Given that the writing of history in India over the last half-century has produced some of the finest historians, recognised both nationally and internationally, one is surprised at the appointment of Professor Y. Sudershan Rao as chairperson of the Indian Council for Historical Research (ICHR). Professor Rao's work is unfamiliar to most historians, with little visibility of research that he might have carried out. He has published popular articles on the historicity of the Indian epics but not in any peer-reviewed journal, and the latter is now a primary requisite for articles to be taken seriously at the academic level. Rumour has it that since he is working simultaneously on various projects, a recognised monograph has still to emerge. The projects are linked to spiritualism, yoga, the spiritual contacts between India and Southeast Asia, and such like. Whatever connections there may be between these themes and basic historical research, they are at best tenuous, and it would require a mind of extraordinary insight and rigour to interweave such ideas.

According to newspaper reports, Professor Rao has stated that although he is not a member of the RSS, he loves his country and its long culture. Does one have to be a member of the RSS to do so? The two issues that he has highlighted in his statement to the press as the agenda for his chairmanship are also prominent in the Hindutva view of Indian history. One is that of proving the historicity of texts such the Mahabharata and the Ramayana, and establishing the dates of the texts and their central event. This is a subject on which there has been endless research for the last two centuries. Indologists and historians have covered the range of possible investigation discussing philology, linguistics, archaeology, anthropology and even astronomy to try and ascertain a definitive chronology for these texts. But to no avail, as a precise date eludes them.

To go over the ground again in the absence of new hard evidence would merely be repeating familiar scholarship- but it may not be familiar to Professor Rao. Many scholars over recent years have accepted the argument of V.S. Sukthankar of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Pune, who in 1957, when editing the critical edition of the Mahabharata, stated that the composition of the text had no precise date and lay in the time bracket of 400 BC to AD 400. Subsequent to the initial composition of the text, the many later interpolations incorporated into it, not to mention the later range of recensions, complicate its dating. Much the same argument is made for the Ramayana of Valmiki with its many additions and recensions, not to mention variant versions of the story. It is this that called for critical editions of the epic texts, juxtaposing the variations in the different recensions and attempting to arrive at an early layer of composition, as has been done by Sanskrit scholars at the Bhandarkar Institute and the Oriental Institute in Vadodara.

These critical editions are now the source material used by scholars. We describe these texts as epics, which by definition means that they need not be restricted to a dateable event, and that it was thought legitimate to insert additions into the text as time went on, as is characteristic of ancient epic literature. Professor Rao's other statement to the press of there being archaeological evidence to support the theory that there was once a temple where the Babri Masjid later stood, is largely a political statement as the report of the excavation at the site in Ayodhya is not publicly available. Those few who have had the chance to read the report may not agree with the statement.

Searching for the dates of texts that by their nature do not conform to a single date may be of interest to some, but surely the historian should be more concerned with trying to understand the broader picture of the past. This would involve studying how societies were formed in various parts of the subcontinent, how they changed and evolved over the centuries, and how we have arrived at where we are today. In this enterprise, it helps if history is treated as a social science and studied as such. Events and personalities from the past can mark changes in the flow of history. Historical research in India is no longer limited to trying to prove that the narratives of the ancient texts were historically accurate. We are now perhaps more concerned with what they tell us about our past societies and cultures. We are advancing new ways of analysing this information, some of which comes from interdisciplinary dialogues between historians and other social scientists. This does mean stretching our intellectual comprehension of the range of sources that we now use to reconstruct the past. It would seem that the ICHR may now turn the clock back in focusing on simple stories being accurate history.

Again, according to what was published in the newspapers, Professor Rao's second comment was regarding his objection to the introduction of Marxist tools of research by the ICHR during the chairmanship of Professors R.S. Sharma and Irfan Habib. Professor Rao should be more familiar with the ICHR since he was appointed to the Council by the first BJP government of 1999-2004. He should know that for the most part of its existence, the ICHR has been under the chairmanship of non-Marxists such as Lokesh Chandra, S. Setter, MGS Narayanan and so on. So if they had wanted to remove the socalled "Marxist tools of research", there was nothing to stop them from doing so.

It is perhaps worth pointing out that the kind of history that is often dismissed by Hindutva ideologues as Marxist is not actually Marxist but bears the stamp of the social sciences. The distinction between the two, despite its importance to the interpretation of history, is generally glossed over by the proponents of Hindutva. This is largely because they have scant understanding of what is meant by a Marxist interpretation of history and therefore fail to recognise it. For them, a Marxist is simply someone who opposes the Hindutva ideology. Consequently, a range of historians unexpectedly find themselves dubbed as Marxists.

During the BJP/NDA government of 1999-2004, there was a frontal attack on historians by the then HRD minister M.M. Joshi. The attack focused on two levels of history writing. One was the content of school textbooks written for the NCERT prior to 1999, and the second was the attempt to prevent the publishing of some of the research projects of the ICHR, such as the "Towards Freedom Project". The present HRD minister, who unfortunately is unfamiliar with academia beyond school level, gives the impression that in this case she may be doing what she perhaps was appointed for: Carrying out the programme of the old history-baiters of the BJP who now have a fresh innings.

The pattern is becoming only too recognisable. Professional opinion is reduced to a cipher by putting aside recommendations from professional organisations. This has happened in something as crucial as the judiciary.

Again, rumour has it that the ICHR did send a shortlist of its recommendations for chairmanship to the HRD ministry. The list had the names of historians who had helped construct the ICHR into a viable research body. But that list seems to have conveniently got lost in the ministry. Therefore, a different name was pulled out of another hat and the person appointed. If this is so, then the prognosis is both predictable and drear.

Romila Thapar is Professor Emeritus of History at Jawaharlal Nehru University

