Clamour on Towards Freedom Project

By Rakesh Sinha

The excruciating polemics over the historiography of the freedom struggle is not far fetched. It is somewhat an extension of the dichotomy between the Marxist and liberal- nationalist historians in their interpretations of ancient and medieval Indian history. However, unlike them, the present debate is bound to create wider horizon of participation and interest since the history of the anti –colonial struggle is very much rooted in the nostalgia of the four main ideological or political groupings , the Congress , Communists, socialists and the RSS. The role of the masses is no less important in influencing the historiography of the country. In the Indian context it can be well argued that the sentiment and actual experiences of the Indian people perhaps forced the Marxist historians to make a retreat from their earlier position in evaluating historical personalities and their actions, like, Swami Vivekananda , Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Mahatma Gandhi, Subhash Chandra Bose, Jay Prakash Narayan, et. al. Thus the limitations of their ideological predisposition in turning and twisting modern Indian history led them to manipulate facts to suit their ideological presumptions. Exactly the same was done by the Marxist historians in the "Towards Freedom" a project under the Indian Council of Historical Research (ICHR) to compile the archival documents of freedom struggle from the year 1937 to 1947.

One volume covering the year 1943-44, hours of the Quit India movement, edited by Prof. P.S. Gupta, for instance, contains 150 selective documents on the Communist Party of India (CPI). The 120 pages report submitted to the colonial government by the CPI and the confidential correspondence between the party General secretary P.C. Joshi and the British Home department were suppressed. Thus documents were subjectively selected and edited to glorify its role! Significantly the CPI, which was banned between 1934 to 1942, was legalised at the eve of the August revolution. While the entire nation was facing severe British repression, and the British targeted all volunteer organisations, including the RSS , who refused to join the Civic Guard, ARP and army to help the British war efforts, the communists were free birds. The symbiotic relationship between the Indian communists and the British colonialism was both unjustifiable and unpardonable. And the historians of the Marxist ilk have been trying to cover up communist betrayal by stressing on peasants or trade union movements, or projecting it as only ‘genuine’ anti -Fascist. Madhu Limaye , a veteran socialist, wrote in 1951 ("CPI: Facts and Fictions") , "The communist activities throughout the August struggle of 1942-45 were directed towards active sabotage of people’s resistance to imperialist tyranny and opposition to struggle in every form , vilification of all patriots and progressives and lastly the support in the name of the right of self determination of all tendencies, which sought to disintegrate the country." Even the CPI (ML) Liberation , dared to concede the "historic blunder" by their ideological forefathers during the freedom movement. It seems that the Marxist historians have been working on behest of the Communist International, now non extinct, than the ICHR.

