[sacw] SACW #2. (26 Nov. 01)

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Wire | Dispatch #2.
26 November 2001
http://www.mnet.fr/aiindex

------------------------------------------

#1. India: Workshop on Gender and History (New Delhi)
#2. India: Communal tension grips Indian district after Christian killing
#3. India: Has the 'Talibanisation' of education begun?
(Sakina Yusuf Khan & Sujata Dutta Sachdeva)
#4. India: Feel the hatred (Azra Razzack)
#5. India: How NCERT book survived the 1977 onslaught (Amitabh Shukla)
#6. India: A Tribute to Dharma Kumar (1928-2001) (Sanjay Subrahmanyam)

________________________

#1.

[ New Delhi: exact Location of below event ? details will be posted=20
in the coming days. If any SACW subscribers have full details they=20
should send these to: <aiindex@m...>]
o o o

Programme for the Workshop on Gender and History

29th Nov 2001

Morning Session 9. 30 a.m to 1 p.m.

Dr Uma Chakravarti, Miranda House No-conflict Zone:
Interest, Emotion, and the Family in Early India

Ms Jaya Tyagi, Sri Venkatesvara College The Extent of
the Householder's Control in the Grha: Brahmanical
Ideology on the Ritual Role of the grhapati in the
early Grhya Sutras.

Ms Ranjita Dutta, Lady Shri Ram College The Politics
of Religious Identity: the Case of the Muslim Goddess
in Srivaisnavism.

Afternoon Session 2 p.m. to 5 p.m.

Ms Ramya Sreenivasan, JNU Alauddin Khalji Remembered:
Conquest and Gender in Medieval Rajput Narratives.

Prof. Shireen Moosvi, AMU Women Labourers During the
Mughal Period.

Prof. Dilbagh Singh, JNU Aspects of Gender Disputes in
late medieval Rajasthan.

30th Nov 2001
Morning Session 9.30 am to 1 p.m.

Dr Anshu Malhotra, Venkatesvara College The
Emergence of Bazaar Literature: Jhuggras, Kissas and
Reforms in early 20th century Punjab.

Dr Radhika Singha, AMU Finding and Losing a Female
Subject: Women and Order in Colonial Law

Dr P.K. Dutta, Venkatesvara College Abductions and
Love Across Communities: Conflicts and Their
Representations in Early 20th century Bengal.

Afternoon Session 2 p.m. to 4 p.m.

Dr Chitra Joshi, Indraprastha College Revisiting the
Male Breadwinner Debate: Reflections on Gender and
Domesticity in 20th Century India.

Prof. Monica Juneja, Delhi University Visual
Representations of Women in 19th Century France.

Concluding Session 4 to 6 p.m.

______

#2.

Communal tension grips Indian district after Christian killing

by Jatindra Dash, Indo-Asian News Service

Bhubaneswar, Nov 25 (IANS) Tensions between Hindus and Christians have
re-ignited in an Orissa district where two years ago a missionary and his
two sons were burnt to death for allegedly propagating their faith.

Official sources said Sunday that communal tension had gripped parts of
Keonjhar district after some people killed a Christian convert last week.

Suspected Hindu zealots killed Keshaba Tudu of Sikabeda village, about 250
km from here, for informing the police about the possibility of an attack o=
n
Christians.

Sikabeda village is in the same Manoharpur block where Catholic missionary
Graham Stuart Staines and his two minor sons were burnt to death by a crowd
of Hindu hoodlums for reportedly preaching Christianity. Staines was known
for his work among leprosy patients of the area for a long time.

A delayed report from the village said while Tudu's death was the latest
catalyst in igniting Hindu-Christian friction, communal tensions have grown
over the past week over the use of a well. Christians are in a minority in
the village.

Three people had been arrested for Tudu's murder.

Though local villagers said there was communal tension in Sikabeda, state
police chief N.C. Padhi denied the claim. There was a dispute involving
people from both communities and the death was caused by personal rivalry,
he told IANS adding that the situation was peaceful in every village in the
district.

Even as fresh tension between Hindus and Muslims is being reported from
Manoharpur block, the trial in the Staines case continues. Stains and his
two sons--Philip and Timothy--were killed on the night of January 22, 1999.

