fulsome they have been in commending each other -- the patrons and subalterns!
First the significance of Arif Qandhari's Tarikh-i-Akbari : it confirms what we know from Abul Fazl's Akbar Nama, says the eminent historian, it furnishes information we did not have earlier. He then recalls what has been done in regard to Qandhari's history by scholars already : "The Tarikh-i-Akbari has been excellently edited and annotated by Muinuddin Nadvi, Azhar Ali Dehlawi and Imtiaz Ali Arshi." And so, the need of the hour : "What it [the Tarikh-i-Akbari] now needed was a full-scale English translation." This pressing need, at last fulfilled : "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."
Not just that. This most eminent of historians writes :
"The publication of Dr. Tasneem Ahmad's translation is 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."
Not just the needs of history, therefore, those of secularism, of unity based on a composite culture too fulfilled! Such fulsome commendation from the very eminent, Irfan Habib himself in his Foreword to the book. And don't miss the description of India -- just the composite culture and unity which it has taken a long process to create ! The unity of course being nothing but a manifestation of, and totally dependent on that composite culture! So, composite culture it is.
The compliments duly returned : "The first and foremost [sic.]," writes Tasneem Ahmad, "I express my profound sense of gratitude, very personal regards and respects to Professor Irfan Habib, who encouraged and guided me at every stage of the work. In spite of his very pressing engagements and pre-occupation, he ungrudgingly spared his valuable time to examine with care every intricate problem, arising out [sic.] during the course of work."
The debt to another of these eminences not forgotten either : "My debt to my revered teacher," writes Tasneem Ahmad, "Professor Satish Chandra is incalculable. He took great pains in reading and correcting the work and his considered suggestions have paid me rich dividend."
"Examining with care every problem arising out during the course of work"? Taking "great pains in reading and correcting the work"? Advancing "considered suggestions" which "pay rich dividend"? -- when the entire manuscript has been lifted word for word from the work of Dr Parmatma Saran?
It isn't just a part of that composite culture that a subaltern should execute such genuflections towards his patrons. It is plain prudence. By thanking them for their "guidance at every stage," for their "corrections" and "suggestions", the subaltern ensures that they too are culpable, and, therefore, to protect themselves if for no other reason, they will shield him!
The plagiarised book is appropriately dedicated : "To the memory of my revered Ustad," writes Tasneem Ahmad, "Professor S Nurul Hasan" -� a "scholar" famous for his unpublished writings, the initial master-mind who coordinated the capture of academic institutions by the progressives. How fitting -- that when it comes to dedicating something to such a person, the devotee should give as offering a stolen manuscript!
And what do we learn now?
"For some time an allegation has been made on one of the employees of the Council," begins a note prepared for the ICHR meeting held on 31st August and September 1st, "that a work entitled Tarikh-i-Akbari, translated by Professor Parmatma Saran under the scheme of the ICHR, was appropriated by the Deputy Director of a Medieval Unit [of the ICHR itself]." Because of the persistence of this allegation, and because of questions raised by members of Parliament, it goes on to say, the Chairman constituted a Fact-Finding Committee on 8 August, 1998 to get to the bottom of the matter.
The Committee consisted of Professor K S Lal, an authority on medieval India, Professor Harbans Mukhia of the Jawaharlal Nehru University, and Dr T R Sareen, former Director of the ICHR. It was asked to assess, inter alia, whether Dr. Parmatma Saran's manuscript had been received in the Council [you will recall that in one of their letters to me the Ministry of Human Resource Development had said that it did not seem that the manuscript had ever been received], and to ascertain whether the manuscript had been "in any form plagiarised by anybody, within or outside the Council."
The manuscript of 62 pages which, as I reported earlier, had been recovered in the almirahs of the ICHR was turned over to the Committee. Here are the Committee's findings on the questions :
"(1) On the strength of the published Annual Report of the ICHR for the year 1976-77 (p. 11), it is obvious that the translation of Tarikh-i-Akbari into English done by Professor Parmatma Saran was received in the Council. This is also confirmed by the report submitted by the Grants-in-Aid Unit of the Council dated 24.8.1995 when a preliminary enquiry was constituted to locate the manuscript. The fact(s) (are) that full payment of honorarium was made to the scholar (which in normal case is only done after the receipt of the completed manuscript), and the second project was granted to Professor P. Saran only after completion of the first project. This related to the translation of Mirat-ul-Istlab, which was assigned to Professor P. Saran in February, 1978. This also indirectly confirms the receipt of the earlier manuscript on Tarikh-i-Akbari. With this evidence, the Committee is led to believe that there is no reason to doubt the receipt of the manuscript Tarikh-i-Akbari by the Council.
(2) The Committee was provided with sixty odd pages of type-script of the translation of Tarikh-i-Akbari done by Professor P Saran. These pages were recovered from the file dealing with the translation assigned to Professor P Saran. These pages were compared with that published by one of the members of the ICHR, Shri Tasneem Ahmad, and the Committee found overwhelming similarity between Professor P Saran's translation and Shri Ahmad's book. The Committee felt that the similarity could not be accidental and the element of plagiarism cannot be ruled out."
How befitting : as tribute to the 450th anniversary of Akbar, to that "composite culture and unity that together constitute India" -- a plagiarised book!
And the finale : in his office at the ICHR Tasneem Ahmad has kept on display a photograph -- it shows him presenting the book to the then President of India, Dr. Shankar Dayal Sharma! The touch of a master, that!
As the days proceed, more and more gems regarding the doings of these eminent historians keep tumbling out. The latest project I have learnt about can any day match the ones we have been considering in ambition -- and in non-achievement too. In addition, the records relating to it give us a glimpse of the entrepreneurial techniques of the eminences.
This particular project was started in 1987. It was to produce a Dictionary of Socio-Economic and Administrative Terms in Indian Inscriptions. The Dictionary was to be in nine volumes -- that is a key element in the technology : always propose many volumes ! The project was to completed in fifteen years -- another key element : who knows who will be around 15 years hence! Twenty lakhs of Rupees were to be taken for the project -- a third element : never be niggardly in demanding public funds!