Absolute patronage had been provided to them by the Nehruvian state on the quid pro quo basis. The successive education ministers in the center from Narul Hasan to S.R. Bomai had been custodian of their interest and they, in turn, vouched Centrists and Congress politicians as ‘secular’ and ‘progressive.’ It underpinned them to establish an absolute control over all academic and research institutes. As Bipan Chandra wrote in 1992, "For the last 25 years or so historians of broad left orientation have had large presence in the leadership of the History Congress". Their ignominious silence to well documented book by Arun Shourie, "Eminent Historians Their Technology, Their Line, Their Fraud," exposing the misuse of patronage is conspicuous. Shourie wrote about them , "Can you walk off with six lakh seventy five thousand and not submit a thing in return? The eminent historians can. Can you promise to produce six volumes on Economic History, get a governmental institution to disburse the dough, produce nothing, have the project disappear from the reader screen, and just a while from the same institution to fork out another nineteen lakhs- this time seventeen volumes on the same subject, and still produce nothing?...can you stretch over twenty seven years a project which was have been to be completed in five, can you have the government defray close to two crores, when it had set the cost at a few lakhs...?" Any question of ideological predisposition or irregularities on their part provoke them to harp it as a ‘saffron conspiracy’. They perhaps believed the immutability of the Nehruvian paradigm which has been proven erroneous. The saffron upsurge is more painful to them than the political parties ousted from the power. They had been enjoying patronage from ‘bourgeoisie’ state on the one hand and also retaining their Marxist brand on the other, a case of contemporaneously appropriating both Marxism and Capitalism. Another folly has been their presumption that the talents and academic pursuit do not exist outside the Marxist-Nehruvian orbit. Their delusions were somewhat based on their own iron handedly suppression of the libaral –nationalist school represented by (KM)Munshi- (RC) Majumdar-(Jadunath) Sarkar . The Marxist methodology and tools of study have been utilised to prove them irrelevant, communal and Hindu bias. Two foreign scholars Mr. J.A Curran Jr and Criag Baxter worked on the RSS and the Jan Sangh in the 50’s. It led the Sampradayikata Virodhi Committee of Subhadra Joshi, whose publications have been authoritatively quoted by the Marxists social scientists, to publish, "American Interest in RSS", in 1973. It slandered the RSS for its alleged CIA link. It stated " Why these two American officials connected closely with the policy formation and operation of the US administration get interested in the RSS and the BJS ?.....The path of the RSS and America coincided on the morrow of Independence. Criag Baxter was thick with top leaders of the BJS and collaborated with them closely in analysing the strategies of the party." Moreover, Koenard Elst who brilliantly questioned Marxist methodology in his work "Negationism in India" (1992) was accused to be a ‘pen name of some Hindu communalist.’ It was during the Ram Janmabhoomi movement in 90’s they confronted with the assertive nationalist historians and archeologists. The evidences produced by Dr. S P Gupta ,formerly director of Allahabad museum, and has been General Secretary of the Indian Archaeological society, and Prof. B.B. Lal, both of them were associated with the Archaeology of Ramayana sites, approved by Prof. Narul Hasan the then education minister, coincided with the VHP’s claim. The Marxist historians retorted it rather polemically in "Political abuse of History." When A. R. Khan of HP university accused them for distorting facts in his article in the Indian Express published on 25.2.90 ,the Marxists denounced Khan allegedly for his , " inability to comprehend the language" of their argument, and rushing in "where angels fear to tread" (1-4-90, IE). Mr. Mahmud K. K., Dy. Superintending Archaeologist, Archaeological Survey of India, Madras circle, also (Indian Express 15.12.90 ) blamed them for suppressing the facts of their findings. All of them were accused as "VHP turncoats" by the Marxist historians. It is perhaps that only Marxist can tell when B.B.lal, S.K.lal or A.R.khan took Sangh training? It is an indicative that the RSS perspective of history brings it closer to the nationalist spirit of Majumdar-Munshi-Sarkar . As M.S. Golwalkar, second RSS chief says," histories have to be studied not only of blind faith and regard for all that our predecessors did, but to know and understand their good points and failings, the rights and using of their policies and practice of the same , the virtue and vices they manifested and to take inspiration and guidance from what is best and a lesson from what they lacked in, to avoid all that resulted in failures and frustrations and thus proceed more unerringly on the path of progress."

Ironically Marxist historians who clamoured against the liberals for their ‘partisan’ role themselves acted as apologists of the Babri Maszid Action Committee. Several of them offered themselves as witnesses on behalf of the Sunni Waqf Board in the courts considering Ayodhya matter. It included Prof. R.S.sharma (witness number 63), D N Jha ( No. 65), Romilla thapar (No. 66), Irfan Habib (No. 70) K M Shrimali (No. 95) Sumit sarkar (No. 101) and others. It is not their scholarship but its conscious use by them to question the cultural nationalism which is disputable. They are the victims of their own obsession with metaphysical ideological mould. They are thus like Shukracharya, who used his tapa and sadhana not for construction but destruction.

(The Author teaches political Science in Delhi University)

NPT review: Ignored issues

By Avinash Shirodkar

Although all nations of the world except four are today party to it, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is in trouble, its future uncertain. For a pact that has served as the bedrock of a five-nation-monopoly nuclear order, its extension in perpetuity was supposed to guarantee indefinite continuance of that regime. To achieve that success, many states were enticed, badgered, bullied, bribed, suborned or simply persuaded to fall in line.

Over success, however, can be a recipe for eventual failure. Permanent extension is likely to undo the NPT. When Washington originally launched its diplomatic offensive, the proposal for an everlasting extension was intended to serve only as an opening gambit. The strategy was to ask for the maximum possible so that something substantial came out of any compromise deal. In contrast, a more moderate approach, such as seeking another 25-year term, could yield, it was felt, only five to 10-year of extension. No one in Washington had imagined a year ahead that NPT would be permanently extended _ so smoothly. But once the permanent-extension juggernaut was launched, it flattered all opposition in its path.

Five years later, the legacy of 1995 is beginning to haunt the NPT regime. With the NPT's first formal review since the permanent extension scheduled to begin at a conference of state-parties in New York from April 24, questions are already being raised about the regime's future. Top US arms-control official John Holum has cautioned against "a weakened NPT regime" emerging from the conference. Despite its increased membership, however, the regime is already appearing weaker. The head of the US-based Institute for Energy and Environmental Research has contended that the NPT's permanent extension is "turning into a failure".

The former chief of the London Club (Nuclear Suppliers' Group), A. J. Baer of Switzerland, has called for "a better non-proliferating regime" to replace the NPT without the latter's inherent discrimination. You would expect India, a key target of the regime, to seize on Baer's proposal. But India has not put forward a single new proposal, apart from sponsoring for two years in a row a dimwitted "Reducing Nuclear Danger" resolution at the UN that lends support to the NPT regime.