The federal investigative agency, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), ha=
s
charged more than a dozen of people in the Staines murders. The main accuse=
d
Dara Singh, said to be a Hindu fanatic, had been arrested.

A 14-year-old accused in the case had been sentenced to 14 years in prison.
He has appealed against the sentence.

The Keonjhar district has witnessed several clashes between Christians and
Hindus during the past year over the issue of conversion. Hindus allege tha=
t
Christian missionaries were converting people clandestinely with
inducements.

--Indo-Asian News Service
_____

#3.

http://203.199.93.7/articleshow.asp?art_ID=3D1423018903
SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 2001
THE TIMES OF INDIA

Has the 'Talibanisation' of education begun?
SAKINA YUSUF KHAN & SUJATA DUTTA SACHDEVA
TIMES NEWS NETWORK
Is the government 'Talibanising' education? The PM doesn't think so.=20
Endorsing the changes made in the history text-books he said on=20
Saturday: "If history is one-sided, we should change it."
As the controversy about deleting certain portions from textbooks=20
rages on and the issue is hotly debated in Parliament, a historic=20
battle threatens to erupt between the NCERT, the historians, the=20
'nationalists', the 'communists'...
The Sunday Times on the different voices...
HISTORIAN ANGST
Arjun Dev: The CBSE decision is incomprehensible and unprecedented.=20
Such things can only happen in fascist regimes. In any case, how are=20
they going to ensure the 'objectionable' portions are not discussed.
Are they going to recruit an educational police force and post them=20
in classrooms. As Arjun Singh rightly pointed out in the Rajya Sabha=20
it amounts to the Talibanisation of education.
The aim of education is to promote open-mindedness and rational=20
thinking. But the NCERT obviously thinks otherwise and is opposed to=20
free discussion. Even if it wanted to review these books it should=20
have been done by a panel of reputed historians.
R S Sharma: This is the second attack on my book. The first was in=20
January 2001 when they dropped portions from my book relating to=20
Jainism. The NCERT entered into an agreement with me in 1980=20
according to which no adaptation or modification can be made in the=20
book without the approval of the author.
They have violated the agreement. But it's not unexpected from NCERT=20
- an organisation whose general policy is that anything which=20
questions the historical authenticity of Hindu gods and Hindu values=20
will not be tolerated. Unfortunately it does not know that history is=20
about facts, not suppressions and beliefs.
Romila Thapar: I came to know about the circular from media reports.=20
The CBSE or NCERT did not inform me. If there is anything=20
objectionable in a book, you have to take the author's permission to=20
make changes.
In the past too, when state education agencies wished to make=20
changes, the agreement was that the author had to be informed before=20
making any changes and he has agree with the changes.
None of that happened this time. These books are being used for=20
nearly 35 years, if something was objectionable, it would have come=20
up earlier. The action was politically motivated. It is extremely=20
dangerous that the CBSE should send a directive to schools that a=20
particular subject is not to be discussed in class.
Bipin Chandra: A communal interpretation of history is the basis of=20
the RSS's ideology. Communalism - minority as well as majority - is=20
all about creating fear of domination by the other.
How does a communalist party like the RSS go about creating this fear=20
in 80 per cent of the population? The easiest way is to create the=20
bogey of Muslim domination. So whatever good happened in history was=20
during the ancient period and the Muslim period was one in which all=20
this greatness was undermined - this is what they want taught in=20
schools.
It is a sinister effort to communalise young minds. The NCERT wants=20
history textbooks to be written by nationalist historians. I'm a=20
nationalist historian in my own right but if that should prompt me to=20
say that we created the atom bomb, sorry, I'm not nationalist enough.
Harbans Mukhia: It is criminal to tamper with any discipline like=20
this. History cannot be written as fiction for it is all about facts.=20
Clearly, this is part of the Hindutva agenda.
NCERT'S STAND
JS Rajput: Let me make it clear that the circular was not issued by=20
the NCERT but by the CBSE. Yes, they issued it based on a suggestion=20
made by us that certain 'objectionable' portions from History=20
textbooks be deleted.
Even before I became the director in 1999, several court cases were=20
going on on these issues. We had received many complaints from bodies=20
like the Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee, Jain associations etc.
Then the Delhi Assembly passed a resolution asking for certain=20
deletions in History course books. I consulted a large number of=20
historians before taking action. And no, I did not think it necessary=20
to consult these four historians as they are not the only historians=20
in India. Also, since I'm not a historian I cannot comment on the=20
content of history books.
OBJECTIONABLE TEXT
Only 16 pages in three history textbooks for Classes VI, VII and XI.=20
But so objectionable to the BJP-led government that all CBSE schools=20
have been directed to "delete" them "with immediate effect" and=20
ensure that "they not be taught or even discussed in the respective=20
classes." Some samples:
For special guests beef was served as a mark of honour (Class VI,=20
Romila Thapar)