Who were to be in charge? Our good friends. R S Sharma, a leading light of the Leftists, a former Chairman of the ICHR, later a leading advisor to the Sunni Wakf Board in its efforts to wrest the Babri Masjid site -- he graciously agreed to be the "General Editor". K. M. Shrimali, who has been very voluble on behalf of the Camp in the recent controversies, and K. V. Ramesh, with as much grace, agreed to be the "Main Editors". In addition an "Advisory Board" of another eleven eminences was constituted to oversee the project -- this is always a good device : thereby friends can meet at Government expense, and responsibility of the main suspects is always scattered.
Soon, the scope of the project was enlarged : Arabic, Persian and Urdu inscriptions too would be included. And soon this new part too was enlarged : farmans and the like in these languages would also be included, not just inscriptions. This too is always useful : enlarge the project every few months, the new items become the explanation for not having kept to the deadlines specified for the original proposal! And who would do this part of the project? Why, the most eminent of them all: "Responsibility for compiling the Arabic, Persian and Urdu inscriptions was accepted by Professor Irfan Habib on the request of the ICHR," the records state. How kind!
Everyone was to work in an "honorary capacity" -- but in the special sense in which these worthies use the term "honorary"! Each of the two "Main Editors", the "Editorial Committee" of the project decided in its meeting on 20th September, 1990, would be paid "an honorarium" of Rs 5000 for every four months. The General Editor too would be paid an honorarium of Rs 3000 for every four months. A very important rule that -- never take money, take honoraria! The Committee also decided, "Professor Shrimali may be allowed to purchase relevant books in connection with the work of the project if the books are not supplied to him by the ICHR within a reasonable time" -- a bit of honorariness which every scholar would lust after!
By 1994 there was a problem : there was little progress to record, though money was getting spent. The then Chairman, Ravinder Kumar [very eminent, the head of the Nehru Museum and Library etc.] convenes a meeting of what the record christens the "Consultative Committee". The solution? The Committee decides that a revised proposal be prepared ! Another sure-winner : months can be put to debating, drafting, redrafting, circulating, finalizing this, soon you can be arguing that the revised proposal contains elements which can be attended to only with an enhanced budget....
Better still -- prepare not a "revised proposal", prepare a "draft revised proposal". And that is what was done. A "draft revised proposal" was prepared, and, the record states, "handed over to the Chairman [Ravinder Kumar] for necessary action and approval."
Sunk without trace ! "It seems, that the draft proposal was not approved," states the review note prepared by the ICHR now, "and work was not taken up as per revised plan [sic.]."
A spat is always useful, specially one involving principle, personal honour, self-respect. And, happily, one erupted. At a meeting of the Research Projects Committee, someone -- perhaps Irfan Habib, I am not able to make out from the record -- raised an objection : a Committee "in which there was very substantial membership of those who were to be beneficiaries of such a decision" should not have decided about payments to be made to the editors etc., he objected. Arguments ensued, tempers rose. But even as it decided that this shall be a "firm policy for the future", the meeting decided that "each Main Editor, on completion of a particular volume with which he has been associated, be paid an honorarium of Rs 25000."
It noted that this decision was strictly in accordance with precedent ! "The Committee was prompted to this decision," the minutes record, "in the knowledge that in the 'Towards Freedom' project of the ICHR each volume Editor was to be paid Rs 25000 for his contribution." Unassailable logic : as editors were to get that amount under a project which was not getting anywhere, why not under another project which was not getting anywhere either?
That decided, through an innocuous sentence tagged on to the end of a paragraph, the minutes slipped in another opportunity : "It may be noted," the minutes noted, "that two or more Main Editors may be associated with the completion of each volume of the Dictionary project." From two "Main Editors" for nine volumes, to "two or more Main Editors" for each volume !
"As for the Chief Editor [a promotion that, he had till now been known as the 'General Editor'!]," the minutes recorded, "he should receive a sum of Rs 30000 on the publication of each volume."
R S Sharma, as befits his eminence as much as his Leftism, threw a fit -- always a useful thing to do a few years into a project : you can then allow yourself to be persuaded, and, when questions are raised later about nothing having been done, you can always claim that you in any case had not wanted any part of the project. "In view of the strictures passed on the 'beneficiaries' of the Dictionary project in the RPC [Research Projects Committee] meeting," he wrote to the Council, "I would not like to continue as Chief Editor. I neither asked for any 'benefice' / 'benefit' in any meeting or outside nor did I receive any remuneration for the work that I did for the project. As far as I can remember none of the Main Editors asked for any benefit or remuneration in any meeting of the Editorial Committee."
H R Deve Gowda, the then Prime Minister, and S R Bommai, the then Minister for Human Resource Development, selected the well-known art historian, Professor S Settar to be the Chairman of the ICHR. In a sense an outsider, he was duly alarmed at the state of such projects. He addressed letters to Sharma, Shrimali and Ramesh in March 1997 inquiring about the work they had done. Months went by, he could not nudge anyone concerned to get on with the work. He accordingly convened a meeting of R S Sharma and Irfan Habib on 29 September, 1997. He was asked to contact Shrimali and Ramesh again.
Ramesh now deployed the next weapon : ask for more ! Fools will always throw in good money after bad. He wrote back saying that for him to do the work, the Council should appoint three more scholars to assist him [so helpful was he that he specified the names of the three also!], that the Council provide him with a computer assistant, and also with rented accommodation! The Chairman wrote pointing out that already Rs 45000 had been paid to Ramesh, seven years had passed, and asked how much more time was required. Another year "may be required" if the terms he had proposed were met, Ramesh answered!
In despair, Settar turned to Irfan Habib and Sharma again and "appealed" to them to help out -- another tactic : subalterns block the pass; the only way the fellow can hope to proceed is by beseeching, and thereby getting in the debt of the principals! Sharma recalled that he had already dissociated himself from the project -- vide the "beneficiaries" spat. In any event, the two met Settar, and agreed to submit -- by now you should be able to guess -- a revised project each !