The NPT is one of the most egregiously discriminatory treaties ever concluded in history, but its system of nuclear colonialism was introduced with the support of the discriminated. Its permanent extension, however, greatly amplified the inequity. Not only did the action seek the legitimise the five-nation monopoly, it also did away with the central bargain that won the original support of the discriminated. Under the bargain, non-nuclear states agreed to forswear nuclear ambitions and tolerate retention of nuclear arsenals by the then five possessor nations in return for efforts to achieve effective progress on complete disarmament, an obligation enshrined in the NPT's Article VI. More recently, the World Court ruled unanimously that the NPT nuclear powers have a two-fold legal obligation: Not only should they negotiate in good faith, they should also achieve nuclear disarmament "in all aspects".

In reality, the reverse has happened. The size of the five-nation nuclear arsenals today is many times bigger than when the NPT was concluded. And despite the scrapping of a lot of Cold War weapon surpluses, the two biggest nuclear powers retain more than 10,000 nuclear warheads each. The arms control and disarmament process has ground to a halt. In Geneva, China has held up all work to protest US missile-defence plans even as Beijing pursues the world's most ambitious nuclear and missile expansion programmes. It merrily continues to flout its NPT Article I obligations through transfers to Pakistan.

The NPT nuclear powers have certainly not held their end of the bargain.

In fact, since 1995, these powers have lost all incentive to work for disarmament. In the harshest criticism by a UN Secretary General since the end of the Cold War, Kofi Annan has said the disarmament and non-proliferation agenda is in a state of "deplorable stagnation" and a dangerous new nuclear arms race "looms on the horizon". UN Undersecretary General for Disarmament Jayantha Dhanapala, who chaired the NPTs permanent extension, has underscored this "bleak picture" and warned that "we are now entering a dangerous new era".

With the patience of non-nuclear states beginning to wear thin, the upcoming NPT review conference will be an occasion for plain speaking. Egyptian Ambassador Fayza Aboulnaga has already warned that "the NPT regime could crumble". However, by approving the treaty's permanent extension, the non-nuclear parties have little leverage left over the nuclear powers.

The stalled disarmament process is testament to the fundamental mistake these states committed in 1995. Although the permanent extension took place on the basis of 20 agreed "principles and objectives" that included the key goal of "systematic and progressive efforts" to reduce nuclear weapons, no such efforts have been undertaken.

Global security is at the crossroads today, and this year's developments will influence the direction it takes. The latest NPT review conference (held every five years) is important in that context. Given the sharply rising feelings, it will be surprise if any successful outcome emerges from the 25-day conference. In fact, by the time the final conference gavel falls, the frailty of the NPT regime will stand exposed. The traditional nuclear powers, however, already have a strategy to deflect criticism: They would insist the review not take just a backward but a forward look as well, that their Article VI obligations and most of the 1995 principles and objectives are not time-bound, and that the focus also be on the challenges mounted by India, Pakistan, Iraq and North Korea. As a US official, Pierce Corden, said in a recent paper, "So there are more issues and concerns at stake than those embodied in Article VI".

By gate-crashing the nuclear club in 1998, India demolished the central goal of the NPT regime: To keep the number of declared nuclear-weapons states at five. With that goal lost, the regime today looks overtaken by events. The Second Nuclear Age that India heralded seems incompatible with the NPT-type arrangements of the older era. The growing calls by a number of prominent Western figures for de facto recognition of India's nuclear-weapons status reflect both the new international respect gained by New Delhi and its ability to strike further at the foundations of the NPT regime.

The NPT's permanent extension was cited by New Delhi as one of the factors that motivated it to go overtly nuclear, but when that extension was proposed, India kept mum under a deal with Washington. Today it is again mum as the significant NPT review approaches, even though Corden and other Western officials have notified that India's tests and adherence to UN Security Council Resolution 1172 benchmarks would be issues at the conference. Given the reactive and undistinguished nature of India's disarmament diplomacy, this may not seem surprising. But the silence also springs from a desire to cosy up to the US and seek a broad strategic understanding with it.

While such an understanding on equitable terms will fit well with India's long-term interests, it is not going to come about through a "good boy" approach. Power and leverage, not a goodwill, drive international relations. Washington will accommodate India's interests only if non-accommodation entails real costs to US interests. New Delhi can build effective leverage through a two-pronged approach: It should do everything possible to undermine the credibility of the NPT, a regime most inimical to its interests, even as it offers implicit cooperation if its nuclear-weapons status is acknowledged through full membership in the London Club without the fullscope-safeguards provision being applicable. The United States will be more willing to co-opt India if exclusion means a continued Indian war on an already-threatened regime. INAV

| home | state | national | business | editorial | advertisement | sports |
| international | weather | mailbag | suggestions | search |
subscribe | send mail |