Jats founded their state at Bharatpur from where they conducted=20
plundering raids in the regions around. (Class VIII, Arjun Dev and=20
Indira Arjun Dev)
In 1675, Guru Tegh Bahadur was arrested and executed. The official=20
explanation for this... is that after his return from Assam, the=20
Guru, in association with one Hafiz Adam, resorted to plundering and=20
raping, laying waste the whole province of Punjab (Class XI, Satish=20
Chandra)
Archaeological evidence should be considered far more important than=20
long family trees given in the Puranas. The Puranic tradition could=20
be used to date Rama of Ayodhya around 2000 BC, but extensive=20
excavations in Ayodhya do not show any settlements around that date
Cattle wealth slowly decimated because cows and bullocks were killed=20
in numerous Vedic sacrifices
The brahmanical reaction began as a result of the policy of Ashoka.=20
He... derided superfluous rituals performed by women. This naturally=20
affected the income of the Brahmanas (Class XI, R S Sharma)

_____

#4.

The Hindustan Times
26 November 2001

Feel the hatred
Azra Razzack

Mohammed Rafi's song "=8A Charon taraf lage hain, barbadiyon ke mele=20
re=8A" crossed my mind many times as we moved around Kutch after the=20
earthquake in January this year. There seemed to be a mela going on.=20
A mela of barbadi - unimaginable devastation, despair. Lurking around=20
was death, fear, pain and most scary of all, the sheer helplessness=20
of humanity.

I heard the story of a teacher who, on hearing an explosion,=20
instructed the students to get indoors; he thought Pakistan was about=20
to attack. The result - 53 students were crushed. Was our hatred of=20
the 'other' responsible for the death of our loved ones?

Similar thoughts crossed my mind as I attended a convention on the=20
communalisation of education organised by Sahmat in Delhi recently.=20
Another mela, another tragic story. Lurking behind here too was=20
devastation and death, the death of 'Indian

secularism', 'scientific thought and space', and an assault on=20
'democracy'. More scary was the near silence about what this=20
destruction represents.

What struck me most about the extended debates that have since=20
emanated in Parliament and in the media on the communalisation of=20
education is the lack of concern at a sheer personal level for most=20
people. As if the deletions and the additions of the

syllabi or text books is happening in some other country. In=20
discussing communalisation we have to 'elevate' it to the level of=20
the coverage of the Gujarat devastation for it to get attention. So=20
that the nation can feel the impact of this vicious madness.

We need to allow 'communalism' to touch and affect us in ways it=20
affects the affected. We need to experience the pain of communalism=20
the way we all experienced the pain of Gujarat. It is only when we=20
feel the pain caused by communalism that we will hate it. We have to=20
voice our disgust and not be content with merely bringing this debate=20
'centre-stage'.

What is worrisome in the discourse on communalisation, especially in=20
the context of education, is a lack of commitment. Unless we force=20
ourselves to move away from discussing communalism as a mere academic=20
issue and cringe with shame at every small evidence of it, and until=20
it remains as an issue where points are 'won' as in a debate, the=20
discourse will never go beyond being merely a critique. And a=20
critique alone cannot protect us from this destruction.

The issue of communalisation of education also seems to gain a sense=20
of urgency, when certain elite sections of the academia initiate a=20
debate. The Muslim voice, which has cried itself hoarse, has never=20
been taken with any seriousness. At best it gets noticed as=20
fundamentalism. Representations of Muslim grievances hardly ever make=20
'news', but they become 'serious' when a JNU academic cares to talk=20
about it. Reports of the National Commission for Minorities have not=20
even been tabled in Parliament for many years without any voice being=20
raised.