"The detailed note of the revised project promised by Professor Sharma has not been received so far," the ICHR was informed at its meeting on August 31-September 1. "Professor Irfan Habib has yet to send his detailed proposal which he promised to send on 10-3-98."
As more and more queries were coming about the project, R. S. Sharma wrote to the Chairman on 7 July, 1998 that "at present I and Shrimali are terribly busy with the editing of Comprehensive History of India, Vol. IV, print 2. I will consult Shrimali to find out whether he can spare some time for the project this year, though I am not hopeful. A meeting of Ramesh, Shrimali and other members of the editorial board should be helpful for completing the project as soon as possible." Notice the tone : far from being the one who shares a major part of the responsibility for the state of affairs, the person is offering to do a favour, to, against his better judgment, contact Shrimali and see if something can be done to help the Chairman out !
The result ? By now eleven years have passed. Rs 370,000 have been spent. Nothing but nothing has been published. Thousands of "cards" are said to have been compiled by specially hired "compilers" -- these remain in the personal custody of Shrimali and Ramesh. And the Chairman is under advice that to get the project going he has to convene a meeting of the very persons who have brought the project to this state -- with the caveat, of course, that the conditions specified by one of them must first be met, and that the other -- the TV star -- is "terribly busy" on some other project !
And, never forget, if the ICHR takes any step to bring them to account, if it takes any step to hand over the project to anyone else, it is doing so because these eminent historians are secular, and the Council is now set to saffronize history!
India Connect
September 9, 1998
Showing posts with label JNU. Show all posts
Showing posts with label JNU. Show all posts
Sunday, May 25, 2008
ICHR's The Eminent Entrepreneurs!
Arun Shourie
Answer by the Ministry for Human Resources Development to Unstarred Question number 3466 in the Rajya Sabha : "Professor Bipin Chandra was sanctioned a sum of Rs 75000 during 1987-88 for the assignment entitled 'A History of Indian National Congress'. A sum of Rs 57500 has been released to him till 23-6-1989. The remaining balance of Rs 17500 is yet to be released because a formal manuscript in this regard is yet to be received."
I, therefore, wrote to the Ministry : "Does this mean that some informal manuscript has been received ? Or that no manuscript has been received ? If the latter is the case, how is it that nine years having passed, the scholar having taken Rs 57500 for a project and not having submitted the manuscript, no action has been taken ?"
After some reminders, the Ministry eventually wrote to say : "... it has been confirmed by ICHR that no manuscript -- either formally or informally -- has been received so far." As regards the action taken, the Ministry said, information was being obtained from the ICHR.
I am now informed in writing that the Rs 75000 allotted to this "eminent historian" for this project -- "the Oral History Project" -- was but a part, a small part of the total take. Bipin Chandra was given in addition Rs 200,000 by the ICSSR and Rs 400,000 through the Jawaharlal Nehru University. Neither institution has received any manuscript.
Actually this matter became an issue when time came for this "eminent historian" to retire from the JNU. The University, naturally, could not do without his eminence. A proposal was, therefore, put up to engage him again after retirement. The then Rector of the University pointed out that, according to the University's rules, the retirement dues etc. could not be settled, and a contract to engage Bipin Chandra again could not be entered into till the accounts for the Rs 400,000 had been submitted, and that Bipin Chandra had studiously neglected to furnish the accounts. No accounts came. The then Vice-Chancellor papered over the matter.
As nothing but nothing has turned up in the ICHR in return for its grant, the second part of my query remained : what action has the ICHR taken in the matter? I am now told, "No action has been initiated on this as Dr. Bipin Chandra is stated to be still working on the project." That is the position nine years after his eminence collected the money!
From documents which have been furnished in response to my queries, it turns out that this is the pattern. The ICHR commenced a National Movement Project -- to which I shall come in a moment -- to document our freedom struggle from the mid-1850's. Bipin Chandra took Rs 12000 to produce the volume covering 1885-86. Result? Nothing has been heard of it since. He took another Rs 12000 for the volume covering 1932-34. Outcome? "Not submitted," says the ICHR. Being eminent, Bipin Chandra is naturally in the circle of friends among whom the "Towards Freedom Project" was parceled. To assist him to shoulder his onerous load in this regard, the ICHR has employed over the years one "regular" staff member plus eight staff members "on consolidated salary". Result ? "Volume not submitted."
But, to be fair, this pattern is not confined to this eminent historian alone. It has been the pattern for the entire institution manned and controlled by these "eminent historians."
Mr V N Gadgil, the Congress member, asked a written question in the Rajya Sabha about the projects which had been undertaken by the ICHR, and what had happened to them. In its reply ( to Unstarred Question number 3476 ) the Ministry of Human Resources Development stated, "According to the information furnished by the ICHR, three major projects -- namely, the 'Towards Freedom', 'Dictionary of Inscriptions,' and the 'Economic History of India' -- started between 1976 and 1992 have been continued during the last five years. These are in different stages of completion..."
The rat was there for everyone to see : Gadgil, after all, had not asked about "major projects," nor had he said anything about projects "started between 1976 and 1992." Therefore, after some inquiries with, as journalists say, "informed sources," I asked, "But what about the project for documenting the National Freedom Movement from 1857 to 1936? How many volumes were to be produced under it? To whom was each volume assigned? How much was paid to each scholar? How much has been spent on each volume? How many volumes have been produced under this project ?"
The Ministry replied, "... the Indian Council of Historical Research have stated that no project was commissioned by them to document National Movement between 1857 and 1937." What a foolish evasion ! All I had to do was to draw the attention of the Ministry to successive annual reports of the ICHR which had been presented to Parliament over two decades : report after report had listed this as one of the major projects which the ICHR had initiated! Please look at the account commencing from page 26 of the Annual Report for 1972-1973, I wrote; please look at the account commencing from page 16 of the Annual Report for 1973-1974, I wrote...
