|
I
congratulate the Gazetteers department for publishing the Volume-II
Part-II of the state gazetteers series -" Perspectives
on Kerala History:The Second Millennium." This is a work
by several hands; prominent historians, identified with different
schools of thought, have contributed articles to this volume.
It is now being realized that more and more, collaborative effort
is of crucial importance to the writing of history. I am that
this government publication exemplifies this aspect of historiography,
in an impressive manner.
With
the conviction that I am not digressing, let me use this opportunity
to clarify the position of the government on the writing of
history. You may still remember the bitter "controversy" that
followed the commissioning of a team of historians and intellectuals
to write a book on Kerala's contribution to the freedom movement.
The project seemed to be generally acceptable to the team of
experts. But the complexion changed when the government suggested
that E.M.S. Namboodiripad be consulted while preparing the volume.
Interested groups and individuals came alive. The mainstream
media trained its gun on the government and had a field day
of sensational interpretations, feigned indignation and sinister
arguments. It was as if the the government had planted an intruder
within the hallowed precincts if the academy.
I recall this incident with real pain. EMS is
not with us anymore. I am convinced that in consultation with
him, the experts could have produced a work of great relevance
and significance. By becoming the willing puppets and participants
of a "media controversy" we have absolutely, and irrecoverably,
lost a great opportunity. EMS was among those who created history;
he was to Kerala what Gandhiji was to India's freedom movement.
Through an incredibly long span of political practice, he had
unambiguously identified himself with the deprived and oppressed.
Consultation with him would not have impoverished the project.
On the contrary it would have lent experiential wealth, critical
prosperity and clarity of truth to an account of Kerala's contribution
to the freedom movement. We committed an unpardonable mistake
by forfeiting this opportunity.
One
of the historians on the panel, is reported to have said, "I
am not a historian who would write history according to the
dictates of others". Despite the pontifical tone, he was merely
stating the obvious. A historian of intellectual integrity
should be able to collaborate without being "dictated to". Integrity
is not so brittle a commodity that it should crack and brittle,
when exposed to consulting and collaboration. Nothing stood
in the way of the scholar consulting with EMS, and deciding
to retain his differences with him. Tomorrow happens to be EM's
first death anniversary and I thought, I may take this clarification,
so that future generations may know the other side of the story.
Academic exclusivity is not the natural condition for the writing
of history. The myth of scholarly 'elicits' needs to be interrogated
and exposed. History must cut through a multiplicity of perspectives,
differences and positions and most importantly, it should be
on the side of the people. The present volume, I believe, bears
out the government's respect for intellectual freedom. The historical
accounts in this publication do not demand docile acceptance
from the readers. Critical alertness should mark any serious
approach to historical writing. I wish all those interested
in kerala history and culture a useful and provocative reading
so that it may lead towards further research.
|