We need to quiz ourselves on the following: Why does the debate=20
become academic when it suits certain sections of society and a=20
matter of fundamentalism when it doesn't? Why wasn't the moment=20
'critical' when 'secular' academics headed important academic=20
institutions and yet textbooks contained material repugnant to=20
Muslims and other marginalised communities? How come there is hardly=20
any protest against the accusations that madrasas are a den of=20
terrorism? Why has the mono-cultural ethos of the school curriculum=20
never been an issue to quarrel about?

The exalted place given by the Radhakrishnan Commission (the first=20
education commission) to the Sanskrit language - "the greatness of=20
Sanskrit ought never to be in dispute and its rightful title to=20
India's special devotion should not be in doubt" - has never worried=20
us. Similarly the Secondary Education Commission's homogenising=20
framework was never considered threatening to Indian diversity. No=20
one even bothered to frown when the report talked of sectional,=20
provincial and regional differences as "undesirable". It also didn't=20
matter when the Kothari Commission stated that "the growth of local,=20
regional, linguistic, and state loyalties tends to make the people=20
forget India" and that such loyalties are "selfish".

It is amazing that we have allowed our classrooms to be=20
non-accommodative of the diverse cultures of India. No wonder we=20
raise no alarm when the almanac of an elementary school under the=20
University of Delhi carries the Gayatri Mantra, Vande Mataram, and=20
Saraswati Vandana or when functions start with Sanskrit shlokas and=20
lighting of a lamp. While we allow ourselves the luxury of critiquing=20
communalism at public forums, we turn a blind eye to what's happening=20
in our very own educational institutions. How does one then explain=20
anything in 'communalised' India?

As it needed a journey to Gujarat to understand the sheer=20
helplessness of human beings, one needs to follow the debate on the=20
saffron agenda in education to understand the hopelessness at which=20
attempts at solving the problem are dealt with. That discussion,=20
amongst some of the best minds, can result in only the demand for a=20
withdrawal of the NCERT curricular framework, and consultation with=20
states on education policy exposes the level at which we are pitched.=20
That we are still lost in semantics is unfortunate. My attempt here=20
is not to belittle these attempts but to highlight the lacunae in the=20
ways in which we are conditioned to think about the issues of=20
communalism in India.

Many countries in the world have tried to address this issue by=20
focusing on multicultural education. In India, we have not even cared=20
to register it within education. While this needs to be dealt with at=20
the level of politics and civil society, crucially, it needs to be=20
taken back to the school and to teacher training programmes.

Making teachers aware of the inevitable social and personal=20
devastation, ruptures in society, and pain that communalisation of=20
education can lead to and their responsibility in mitigating it=20
should be our immediate task. The ethos of a classroom that bristles=20
with soft or overt communal overtones is as much an arena where work=20
needs to be done, as is the fight against the RSS/BJP. We need to=20
overthrow established ways of looking at the issue of communalisation=20
for our efforts to be meaningful.

The writer is associated with the Department of Education, University of De=
lhi

______

#5.

The Hindustan Times
26 November 2001
=20=20=09=20
How NCERT book survived the 1977 onslaught
Amitabh Shukla
(New Delhi, November 25)

The book on Ancient India, portions of which have been banned by the=20
NCERT, was in the thick of controversy even in 1977 when the Janata=20
Party, comprising several Jan Sangh members, was in power.

Demands by the Jan Sangh MPs for a ban on the book was rejected by=20
the then Education Minister, who was from the Congress (O).

The members put pressure on the government through several campaigns=20
to ban the book written by Ram Sharan Sharma. However, the Education=20
Minister, who was not from the Sangh Parivar, did not relent and the=20
book remained untouched for 24 years.

But unlike in 1977, when the Sangh group was not powerful enough to=20
influence a policy decision, the BJP now has a major say in the NDA=20
Government and has been able to do what the Sangh members couldn't do=20
twenty-four years back.

Interestingly, the same paragraphs of the book which have now been=20
deleted had once invited the wrath of former Jan Sangh MP Ramgopal=20
Shalwale, who headed the All India Arya Samaj at that time. Another=20
critic of the same text was SP Gupta, an archaeologist and a=20
contributor to the RSS mouthpiece, Organiser.

In a spirited defence of his book, Sharma pointed out that a book on=20
ancient history is not a catalogue of antiquities kept in a museum=20
but a connected story which answers the questions on where, when and=20
how and why something happened. Sharma said he countered all=20
allegations made against his book academically, but none of the=20
critics replied to them.