The result ? I am now informed that such a project had indeed been undertaken. Nineteen volumes were to have been produced. The volumes were assigned to different scholars -- our eminencies as usual led the rest ! Each scholar collected Rs. 12000 per volume he had been assigned. The result ? Here, in the words of the ICHR, is a list of the period to be covered by the volume, the scholar to whom it was assigned, the money the scholar collected, the result :
1. Before 1857 : K. Rajayan : Rs 12000; Submitted but not traceable.
2. 1857-1885 : S. R. Mehrotra : Rs 12000; Not submitted.
3. 1885-1886 : Bipin Chandra : Rs 12000; Not submitted.
4. 1896-98 : Bipan Chandra : Not assigned.
5. 1899-1902 : B.L. Grover : Rs 12000; Submitted and published.
6. 1902-1903 : B.L. Grover : Not assigned.
7. 1903-1905 : B.L. Grover : Not assigned.
8. 1905-1907 : Sumit Sarkar : Rs 12000; Not submitted.
9. 1907-1909 : Sumit Sarkar : Rs 12000; Not submitted.
10. 1910-1915 : M.N. Das : Rs 12000; Not submitted.
11. 1915-1919 : T.K. Ravindran : Rs 12000; Not submitted.
12. 1919-1920 : V. N. Duty : Rs 12000; Submitted and published.
13. 1920-1922 : Sita Ram Singh : Rs 12000; Submitted, under production.
14. 1922-1924 : Sreekumaran Nair : Rs 12000; Submitted and published.
15. 1924-1926 : Amba Prasad : Rs 12000; Not submitted.
16. 1927-1929 : Bimal Prasad : Rs 12000; Not submitted.
17. 1930-1931 : Bimal Prasad : Rs 12000; Not submitted.
18. 1932-1934 : Bipan Chandra : Rs 12000; Not submitted.
19. 1934-1937 : Gopal Krishna : Rs 12000; Not submitted.
As you read the amounts, do remember that they were paid out in the mid-1970s, when they amounted to much, much more than they do in these days of scams..
And what about the project to document the Praja Mandal Movement, the freedom movement in the princely states ?, I inquired. The requisite details are being collected by the ICHR, the Ministry wrote.
After a reminder, the Ministry wrote : "The ICHR had taken [sic.] such a project. No further information is readily available." "Surely, you would not like to leave the matter at that," I had to write. "Was a large sum of public money not spent on the Project ? Who had been assigned the Project ? What has resulted from the large expenditure of public money ?" The ICHR has furnished the details now. These conform to the norm, so to say : the Project was assigned to one of the key-point men of the "eminent historians" in the Council, R. C. Shukla. Staff was assigned. Materials are reported to have been collected between 1976 and 1982. A sum of Rs 435,000 was spent. The net outcome ? "No publication has come out on PMM [the Praja Mandal Movements], to the best knowledge of the Council," says the Council.
What about the project which was undertaken to document "Peasants Movements" ?, I inquired. Fourteen volumes were to be produced, the ICHR says. Six of these were assigned among three scholars at Rs 12000 per volume. One of these has been published. Two are listed as "Not Submitted." And three as "Submitted but not traceable."
What about the "Economic Data and Statistics Project," which was listed with such fan-fare in the Annual Reports till some years ago ?, I asked. Six volumes were to be produced under it, the ICHR says. The authors, the subjects they were to cover in the volume assigned to them, the money which was paid to them, and the outcome, in the words of the ICHR, are as follows :
B. B. Chaudhuri : "Agriculture, Rent and Revenue"; Rs 12000; Not submitted.
S. Bhattacharya : "Financial and Currency Policies"; Rs 12000; Not submitted.
Surendra Gopal : "Trade (inland and foreign) in the 17th and 18th Centuries"; Rs 12000; Not submitted.
Nilomani Mukherjee : "Trade (inland and foreign) in 19th and 20th Centuries"; Rs 12000; Not submitted.
A. K. Bagchi : "Indian Industries (1860-1939"; Rs 12000; Not submitted.
V. B. Singh : "Labour, Prices, and Wages (1914-45)"; Rs 12000; Submitted but not traceable.
In a word, as against the six volumes which were to have been published, not one has been published. The money having been disbursed, the project was just given up!
Only to be succeeded by an even more ambitious project around the same theme, the "Project on Documentation on Economic History." What about this one ?, I asked. After all, it had been listed by the ICHR itself as one of the major projects the Council had undertaken. The project was commenced in 1992, says the ICHR. Seventeen volumes were to be produced between 1992 and 1997. The total cost was to be Rs 25 lakhs. As of today, says the ICHR, no volume has been published. And a cool Rs 195,000 have already been spent.
What about the "Medieval Sources Project" ?, I asked. After some search, the ICHR has supplied the following list of the scholars to whom the work was assigned, the subject he was to cover, the money sanctioned to each, and the result :
1. Satish Chandra & Co. : Hindi translation of "Early Sources of Akbar's Reign"; Not completed, money not indicated.
2. Irfan Habib : Akbarat-e-Aurangzeb : Rs 27000; Not completed.
3. Moonis Raza : "Atlas of the Mughal Empire" : Rs 22400; Not completed.
4. Anis Faruqi : Tashir-ul-Aqwani : Rs 9000; Not completed.
5. Satish Chandra : Documents on Social and Economic History : Rs 23000; Not completed.
6. P. Saran : Tarikh-i-Akbari : Rs 18500; Submitted but not traceable
-- but on that last entry, more in a moment.
What about the much-touted "Translation Project", I inquired. It began in April, 1972, the ICHR says, when the National Book Trust proposal for translating the volumes in the Bhartiya Vidya Bhavan Series on the history and culture of India was received in the ICHR. A committee consisting of the usual eminencies -- S. Gopal, Tapan Raychaudhuri, Satish Chandra, Romila Thapar -- was constituted. This Committee resolved that the Bhartiya Vidya Bhavan volumes -- which in fact are the very best and most outstanding of works produced in the last fifty years -- "are not suitable for translation into Indian languages," and that this proposal should not be pursued any further. The Committee suggested that alternative titles be selected for translation.
