History is too important to be left to politicians, says Prof. Bhattacharya, who quit recently as chief editor of Indian Historical Review

Differences in approach to historical research triggered the recent resignation of historian Sabyasachi Bhattacharya as Chief Editor of Indian Historical Review, a journal published by the Indian Council of Historical Research (ICHR).

Though he denied any personal problems with ICHR Chairman Y. Sudershana Rao, appointed by the Modi government, Professor Bhattacharya was said to be upset with a general right-wing turn in history writing. Professor Rao from Kakatiya University, who headed the Akhil Bharatiya Itihas Sankalan Yojana, the history wing of the Sangh Parviar, had recommended a few names from the Parivar to the institute’s council.

“The record of the ICHR is not flawless, nor shall I claim, on behalf of the institute or the journal I humbly served, very great achievements. However, I doubt whether you would find instances of persons, nominated by the governments in power, regarding their position pro tem as a franchise to fantasise about history,” Professor Bhattacharya told The Hindu.

“There was by and large a liberal tolerance; I use the word liberal though it is pejorative in the idiom of the Left and the Right, towards differences in points of view. I do hope the ICHR will continue as a forum for expression of various approaches to Indian history. History is too important to be left to politicians.”

Denies differences



Y. Sudershana Rao, a Professor of History from Kakatiya University, who headed the Akhil Bharatiya Itihas Sankalan Yojana, the history wing of the Sangh Parivar, was appointed Chairman of the ICHR last June.

Professor Bhattacharya has denied that he had differences with Dr. Rao, but is said to be upset at the general right-wing turn in history writing.

Prof. Rao has recommended a few names from the Sangh Parivar to the ICHR. Asked about this, he said: “Following the resignation of Professor Bhattacharya, Professor Dilip Chakrabarti has been appointed to the post. The committee of the journal has been reconstituted.”

To a question on the right-ward turn of the ICHR, Prof. Rao quipped, “Was it left-ward earlier?”

However, the minutes of the meeting held on March 27, posted on the council’s website, give an indication of the direction the newly appointed members of the council want the ICHR to take. Some members, for instance, wanted a restructuring of the History syllabus taught in schools.

Another member demanded to know what had been done in the past 50 years as ICHR was in the hands of “fascist” historians. Yet another member wanted an authentic history of the ICHR to be written. One member wanted History to be linked to the tourism industry to generate jobs.

Others cautioned against the misuse of the ICHR by political parties at last month’s meeting.

Whether it was the slugfest at a memorial lecture — where the chief guest, a Belgian Professor of Philosophy, who said the reading of the Mahabharata was sufficient for an understanding of the past — which was followed by a loud protest or the heckling of the member secretary over a disagreement in the course of a lecture organised by the council, the ICHR is in the news for the wrong reasons.