It was appropriate that the memorial to Jawaharlal Nehru should be a Museum centred on the national movement and post-colonial India. It was equally appropriate that linked to the Museum there should be a Library equipped in data pertaining to the study of modern Indian society. Politically, Nehru was a leader whose interest was not limited to the problems of the Indian nation but extended beyond national boundaries. Intellectually, his mind reached across multiple disciplines. This was evident to those who heard him converse with astronomers on one occasion and at the other end of the spectrum, with zoologists, on another occasion. A memorial to him would have to be sensitive to his larger interests.
It was fitting, therefore, that the Library had in the beginning focussed on the discipline that addressed the history of contemporary and near-contemporary events, but with the obvious understanding that the research carried out in the Library would reach out in various directions, contributing to the study of the multiple aspects of modern Indian society. This was what was being called social science in those days — and still is — and history, we historians like to believe, is the pre-eminent member of this family.
Those who constituted the Nehru Memorial Fund were persons committed to the idea that irrespective of where the finances came from — and they came largely from the government — the NMML had to be as autonomous an institution as possible, dedicated to new research on modern times and not averse to discussion at the cutting edge of knowledge. Associated with this activity were the Nehru Fellowships, which initially at least, sought scholars and specialists in a variety of disciplines.
The NMML soon acquired an impressive collection of data — the kind of material that goes into the study of society, economy and politics — and an appropriately equipped library. A serious attempt was made to ensure that books and journals were up-to-date and that other research materials, such as the private papers it had acquired, were properly maintained. This was foresight on the part of the first Director, B.R. Nanda, and his deputy V.C. Joshi. They thereby built a firm base for the future of the NMML.
With the foundation of an excellent library and a fine collection of various categories of documents, it inevitably became a centre for a range of research into Indian life and times of the recent centuries and sometimes even earlier. The centre-point was the national movement, but over the years studied in diverse ways as the movement itself suggested. This provided an inter-disciplinary character to the research sponsored by the Library. Scholars drawn from different disciplines, such as sociology, economics, political science, demography, linguistics and others, were inducted as Fellows of the Library.
There were fortnightly seminars where ongoing research was presented, or scholars from elsewhere in India and visiting scholars from outside India, were asked to present their work. People whose work one had read became persons with whom one exchanged ideas. Conferences on various themes from the social sciences drew a wide audience. Students and scholars from the universities in Delhi met there regularly for discussions, as it was centrally located and had the ambience of an intellectually happening place.
The more memorable seminars during the period when Ravinder Kumar was Director, who reached out to both established and promising scholars, were those that considered and reconsidered the concepts that were much talked about at the time, and some still are: the definition of nationalism, of secularism, of communalism; the evolution of these concepts internationally and nationally; and how they were being used politically and socially. Religion and politics was expectedly a frequent theme not unconnected with observations on caste and society. Related to this were questions of literary texts, especially in the regional languages and their take on these subjects. The economy of capitalism in a situation of emerging globalisation was in itself of interest, as was the concern with its effect on other areas of life. Even the subject of the concept of “Aryan” and its current political use evoked sharp discussion.
It became the kind of place that Nehru would have enjoyed, not as a politician, but as a person concerned with bigger issues as he was: the changing contours of his society, impinged upon by the world. Trying to understand this and give it direction, required intense thinking both on the past and the many facets of the present. The assumptions that political parties — even the one in power — could interfere in the NMML began to fall by the wayside and the institution encouraged independent research.
However, during the last decade, after Ravinder Kumar retired, the scene began to change. Scholars, seminars, lectures focussing on new ways of analysing data, seem to fade away. Equipping the Library became a less active exercise. Was this due to apathy on the part of those who were responsible for the earlier liveliness, or a directional unconcern? Or was it the pressure of parties in power using its premises and seeking its imprint? Whatever the reasons, discussions on scholarly research became infrequent. Given that there is a reluctance to decentralise control in the running of our institutions, there is little that can be done if this kind of change sets in. Unfortunately, there is predictability in the way in which we erode our best institutions.
One of the earlier Directors had referred, in private conversation, to attempts made by political parties to pressure the NMML, but that these had to be, and could be resisted, if one was firm. Parties come and go, as do governments, and from a longer perspective some elements of politics become a game of the evanescent. Those running institutions should recognise the impermanence of persons in power, and at the same time, the permanence of the institution.
It is ironic that no party today can claim an inheritance from Nehru: functioning within the global market economy is a contradiction of Nehru's policies of economic growth and development, in the context of the Indian nation and its people; the current appeals to religious identities as a mechanism of political mobilisation would have been unacceptable to him. Even if it is argued that an institution drawing on his memory should be researching the questions that were significant to him and his times, these questions have to be reviewed in the light of possible new data and analyses. Why is nationalism now being defined in different terms? Why does half the population continue to be below the poverty line? Why has the expanding middle class become less secular than before? Why has caste become so crucial to Indian democracy?
New kinds of research in the social sciences have their own directions, but it could be insightful if juxtaposed with these and similar questions. The questions don't change from decade to decade, but the answers can.
Hopefully, the historian now appointed as Director, Mahesh Rangarajan, will instil an intellectual life into the institution, keep political parties, whether in or out of government, at bay, and make the NMML a vibrant centre for ideas and discussions on Indian society.
(Professor K.N. Panikkar is Chairman of the Kerala Council for Historical Research. Romila Thapar is Professor Emeritus of History at the Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.)