And, lo and behold!, the largest number of titles which the eminent historians selected were of the eminencies themselves, and of those who advocated their line! R. S. Sharma, a Chairman of the ICHR : five titles; S. Gopal : three titles; Romila Thapar : three titles; Bipin Chandra : two titles; Irfan Habib : two titles; his father, Mohammed Habib : two titles; Satish Chandra : one title...
What amount has been spent on this Project, I inquired, how much royalty was paid to the authors, I inquired. The ICHR has incurred an expenditure of Rs 4,189,000, the Ministry said, and added, "Authors of the books selected for translation were not paid royalties."
Having got to know their ways by now, I persisted. Had I used the wrong word ?, I inquired. Had they got payment under some head other than "royalties"? The ICHR has now said that in fact authors were paid, "a lump sum for translation rights" : Rs 1000 per language per volume if the book was more than 200 pages, and Rs 500 per language per volume if the book was less than 200 pages. Hence, R S Sharma got a total of Rs 47000 for his books; Bipin Chandra, Rs 14000; Irfan Habib, Rs 11000; Romila Thapar, Rs 12000...
What other projects have been undertaken ?, I inquired, and to what result ? The ICHR's list :
1. K.K. Dutta : "Old Zamindari Records of Bihar" : Rs 12000; Submitted two volumes but not traceable.
2. B. Ramakrishna : "Writings of Veerasalingam" : Rs 12000; Not submitted.
3. Bipan Chandra : "Oral History Project" : Rs 75000 from ICHR, Rs 200,000 from ICSSR, and Rs 400,000 from JNU; Not completed.
Having reached our friend, the eminence, again, I abandoned the search.
In his question V. N. Gadgil had asked the Minister to state "whether several hundred manuscripts are either missing from the Council's custody or are totally damaged; if so, what action Government have taken in the matter." In its written reply to the Rajya Sabha the Ministry stated, "The ICHR have informed that a few manuscripts are reportedly either missing or have not been sent to the Press for certain reasons. The Council have intimated that it has initiated action to ascertain whether any manuscript has been lost or appropriated otherwise."
Another rat : see how the case of manuscripts which were "missing" had been clubbed with that of manuscripts which "have not been sent to the Press for certain reasons." And how the case of manuscripts which have been lost had been clubbed with that of manuscripts which have been "appropriated otherwise."
I, therefore, wrote to the Ministry inquiring, "How many manuscripts are covered by the phrase 'a few manuscripts' ?" Second, could information please be compiled separately for manuscripts which have been "lost" and those which have "not been sent to the Press for certain reasons ?" Third, "Since when has the ICHR 'initiated action to ascertain whether any manuscript been lost or appropriated otherwise'? What is the current status of this so-called action? In particular, is it a fact that the manuscript submitted by one of the most distinguished medieval Indian historians, Dr.P. Saran has been 'missing' ? Is it a fact that an inquiry has been instituted to ascertain whether this very manuscript has been purloined by a staff member and printed under his name?"
On 24 July, 1998, I received not one but two letters from the Ministry. One stated that details in this regard were being collected. The second letter of the same day stated, "As regards missing manuscripts, the Council has stated that to the best of their knowledge no manuscript is missing." I naturally had to draw the attention of the Ministry to the fact that this was at considerable variance with what they had implied in reply to Gadgil's question.
But much more curious was what they said about the specific manuscript to which I had drawn their attention -- namely, that of Dr. Parmatma Saran. The note accompanying one letter said, "The Council has been requested to furnish details in this regard." The note accompanying the second letter of the same day said, "As regards Dr. Parmatma Saran's manuscript entitled 'Tarikh-i-Akbari' (English translation) does not appear to have been received in the Council. However, an extensive search is on to trace it in the archives."
I pointed out to the Ministry that this assertion was, to say the least, odd. How did it square with the fact that the Annual Report of the Council for 1976-1977 on pages 10 and 11 had listed the "English translation of Arif Qandhari's Tarikh-i-Akbari by Dr Parmatma Saran" as being among the volumes which "have already been completed and received in the Council" ? How did what was being said now -- that the manuscript "does not appear to have been received in the Council" -- square with the fact that the Annual Report of the Council for 1977-1978 had on page 9 listed "Tarikh-i-Akbari of Arif Qandhari : English translation by Dr Parmatma Saran" as having "been received in the Council" ?
The ICHR has at last taken a giant step closer to the truth. It says, Yes, the Annual Reports confirm that the manuscript prepared by Dr. Saran was indeed received in the Council. Yes, Dr. Saran died, his son-in-law wrote to the Council in 1995. He pointed out that the Annual Reports of the Council themselves showed that the manuscript had been received by the ICHR, and added, "As we understand, this project of my father-in-law was to be later published by the ICHR. We are not aware if this has indeed been done by the ICHR although nearly 20 years have elapsed since the translation was completed, but we have been extremely disturbed to hear stories to the effect that not only has someone else published the translation as his own work, but that this has been done by a member of the staff of the ICHR..."
The ICHR now acknowledges that an inquiry was initiated in 1995. The heads of the Publications Section, of the Grants-in-Aid Section, and of the Medieval Unit were asked what had happened to the manuscript. The Grants-in-Aid Section had confirmed that the manuscript had been received. The Publications Section said the manuscript had never been forwarded to it. That left the Section which was in a sense responsible for overseeing the project -- the Medieval Unit. The Deputy Director in charge of this unit said that the manuscript was not traceable in his unit. Not satisfied with the reply, the then Director once again urged the Deputy Director, Medieval Unit, "to do his best efforts [sic.] to trace out the manuscript."
But the friends, all entangled in those "webs of mutual complicity," intervened. And the inquiry was killed.