"The Parivar's history police will realise the difficulties of=20
writing history or making changes suitable to their ideology," said=20
an academician. She termed the debate on the left wing versus the=20
right wing historians as meaningless.

"Indian history writing has so far not produced a right wing=20
historian of any stature, whereas several liberal and left historians=20
enjoy undisputead international standing," she said, adding, "history=20
should only be subjected to objectivity and not subjectivity".

Another academician feared that the new textbooks that will replace=20
the ones written by Sharma, Romila Thapar, Satish Chandra, Arjun Dev=20
and Indira Arjun Dev may contain the hate propaganda taught in the=20
Saraswati Shishu Mandirs of the RSS.

"We would like to know the name of the historians writing the new=20
books, their credentials, their research in the past and their=20
standing in the historians' community," he said.

He said that an academic debate on the contents of the proposed books=20
is a must, as the future generation could be conditioned to=20
propaganda that would harm the composite culture of the country.

When contacted, a prominent historian quoted AL Basham, the author of=20
The Wonder That Was India. "These atavistic ideologues hanker for the=20
wonder that was India, a wonder ruined by foreign invasion - first=20
Islamic, then western through colonisation and now globalisation".

Some of these myths have long been exploded and living in the past=20
would only bode dangers for the future, the historian said.

______

#6.

Economic and Political Weekly
24 November, 2001
Commentary

A Tribute to Dharma Kumar (1928-2001)

Dharma Kumar was a controversial figure, one whose role it was to=20
call into question the comfortable views of a series of established=20
orthodoxies. At times in doing so she could rub even close friends=20
the wrong way. But no one who studied with her will forget her=20
generosity (whether intellectual or personal) and the wide=20
intellectual horizons she opened up. In an academic world where petty=20
intrigues are the rule, there was nothing in the least small about=20
Dharma Kumar.

Sanjay Subrahmanyam

This brief essay is intended to look back on the work of one of 20th=20
century India's major economic historians, Dharma Kumar, who died in=20
New Delhi on October 19, 2001 at the age of 73, after an extended=20
illness. It is written from the perspective of someone who was a=20
student, then a doctoral student, and finally a colleague of Dharma=20
Kumar, and who had the privilege of participating in a number of=20
activities with her, whether in the Delhi School of Economics or=20
elsewhere. It does not claim to be objective, for the degree of=20
proximity that existed between the two of us does not facilitate=20
objectivity. I hence hope readers will forgive the personal tone that=20
will creep into even the relatively academic discussion of the lines=20
that follow; a far more detailed personal reflection has been=20
published by Ramachandra Guha, to which I refer interested readers=20
('The Last Liberal', The Hindu, Magazine Section, November 4, 2001).

Dharma Kumar was trained as an economist in Bombay and Cambridge in=20
the 1940s and early 1950s, and after a short career in the Reserve=20
Bank of India and other government agencies, decided in her=20
mid-thirties to pursue an academic career in economic history. This=20
move from economics to economic history was less unusual in the 1960s=20
and 1970s than it has become subsequently, and the fact of having a=20
training in economics decidedly influenced the manner in which Dharma=20
conceived of economic history. Her approach was very=20
problem-oriented, with each exercise being conceived of as an attempt=20
to solve a problem that was posed (rightly or wrongly) in the=20
historiography. This characteristic was evident already in her first=20
(and also best known) work, which appeared in 1965 from Cambridge=20
University Press under the title Land and Caste in South India:=20
Agricultural Labour in the Madras Presidency during the Nineteenth=20
Century. This was the text of a doctoral dissertation from Cambridge=20
which had itself had a somewhat stormy history; referred for changes=20
a first time by a sceptical examiner (the conflict seems to have been=20
between the historian's and the economist's view of how to write a=20
thesis), the resubmitted thesis then won the Ellen MacArthur Prize=20
for the best work in economic history of the year at Cambridge=20
University.

