Left Academics and Writing of Indian History

Author(s): S. Ratnagar, Satish Saberwal, Harbans Mukhia, R. Champakalakshmi, Romila Thapar,

Muzaffar Alam, Suvira Jaiswal, K. N. Panikkar, K. Meenakshi, B. D. Chattopadhyaya, Yogesh
Sharma, R. N. Varma, Dilbaghsingh, Mridula Mukherjee, Aditya Mukherjee, N. Bhattacharya
and Bipan Chandra
Reviewed work(s):
Source: Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 13, No. 17 (Apr. 29, 1978), p. 713
Published by: Economic and Political Weekly
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4366560 .
Accessed: 03/10/2012 01:36

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Economic and Political Weekly is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Economic and Political Weekly.

http://www.jstor.org

Left Academics and Writing of
Indian History
THIS is with reference to the article
entitled "Devaluation of Marxism by
Left Academicians" in your issue of
April 8, 1978. In this article Su-
manta Banerjee makes a slanderous
attack on the Centre for Historical
studies of the Jawaharlal Nehru Uni-
versity and accuses the Centre of not
doing what it was never intended to
do. The CHS was not set up to
foster Marxist research. The guidelines
for the Centre were to encourage re-
search into the social and economic
history of India, an aspect of Indian
history which is generally neglected
in most departments of Indian history.
The Centre functions within a liberal
framework accommodating both Mar-
xist and non-Marxist opinion. No
claims to being a centre of Marxist
research have ever been made.
If Banerjee has an axe to grind
with certain members of the Centre
he should say so openly and not make
allegations against the CHS which are
patently false. We, the Faculty of
the CHS, deplore this attempt at vili-
fication by resorting to statements
which are totally incorrect. No mem-
ber of the CHS has ever been accus-
ed of administrative irregularities. It
may be pointed out that the JNU
does not have affiliated colleges, where
Faculty appointments can be made,
nor do members of the CHS sit on
selection committees for such appoint-
ments in colleges in Delhi or elsewhere.
Hence the question of denying op-
portunities to students does not arise.
Neither has any member of the CHS
been hounded out from the Centre.
There have been no complaints in the
Centre about favouritism on the part
of the academic heads in the making
of appointments nor of the Faculty in
deciding scholarships, and there have
been enough opportunities for such
complaints to have been made, includ-
ing the recent enquiry by the Chan-
cellor, Morarji Desai.
Banerjee accuses us of taking the
cue from Indira Gandhi in trying to
develop the CHS into a "Centre of
Excellence". Surely excellence cannot
become taboo simply because someone
might on some occasion have urged its
pursuit. Curiously, in the next 'para-
graph, we are, on the contrary, accused
of ignoring "the competence of can-
didates for scholarships". Attention to
competence is part of nurturing excel-
lence, and it is unclear whether Baner-
jee is for or against such qualities as
competence and excellence. In this
confusion, Banerjee is riot alone, and
we have often suffered at the hands of
critics who did not know their own
minds.
The occasion when the Admissions
Committee of the CHS was gheraoed
by the Students Union in 1973 had
nothing to do with the granting or
denial of admission to any particular
student. The Admissions Committee
was gheraoed as part of the general
demand for the postponement of the
dat-eof admissions. In 1974 there were
some complaints by the Students Union
regarding admission procedures and
these complaints were directed at the
CHS. It was alleged that some appli-
cants had been deliberately excluded.
The discrepancy arose over the system
of computing qualifying marks and had
nothing to do with keeping out stu-
dents from backward regions. Sub-
sequently a Review Committee appoint-
ed by the Academic Council came to
the conclusion that the allegations were
unfounded, which conclusion was
unanimously endorsed by all the
Faculty and Student Members of the
Academic Council.
Banerjee's unsubstantiated conten-
tian is that the CHS was supporting
Indira Gandhi and her policies. The
facts are to the contrary. As is well
known in the JNU it was the CHS
which was among. the first to challenge
political interference in admission in
July 1975 and it was the Faculty of
the CHS who argued with the Univer-
sity authorities against this inter-
ference. Since this happened within
the first few weeks of the declaration
of the Emergency, the CHS could easily
have taken a neutral position. Again
in October 1976 almost every member
of the CHS signed the protest against
the 42nd Constitutional Amendment.
It is not surprising that those who
remained silent throughout the Emer-
gency are now trying to vilify those
that showed some courage.
It is indeed regrettable that a publi-
cation such as the Economic and Politi-
LETTERSTO EDITOR
cal Weekly should lend its pages to
this kind of venomous gossip.
S RATNAGAR, SATISH SABERWAL, HAR-
BANS aMUKHIA, R CHAMPAKALAKSHMI,
ROMILA THAPAR, MUZAFFAR ALAM,
SUVIRA JAISWAL, K N PANIKKAR, K
MEENAKSHI, B D CHATTOPADHYAYA,
YOGESH SHARMA, R N VARMA, DILBAGH-
SINGH, MRIDULA MUKHERJEE, ADITYA
MUKHERJEE, N BHATTACHARYA, BIPAN
CHANDRA.
Centre for Historical Studies
Jawaharlal Nehru University
New Delhi
April 24, 1978
Southern Africa
IT was recently reported over the BBC
(World Service) that the Indian foreign
minister had handed over a set of
proposals suggested by Western coun-
tries for a settlement in Namibia to
Sam Nujoma, the president of South
West Africa Peoples' Organisation
(SWAPO), then visiting New Delhi.
Not surprisingly, these proposals were
rejected by the SWAPO leader. It is
well known that .the West favoured
the leader of the minority Herrero
tribe in Namibia (who was assassinat-
ed last month) to take over as Presi-
dent at the end of 1978 when Namibia
is to be officiallly declared indepen-
dent. This is not surprising particular-
ly since SWAPO, which enjoys the
support of the majority Ovanbo tribe
in Namibia, is backed by the Soviet
Union. It is interesting that South
African leaders too favour the leaders
of the Herrero tribe a fact that is
corroborated in the South African
Defence Minister's statement regretting
the assassination of the 'moderate'
leader of the Herrero tribe - a 'leader'
who has been consistently denounced
by the SWAPO as a puppet of the
South African racist regime.
It thus appears that just as. in Rho-
desia where the Muzorewa, Sithole,
and Chirau group hag arrived at an
'internal settletnent' with the white
regime, a parallel' situation is develop-
ing in Namibia. One of the major
criticisms of the 'internal settlement'
in Rhodesia is that it leaves the army
and police in the hands of 'the whites
for as long as 10 years. In Nambia,
analogously, part of the friction bet-
ween the SWAPO and the anti-SWAPO
black forces is whether and how many
South African soldiers should be allow-
ed to remain in Namibia when elec-
tions are held later this year. While
713