Guess who obtained a Ph. D. from Rajasthan University in 1992 by submitting "an annotated English translation of Arif Qandhari's Tarikh-i-Akbari". Guess who has published the book in his name ? The very same Deputy Director in charge of the ICHR's Medieval Unit -- Tasneem Ahmed! And guess who has written the preface to the book ? The very eminent Irfan Habib!
And guess what has happened now that the issue has been pursued ? The appropriator had thought he had executed the perfect crime -- that he had destroyed the manuscript of Dr. Saran. But the thorough search initiated by the current Chairman of the ICHR yielded sixty two pages of the manuscript in another file -- with corrections in the late Dr. Saran's own hand ! And wonder of wonders -- that manuscript written twenty years earlier was an exact verbatim prelude to the book published by Tasneem Ahmed as his own !
A new Committee was therefore constituted to compare the two and assess the chances that this miracle could have happened without the Deputy Director of the Council Tasneem Ahmed having stolen Dr. Saran's work!
I look forward to the happy result.
India Connect
August 24, 1998
Answer by the Ministry for Human Resources Development to Unstarred Question number 3466 in the Rajya Sabha : "Professor Bipin Chandra was sanctioned a sum of Rs 75000 during 1987-88 for the assignment entitled 'A History of Indian National Congress'. A sum of Rs 57500 has been released to him till 23-6-1989. The remaining balance of Rs 17500 is yet to be released because a formal manuscript in this regard is yet to be received."
I, therefore, wrote to the Ministry : "Does this mean that some informal manuscript has been received ? Or that no manuscript has been received ? If the latter is the case, how is it that nine years having passed, the scholar having taken Rs 57500 for a project and not having submitted the manuscript, no action has been taken ?"
After some reminders, the Ministry eventually wrote to say : "... it has been confirmed by ICHR that no manuscript -- either formally or informally -- has been received so far." As regards the action taken, the Ministry said, information was being obtained from the ICHR.
I am now informed in writing that the Rs 75000 allotted to this "eminent historian" for this project -- "the Oral History Project" -- was but a part, a small part of the total take. Bipin Chandra was given in addition Rs 200,000 by the ICSSR and Rs 400,000 through the Jawaharlal Nehru University. Neither institution has received any manuscript.
Actually this matter became an issue when time came for this "eminent historian" to retire from the JNU. The University, naturally, could not do without his eminence. A proposal was, therefore, put up to engage him again after retirement. The then Rector of the University pointed out that, according to the University's rules, the retirement dues etc. could not be settled, and a contract to engage Bipin Chandra again could not be entered into till the accounts for the Rs 400,000 had been submitted, and that Bipin Chandra had studiously neglected to furnish the accounts. No accounts came. The then Vice-Chancellor papered over the matter.
As nothing but nothing has turned up in the ICHR in return for its grant, the second part of my query remained : what action has the ICHR taken in the matter? I am now told, "No action has been initiated on this as Dr. Bipin Chandra is stated to be still working on the project." That is the position nine years after his eminence collected the money!
From documents which have been furnished in response to my queries, it turns out that this is the pattern. The ICHR commenced a National Movement Project -- to which I shall come in a moment -- to document our freedom struggle from the mid-1850's. Bipin Chandra took Rs 12000 to produce the volume covering 1885-86. Result? Nothing has been heard of it since. He took another Rs 12000 for the volume covering 1932-34. Outcome? "Not submitted," says the ICHR. Being eminent, Bipin Chandra is naturally in the circle of friends among whom the "Towards Freedom Project" was parceled. To assist him to shoulder his onerous load in this regard, the ICHR has employed over the years one "regular" staff member plus eight staff members "on consolidated salary". Result ? "Volume not submitted."
But, to be fair, this pattern is not confined to this eminent historian alone. It has been the pattern for the entire institution manned and controlled by these "eminent historians."
Mr V N Gadgil, the Congress member, asked a written question in the Rajya Sabha about the projects which had been undertaken by the ICHR, and what had happened to them. In its reply ( to Unstarred Question number 3476 ) the Ministry of Human Resources Development stated, "According to the information furnished by the ICHR, three major projects -- namely, the 'Towards Freedom', 'Dictionary of Inscriptions,' and the 'Economic History of India' -- started between 1976 and 1992 have been continued during the last five years. These are in different stages of completion..."
The rat was there for everyone to see : Gadgil, after all, had not asked about "major projects," nor had he said anything about projects "started between 1976 and 1992." Therefore, after some inquiries with, as journalists say, "informed sources," I asked, "But what about the project for documenting the National Freedom Movement from 1857 to 1936? How many volumes were to be produced under it? To whom was each volume assigned? How much was paid to each scholar? How much has been spent on each volume? How many volumes have been produced under this project ?"
The Ministry replied, "... the Indian Council of Historical Research have stated that no project was commissioned by them to document National Movement between 1857 and 1937." What a foolish evasion ! All I had to do was to draw the attention of the Ministry to successive annual reports of the ICHR which had been presented to Parliament over two decades : report after report had listed this as one of the major projects which the ICHR had initiated! Please look at the account commencing from page 26 of the Annual Report for 1972-1973, I wrote; please look at the account commencing from page 16 of the Annual Report for 1973-1974, I wrote...
The result ? I am now informed that such a project had indeed been undertaken. Nineteen volumes were to have been produced. The volumes were assigned to different scholars -- our eminencies as usual led the rest ! Each scholar collected Rs. 12000 per volume he had been assigned. The result ? Here, in the words of the ICHR, is a list of the period to be covered by the volume, the scholar to whom it was assigned, the money the scholar collected, the result :
1. Before 1857 : K. Rajayan : Rs 12000; Submitted but not traceable.
2. 1857-1885 : S. R. Mehrotra : Rs 12000; Not submitted.
3. 1885-1886 : Bipin Chandra : Rs 12000; Not submitted.
4. 1896-98 : Bipan Chandra : Not assigned.
5. 1899-1902 : B.L. Grover : Rs 12000; Submitted and published.
6. 1902-1903 : B.L. Grover : Not assigned.
7. 1903-1905 : B.L. Grover : Not assigned.