Land and Caste is a relatively slim work at some 210 pages. It is=20
divided in two parts, the first somewhat more descriptive and=20
institutional in orientation, and the second more closely oriented to=20
an examination of statistical material. The problem that was=20
addressed was the following: by the mid-20th century a large group of=20
landless labourers existed in India without any doubt (constituting=20
as much as one-fourth of the agrarian working force). But was this=20
group entirely created during the period of colonial rule? Or had it=20
already existed in some form at the eve of colonial rule? If the=20
latter, then what modifications had this group undergone in the=20
period of colonial rule? One of the major tasks that the study set=20
itself therefore was to estimate the absolute and relative size of=20
the landless agricultural workforce in Madras Presidency at the=20
beginning of the 19th century. This was a period, it should be=20
recalled, for which regular Census of India data did not exist, and=20
so inference rather than direct observation had to be used.

The book established, quite simply, that "it was not the case that a=20
class of landless agricultural labourers was wholly created during=20
the British period by the impoverishment of the peasant proprietor=20
and the village craftsmen". The conclusion was furthermore posed as=20
an explicit critique of a number of "Golden Age descriptions" of the=20
agrarian situation before colonial rule, whether from the pens of A R=20
Desai and Rajni Palme Dutt, or (most to the point) that of Surendra J=20
Patel in his Agricultural Labourers in Modern India and Pakistan=20
(Bombay, 1952).

The work, written in a clear and spare style verging at times on=20
dryness (though spiced with the periodic sarcastic remark in the=20
footnote), established Dharma as an important alternative voice in a=20
debate that was largely dominated at that point by Marxist and=20
nationalist historians. In view of the fact that it literally=20
demolished the canonical position that S J Patel represented, Land=20
and Caste was naturally badly received in many circles, and its=20
position often misrepresented as stating that "the class of=20
agricultural labourers was not affected by colonial rule". Besides=20
its major conclusion, I still find the book invaluable today for its=20
careful working through a set of official data on emigration, wages=20
and - above all - for its pioneering use of pre-Census statistical=20
data. Of later historians of early colonial south India relatively=20
few scholars have followed this lead, distinguished exceptions=20
including David Ludden and Tsukasa Mizushima.

It is ironic, but not entirely surprising, that the most=20
thoroughgoing critique of Land and Caste may be found not from=20
another author, but from Dharma herself, in her 30-page introduction=20
to the reprint (which appeared in 1992 from Manohar Publishers in New=20
Delhi). Here, reflecting on the book after a gap of a=20
quarter-century, she noted a number of weaknesses in its=20
construction: "its complete reliance on official records", the=20
neglect of the process of "the conversion of tribals into=20
untouchables and bonded labourers", an excessively strong association=20
of caste and occupation, and so on. Still, she concluded (and this=20
view seems to me perfectly defensible), that the "main conclusions of=20
the work still held". These were as follows: "Members of certain=20
castes were by and large agricultural labourers at the outset of=20
British rule; this connection enables us to estimate the minimum=20
strength of agricultural labourers then, and the estimate shows that=20
the group was sizeable so that it cannot be held that landless labour=20
was virtually created by British rule" (reprint, p xxxvii).

After a brief further stint as a consultant economist at the Indian=20
Council for World Affairs (which saw the publication of a minor work=20
by her on economic relations between the EEC and India), Dharma Kumar=20
became established as the major economic historian at the Delhi=20
School of Economics from the turn of the 1970s on. It was an=20
association that continued to 1993 and her retirement from the Delhi=20
School. In institutional terms, the Delhi School was in these years=20
something of an oddity, as the sole economics department in the=20
country with a major investment in economic history. In the initial=20
years of Dharma's involvement with the Delhi School (where she had,=20
incidentally, never studied or taken any degrees), the dominant=20
figure was that of Tapan Raychaudhuri. After his departure to Oxford,=20
the group of economic historians was centred on Dharma, Om Prakash=20
and J Krishnamurty. Subsequently, in the 1980s, Omkar Goswami worked=20
there briefly on his return from Oxford; I joined the faculty in 1983=20
as Research Associate; and G Balachandran began to teach there in=20
1989, in the last years of Dharma's stint at the Delhi School.

