‘Political Pressure’ Bad for Academics: Pratap Bhanu Mehta’s Resignation Letter from NMML
On Friday, Pratap
Bhanu Mehta, a member of the executive committee (EC) of the Nehru
Memorial Museum and Library (NMML) resigned from his position to protest the
manner in which the institution’s reputation and integrity were being
compromised by attempts to foist a politically-connected bureaucrat as
director. The bureaucrat in
question is Shakti Sinha, an Indian Administrative Service officer who had
worked as private secretary to Atal Bihari Vajpayee when he was prime minister
of the first BJP-led National Democratic Alliance government at the Centre.
The NMML is the
country’s premier institution for research on modern Indian history and
has so far been headed by directors who have had a reputation as scholars.
The
previous director, Mahesh Rangarajan, resigned last year in the
aftermath of statements by senior BJP leaders, including Union culture minister
Mahesh Sharma, expressing unhappiness at the NMML’s orientation. The Wire has learned that a decision to appoint
Sinha to the job was taken as early as the third week of July 2016. Soon after,
on July 22, an advertisement for the post of director was issued which tweaked
the required qualifications to include “administrators” and not just eminent
scholars. When the applications were scrutinised, the selection committee –
headed by minister of state for external affairs M.J. Akbar – placed Sinha at
the top of the list. Rather than be party
to Sinha’s appointment, Mehta, who is an eminent political scientist and heads
the Centre for Policy Research in Delhi, has preferred to resign from his
position on the EC.
Appended below is
the full text of the letter of resignation he sent on Friday, August 11,
2016, to Lokesh Chandra, chair of the NMML executive committee.
Dear Prof. Chandra,
I write to submit my
resignation as member of the Executive Committee of the Nehru Memorial Museum
and Library. I was appointed to the Committee by the present government. But
developments of the last few weeks lead me to conclude that NMML is heading in
a direction that makes me uncomfortable.
Under such
circumstances, I feel I will not be able to contribute to the institution in
any meaningful way. It is therefore right that I step down. As you are aware, I
have recorded my note of dissent against the recommendations of the selection
committee.
I believe the
committee, in making its recommendations, has acted in deep haste, in a way
that will harm the long term reputation of a distinguished institution like
NMML. NMML has a wide remit, much beyond its function as a memorial and
library. It is central to the world of historical scholarship, and can
potentially be a great contributor to the world of ideas more generally. It is
important therefore that the head of the institution be someone who commands
intellectual respect.
I do not believe that
the candidate the committee has recommended as its number one choice commands
such respect amongst the academic community. I am not in a position to comment
on his abilities as an administrator. But nothing in the track record of this
candidate leads me to believe that he can provide the kind of exemplary
intellectual leadership NMML needs at this point in its history.
Appointing an
administrator who does not have the requisite track record in the field of
scholarship, or the world of letters more generally, sends a very bad signal
about the stature of NMML as an institution. I believe that the appointment of
such a person also violates the spirit in which the executive committee had
revised the qualifications for the post of director.
As I had pointed out
in the meeting of the selection committee, the advertisement we put out was at
variance with the formulations of the executive committee. This advertisement
paved the way, in a way in which we had not intended, for a pure administrator
to be considered for the position. This advertisement was not approved by the
executive committee.
The committee should take into account
administrative experience or demonstrated leadership skills. But sending a
signal that completely marginalises issues of academic credibility, scholarly
credentials, or larger contributions to the world of ideas or thinking does not
befit an institution of the stature of NMML. It is the committee’s (and the
government’s) prerogative to marginalise academic considerations if it so
wishes. But I hope you will understand that I cannot be complicit in this
marginalisation.
As I had pointed out
in the selection committee, the overall pool of applications was not worthy of
an institution of such importance. That may have partly been the result of the
process: a very tight deadline was given to applicants; the committee was given
no time to do any outreach to potential candidates after the advertisement
appeared. But I also suspect the reason the application pool was disappointing
was this. There is an impression that good academics will find it very
difficult to function in the institutional set up we have created, with its
multiple political and administrative pressures.
We can debate how this
impression has been created. But we have to come to terms with the fact that we
are doing everything to exacerbate the impression that leading institutions are
hostile to academics of genuine accomplishment and promise. We are not even
seeking them out, or persuading them to provide intellectual leadership to
major institutions. This appointment will, I am afraid, exacerbate that impression.
Since I have put in a
note of dissent, I do not wish to encumber my colleagues and the incoming
director with my presence on the committee. It will only create more
awkwardness all around. I respect the right of the committee to take the
institution in whichever direction they think fit. But I hope equally that the
committee will understand my reasons for resigning.
My colleagues have
been wonderful, and a great source of learning. But when it is clear that the
chasm between our visions of the kind of director NMML needs is so deep, it is
time to bow out. I respectfully submit my resignation, and request that you
forward it to the appropriate authorities. I shall, always, remain a friend of
the institution and the highest ideals it should stand for.
Warmest best wishes,
Pratap Bhanu Mehta
*******
NB: As for their attitude towards historical truth, here are details regarding the Parivars attempt to censor Gandhi's works: Report of the first NDA government's (1998) brazen attempt to 'revise' Gandhi's Collected Works. Hundreds of whimsical deletions and changes were noticed by scholars and Gandhians in India and around the world, who viewed these changes as an insult to scholarship, and demanded an end to such attempts to play with historical documents. Read the history of the controversy. Tridip Suhrud, now director of Sabarmati Ashram, wrote a detailed analysis of this shameless behaviour in EPW in November 2004. It was only after the defeat of the NDA government that the fraudulently 'revised' edition of the CWMG was withdrawn, in 2005 - DS
ALSO SEE:
सत्य की हत्या
Bharat Bhushan: RSS chief Golwalkar threatened to kill Gandhi - 1947 CID report
Discussion following Golwalkar expose
कुमार प्रशांत - तो राष्ट्रीय स्वंयसेवक संघ ने एक बार फिर गांधी से दो-दो हाथ करने का मन बनाया है // Bharat Bhushan: BJP icon SP Mookerjee complicit in raising funds for defending Gandhi's assassins
Bharat Bhushan: RSS chief Golwalkar threatened to kill Gandhi - 1947 CID report
Discussion following Golwalkar expose
कुमार प्रशांत - तो राष्ट्रीय स्वंयसेवक संघ ने एक बार फिर गांधी से दो-दो हाथ करने का मन बनाया है // Bharat Bhushan: BJP icon SP Mookerjee complicit in raising funds for defending Gandhi's assassins
Kannan Srinivasan: A subaltern fascism - on VD Savarkar's collaboration with the British Raj
The law of killing - a brief history of Indian fascism
The law of killing - a brief history of Indian fascism
The Broken Middle (on the 30th anniversary of 1984)