8. 1905-1907 : Sumit Sarkar : Rs 12000; Not submitted.
9. 1907-1909 : Sumit Sarkar : Rs 12000; Not submitted.
10. 1910-1915 : M.N. Das : Rs 12000; Not submitted.
11. 1915-1919 : T.K. Ravindran : Rs 12000; Not submitted.
12. 1919-1920 : V. N. Duty : Rs 12000; Submitted and published.
13. 1920-1922 : Sita Ram Singh : Rs 12000; Submitted, under production.
14. 1922-1924 : Sreekumaran Nair : Rs 12000; Submitted and published.
15. 1924-1926 : Amba Prasad : Rs 12000; Not submitted.
16. 1927-1929 : Bimal Prasad : Rs 12000; Not submitted.
17. 1930-1931 : Bimal Prasad : Rs 12000; Not submitted.
18. 1932-1934 : Bipan Chandra : Rs 12000; Not submitted.
19. 1934-1937 : Gopal Krishna : Rs 12000; Not submitted.
As you read the amounts, do remember that they were paid out in the mid-1970s, when they amounted to much, much more than they do in these days of scams..
And what about the project to document the Praja Mandal Movement, the freedom movement in the princely states ?, I inquired. The requisite details are being collected by the ICHR, the Ministry wrote.
After a reminder, the Ministry wrote : "The ICHR had taken [sic.] such a project. No further information is readily available." "Surely, you would not like to leave the matter at that," I had to write. "Was a large sum of public money not spent on the Project ? Who had been assigned the Project ? What has resulted from the large expenditure of public money ?" The ICHR has furnished the details now. These conform to the norm, so to say : the Project was assigned to one of the key-point men of the "eminent historians" in the Council, R. C. Shukla. Staff was assigned. Materials are reported to have been collected between 1976 and 1982. A sum of Rs 435,000 was spent. The net outcome ? "No publication has come out on PMM [the Praja Mandal Movements], to the best knowledge of the Council," says the Council.
What about the project which was undertaken to document "Peasants Movements" ?, I inquired. Fourteen volumes were to be produced, the ICHR says. Six of these were assigned among three scholars at Rs 12000 per volume. One of these has been published. Two are listed as "Not Submitted." And three as "Submitted but not traceable."
What about the "Economic Data and Statistics Project," which was listed with such fan-fare in the Annual Reports till some years ago ?, I asked. Six volumes were to be produced under it, the ICHR says. The authors, the subjects they were to cover in the volume assigned to them, the money which was paid to them, and the outcome, in the words of the ICHR, are as follows :
B. B. Chaudhuri : "Agriculture, Rent and Revenue"; Rs 12000; Not submitted.
S. Bhattacharya : "Financial and Currency Policies"; Rs 12000; Not submitted.
Surendra Gopal : "Trade (inland and foreign) in the 17th and 18th Centuries"; Rs 12000; Not submitted.
Nilomani Mukherjee : "Trade (inland and foreign) in 19th and 20th Centuries"; Rs 12000; Not submitted.
A. K. Bagchi : "Indian Industries (1860-1939"; Rs 12000; Not submitted.
V. B. Singh : "Labour, Prices, and Wages (1914-45)"; Rs 12000; Submitted but not traceable.
In a word, as against the six volumes which were to have been published, not one has been published. The money having been disbursed, the project was just given up!
Only to be succeeded by an even more ambitious project around the same theme, the "Project on Documentation on Economic History." What about this one ?, I asked. After all, it had been listed by the ICHR itself as one of the major projects the Council had undertaken. The project was commenced in 1992, says the ICHR. Seventeen volumes were to be produced between 1992 and 1997. The total cost was to be Rs 25 lakhs. As of today, says the ICHR, no volume has been published. And a cool Rs 195,000 have already been spent.
What about the "Medieval Sources Project" ?, I asked. After some search, the ICHR has supplied the following list of the scholars to whom the work was assigned, the subject he was to cover, the money sanctioned to each, and the result :
1. Satish Chandra & Co. : Hindi translation of "Early Sources of Akbar's Reign"; Not completed, money not indicated.
2. Irfan Habib : Akbarat-e-Aurangzeb : Rs 27000; Not completed.
3. Moonis Raza : "Atlas of the Mughal Empire" : Rs 22400; Not completed.
4. Anis Faruqi : Tashir-ul-Aqwani : Rs 9000; Not completed.
5. Satish Chandra : Documents on Social and Economic History : Rs 23000; Not completed.
6. P. Saran : Tarikh-i-Akbari : Rs 18500; Submitted but not traceable
-- but on that last entry, more in a moment.
What about the much-touted "Translation Project", I inquired. It began in April, 1972, the ICHR says, when the National Book Trust proposal for translating the volumes in the Bhartiya Vidya Bhavan Series on the history and culture of India was received in the ICHR. A committee consisting of the usual eminencies -- S. Gopal, Tapan Raychaudhuri, Satish Chandra, Romila Thapar -- was constituted. This Committee resolved that the Bhartiya Vidya Bhavan volumes -- which in fact are the very best and most outstanding of works produced in the last fifty years -- "are not suitable for translation into Indian languages," and that this proposal should not be pursued any further. The Committee suggested that alternative titles be selected for translation.
And, lo and behold!, the largest number of titles which the eminent historians selected were of the eminencies themselves, and of those who advocated their line! R. S. Sharma, a Chairman of the ICHR : five titles; S. Gopal : three titles; Romila Thapar : three titles; Bipin Chandra : two titles; Irfan Habib : two titles; his father, Mohammed Habib : two titles; Satish Chandra : one title...
What amount has been spent on this Project, I inquired, how much royalty was paid to the authors, I inquired. The ICHR has incurred an expenditure of Rs 4,189,000, the Ministry said, and added, "Authors of the books selected for translation were not paid royalties."