Dharma's influence in the Delhi School was considerable, even though=20
her success as a lecturer was limited (as she herself admitted in a=20
disarming interview to the Dutch magazine, Itinerario in the late=20
1980s). The large classroom or lecture theatre was never her=20
strongpoint; she came across rather better in a small group,=20
conducting a discussion in a seminar format rather than presenting a=20
structured lecture over an hour. Her students from the 1970s and=20
1980s, who ran the gamut from Omkar Goswami, Mihir Shah and=20
Ramachandra Guha to the present author, A Joseph James and Jaivir=20
Singh, would probably remember her more for her capacity to open up=20
new worlds (with her exciting if at times disorganised=20
bibliographies), than for her instilling us with a fixed ideology or=20
viewpoint. Dharma was also particularly good at raising funds for=20
students - whether the Sri Ram Travelling Fellowships for students in=20
the summer, or more substantial sums of money such as that which I=20
needed for my archival work in the Netherlands. It is particularly=20
apposite therefore that a doctoral fellowship will be created in her=20
name at the Delhi School in the near future by her family.

In this long association of nearly a quarter-century with the Delhi=20
School of Economics, several phases are visible in Dharma's work. The=20
1970s were for the most part occupied, so far as I can gather, with=20
work on the Cambridge Economic History of India, of which Dharma and=20
Raychaudhuri were the general editors, and of which Dharma eventually=20
edited the second volume (in collaboration with Meghnad Desai). The=20
project was a massive one, and which Dharma later commented cost her=20
an enormous amount of effort not merely in terms of her own=20
contributions (two chapters on south India, and one on the fiscal=20
system), but in order to coordinate and revise the chapters of=20
others. It was a project that saw the participation of many of the=20
major economic historians of the period - from Eric Stokes and Benoy=20
Chaudhuri, to Hiroshi Fukazawa, J Krishnamurty and Tapan=20
Raychaudhuri. But a number of exclusions and inclusions were also the=20
object of controversy even before the work was published, and this=20
controversy continued from 1983 (when the work eventually appeared)=20
to the late 1980s. The violence of the debates seems odd viewed from=20
the perspective of today. The accusations were often predictable=20
ones: that the work represented an 'apologistic' vision of British=20
rule, that the best known authorities on certain subjects had been=20
set aside in favour of more obscure authors, and so on. Though the=20
work is clearly of quite uneven quality, it is unclear to me that=20
there is a coherent ideological agenda of any kind that emerges from=20
reading it. Some chapters clearly stand out for me, including several=20
on the regional economies and agrarian issues, those on demography=20
and occupational structure, and also the chapter that Dharma herself=20
wrote somewhat in extremis (when a contributor let her down) on the=20
fiscal system. At any rate, any intelligent reader can see that the=20
views of Morris D Morris or Alan Heston are clearly somewhat=20
different from those of Sabyasachi Bhattacharya or Benoy Chaudhuri;=20
the inclusion of S Sivasubramoniam or Chris Bayly among the authors=20
may have improved the average quality of the chapters, but I am=20
unsure that the thrust of the work would have been radically altered.=20
Indeed, a possible reproach that can be directed against the work is=20
that a strong enough editorial hand is not visible. Where a strong=20
editorial hand is visible (such as in Fukazawa's chapter on western=20
India), the chapter is clearly far the better for it.

But the light editorial touch that one sees in general in the CEHI=20
was characteristic of Dharma's views of what an editor's real=20
function was. In the 1970s and 1980s, this is also clear in the=20
functioning of the Indian Economic and Social History Review, which=20
she felt more passionately about in many respects than the Cambridge=20
Economic History of India. Early on in my association with the=20
journal, she explained her principles: the need to have at least one=20
Indian (or south Asian) author in every issue, the need for careful=20
refereeing, the crucial importance of a reputation for impartiality.=20
Further, if an essay had an important idea in it, she was prepared to=20
devote hours and even sometimes days to improving its style of=20
presentation, and form. In spite of some angry missives from would-be=20
authors, the fact that the journal published Amiya Bagchi, Irfan=20
Habib and David Arnold, as much as Alan Heston or Burton Stein, is a=20
sign that despite accusations that Dharma held to this or that=20
ideological position, her personal views were by and large kept=20
separate from those of the journal. This was the key to Dharma, who=20
was temperamentally not - in my view at least - always inclined to be=20
a liberal in the full sense, and who had to struggle hard with=20
herself to emerge finally as one. I take her struggle as a lesson to=20
others (the present author included) who are naturally intolerant,=20
and must curb this intellectual intolerance in the interests of=20
preserving a viable intellectual community.