Having got to know their ways by now, I persisted. Had I used the wrong word ?, I inquired. Had they got payment under some head other than "royalties"? The ICHR has now said that in fact authors were paid, "a lump sum for translation rights" : Rs 1000 per language per volume if the book was more than 200 pages, and Rs 500 per language per volume if the book was less than 200 pages. Hence, R S Sharma got a total of Rs 47000 for his books; Bipin Chandra, Rs 14000; Irfan Habib, Rs 11000; Romila Thapar, Rs 12000...
What other projects have been undertaken ?, I inquired, and to what result ? The ICHR's list :
1. K.K. Dutta : "Old Zamindari Records of Bihar" : Rs 12000; Submitted two volumes but not traceable.
2. B. Ramakrishna : "Writings of Veerasalingam" : Rs 12000; Not submitted.
3. Bipan Chandra : "Oral History Project" : Rs 75000 from ICHR, Rs 200,000 from ICSSR, and Rs 400,000 from JNU; Not completed.
Having reached our friend, the eminence, again, I abandoned the search.
In his question V. N. Gadgil had asked the Minister to state "whether several hundred manuscripts are either missing from the Council's custody or are totally damaged; if so, what action Government have taken in the matter." In its written reply to the Rajya Sabha the Ministry stated, "The ICHR have informed that a few manuscripts are reportedly either missing or have not been sent to the Press for certain reasons. The Council have intimated that it has initiated action to ascertain whether any manuscript has been lost or appropriated otherwise."
Another rat : see how the case of manuscripts which were "missing" had been clubbed with that of manuscripts which "have not been sent to the Press for certain reasons." And how the case of manuscripts which have been lost had been clubbed with that of manuscripts which have been "appropriated otherwise."
I, therefore, wrote to the Ministry inquiring, "How many manuscripts are covered by the phrase 'a few manuscripts' ?" Second, could information please be compiled separately for manuscripts which have been "lost" and those which have "not been sent to the Press for certain reasons ?" Third, "Since when has the ICHR 'initiated action to ascertain whether any manuscript been lost or appropriated otherwise'? What is the current status of this so-called action? In particular, is it a fact that the manuscript submitted by one of the most distinguished medieval Indian historians, Dr.P. Saran has been 'missing' ? Is it a fact that an inquiry has been instituted to ascertain whether this very manuscript has been purloined by a staff member and printed under his name?"
On 24 July, 1998, I received not one but two letters from the Ministry. One stated that details in this regard were being collected. The second letter of the same day stated, "As regards missing manuscripts, the Council has stated that to the best of their knowledge no manuscript is missing." I naturally had to draw the attention of the Ministry to the fact that this was at considerable variance with what they had implied in reply to Gadgil's question.
But much more curious was what they said about the specific manuscript to which I had drawn their attention -- namely, that of Dr. Parmatma Saran. The note accompanying one letter said, "The Council has been requested to furnish details in this regard." The note accompanying the second letter of the same day said, "As regards Dr. Parmatma Saran's manuscript entitled 'Tarikh-i-Akbari' (English translation) does not appear to have been received in the Council. However, an extensive search is on to trace it in the archives."
I pointed out to the Ministry that this assertion was, to say the least, odd. How did it square with the fact that the Annual Report of the Council for 1976-1977 on pages 10 and 11 had listed the "English translation of Arif Qandhari's Tarikh-i-Akbari by Dr Parmatma Saran" as being among the volumes which "have already been completed and received in the Council" ? How did what was being said now -- that the manuscript "does not appear to have been received in the Council" -- square with the fact that the Annual Report of the Council for 1977-1978 had on page 9 listed "Tarikh-i-Akbari of Arif Qandhari : English translation by Dr Parmatma Saran" as having "been received in the Council" ?
The ICHR has at last taken a giant step closer to the truth. It says, Yes, the Annual Reports confirm that the manuscript prepared by Dr. Saran was indeed received in the Council. Yes, Dr. Saran died, his son-in-law wrote to the Council in 1995. He pointed out that the Annual Reports of the Council themselves showed that the manuscript had been received by the ICHR, and added, "As we understand, this project of my father-in-law was to be later published by the ICHR. We are not aware if this has indeed been done by the ICHR although nearly 20 years have elapsed since the translation was completed, but we have been extremely disturbed to hear stories to the effect that not only has someone else published the translation as his own work, but that this has been done by a member of the staff of the ICHR..."
The ICHR now acknowledges that an inquiry was initiated in 1995. The heads of the Publications Section, of the Grants-in-Aid Section, and of the Medieval Unit were asked what had happened to the manuscript. The Grants-in-Aid Section had confirmed that the manuscript had been received. The Publications Section said the manuscript had never been forwarded to it. That left the Section which was in a sense responsible for overseeing the project -- the Medieval Unit. The Deputy Director in charge of this unit said that the manuscript was not traceable in his unit. Not satisfied with the reply, the then Director once again urged the Deputy Director, Medieval Unit, "to do his best efforts [sic.] to trace out the manuscript."
But the friends, all entangled in those "webs of mutual complicity," intervened. And the inquiry was killed.
Guess who obtained a Ph. D. from Rajasthan University in 1992 by submitting "an annotated English translation of Arif Qandhari's Tarikh-i-Akbari". Guess who has published the book in his name ? The very same Deputy Director in charge of the ICHR's Medieval Unit -- Tasneem Ahmed! And guess who has written the preface to the book ? The very eminent Irfan Habib!
And guess what has happened now that the issue has been pursued ? The appropriator had thought he had executed the perfect crime -- that he had destroyed the manuscript of Dr. Saran. But the thorough search initiated by the current Chairman of the ICHR yielded sixty two pages of the manuscript in another file -- with corrections in the late Dr. Saran's own hand ! And wonder of wonders -- that manuscript written twenty years earlier was an exact verbatim prelude to the book published by Tasneem Ahmed as his own !
A new Committee was therefore constituted to compare the two and assess the chances that this miracle could have happened without the Deputy Director of the Council Tasneem Ahmed having stolen Dr. Saran's work!
I look forward to the happy result.
India Connect
August 24, 1998
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)