The essays Dharma wrote in the 1970s and 1980s bear testimony to this=20
struggle. Some 15 of them were eventually published by Oxford=20
University Press in 1998 under the title Colonialism, Private=20
Property and the State, and they reveal both her intellectual=20
strengths and weaknesses. Probably the best known of these essays=20
examines relative inequalities in landholding in Madras Presidency=20
between the mid-19th and mid-20th centuries, and appeared in the=20
IESHR in the mid-1970s, to be widely imitated by other authors in the=20
years that followed. The general thrust of this essay, as indeed of a=20
number of others, was to be systematically sceptical in relation to=20
the facile received wisdom, which Dharma usually identified with=20
nationalist-Marxist historiography. Other essays, comparing the=20
economic effects of British rule in India with Dutch rule in=20
Indonesia, were less successful, a sign of the fact that Dharma's=20
erudition often could not keep pace with her intellectual ambitions.=20
She admitted as much in a disarming last sentence to the introduction=20
in the reprint of Land and Caste: "The mental world of the=20
agricultural labourer awaits its historian, with sensitivity,=20
imagination, and far better linguistic skills than I possess".

This problem is also visible in an essay which Dharma wrote and=20
discussed at several oral presentations in the early 1980s, namely,=20
on property rights in medieval south India (the essay appeared in=20
Comparative Studies in Society and History, 1985). Dharma's attempt=20
to cut through a historiographical Gordian knot by proposing the=20
existence of full private property in medieval south India raised far=20
more problems than she had anticipated. What was the larger context,=20
whether legal or communitarian, within which such property could have=20
existed? While her sharp semantic critique of those who used the=20
catch-all term 'land controller' was on the mark, the alternative=20
that was proposed left many readers sceptical. Here, as in another of=20
her later essays, on services in Madras Presidency, one could see=20
that Dharma was at her best arguing against a position by marshalling=20
diverse evidence; her capacity to construct a positive picture from=20
the ground was less remarkable. In some respects, this may be because=20
she remained true to her initial training as an economist. This gave=20
her a number of articles of faith, including a strongly positive view=20
of (though not a blind belief in) the market, and of the logic of=20
individual rationality. I can recall several debates on this in the=20
early 1980s, with Raaj Sah and our own colleague at the Delhi School,=20
Kaushik Basu; Dharma may also have discussed these issues with George=20
Akerlof, with whom she was personally acquainted. Reviewing the last=20
collection of Dharma's essays, David Ludden spoke of "the economist's=20
analytical bite, market orientation and empirical commitment", and to=20
this we may add a distrust for verbiage, and a sense that a=20
no-nonsense approach included paring down a text to a bare minimum of=20
words. Again, this was the economist's aesthetic rather than that of=20
the historian; Dharma liked to recount how her supervisor Jack=20
Gallagher in Cambridge had criticised her thesis for its=20
"Tamil terseness".

The reader of the preceding paragraphs would have understood (even if=20
he or she did not know Dharma Kumar), that we are dealing with a=20
controversial figure, one whose role it was to call into question the=20
comfortable views of a series of established orthodoxies. At times,=20
in so doing, she could rub even close friends the wrong way, as=20
happened when she intervened on the subject of amniocentesis and=20
selective abortion. Indeed, most of us who knew her well had a stormy=20
relationship with her; but fortunately, the ruptures were rarely=20
permanent ones. Side by side with irreverence and a devastating sense=20
of humour was a capacity to take umbrage, especially if she felt her=20
professional reputation was being criticised. Perhaps this was the=20
result of coming to academics late, or perhaps the result of constant=20
attacks that she had to face in the 1970s and 1980s. But no one who=20
studied with her will forget her generosity (whether intellectual or=20
personal), and the wide intellectual horizons (she was the first to=20
introduce me to the writings of Fernand Braudel, Theodore Zeldin, and=20
a host of others - including David Shulman!) she opened up. In an=20
academic world where petty intrigues are the rule, there was nothing=20
in the least small about Dharma Kumar.

_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/

SACW is an informal, independent & non-profit citizens wire service run by
South Asia Citizens Web (http://www.mnet.fr/aiindex) since 1996. To=20
subscribe send a blank
message to: <act-subscribe@yahoogroups.com> / To unsubscribe send a blank
message to: <act-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>
________________________________________
DISCLAIMER: Opinions expressed in materials carried in the posts do not
necessarily reflect the views of SACW compilers.