 Hello and welcome to NewsClick. The deletion of an essay by famous scholar A. K. Ramanujan from the history syllabus of the BA Honours of Delhi University has created a controversy around the subject. On the one hand is the Academy Council of the University which says that the essay hurts sentiments of a particular community. On the other hand, the history department has come out in open to support the essay saying that it should not have been deleted. Today we are joined by Dr. Biswamoy Patti, Associate Professor in the History Department of Delhi University to talk about the issue. Welcome to the show, sir. So what were the circumstances that led to this kind of a situation where on the one hand the essay has been deleted, on the other the history department does not agree with this? You see, this goes back in time to about 3 years or so when the exact dates etc. I do not remember because I had not joined the department at that time. What had happened one day was that suddenly we will call them goons, let us say, of the ABPP. They landed up and our head at that time history department head was Professor Jaffrey. And they shouted slogans, so people are pushed around, some glass panes were smashed. And the whole idea was that this is an offensive text and all that. And then apparently somebody filed a petition or something like that. Supreme Court gave a direction to the university, asking the university to sort of ask 4 experts to sit on judgment and say whether this text needs to be deleted or is it okay. Incidentally, this is now not a part of the Honours History program or whatever we call it. This is something which is called a concurrent course, which people from other disciplines they are expected to study this text. It is not the only text, there are 4-5 options that can be very easily verified by you. And then the question was that first thing was at that time it was a root shock. There were very serious revolutions, there were many protest letters etc. And in all fairness, let us be very clear, nobody knows who those experts are and this was done by the university decided who to select. What is interesting is that the last meeting that you are referring to, there was apparently the reports of the 4 referees, let us say, were tabled and 3 of the historians, whoever they are and not only thought that this is very interesting text and it should be retained. But more significantly, there are historians and historians and if you want to play foul, there are many ways of doing it and I think it would be something that is very interesting to actually note because I have not seen the reports but I have been told that the 4th historian, whoever she or he is, suggested that this text is very interesting and it should be retained but it can be taken as a serious text, sorry, not retained. But it can hurt the sentiments of people who are young and to hide behind all that, the suggestion apparently is to include some text or some material written by R S Sharma and Romila Thaparana. Obviously, as I told you, this whole thing is mischievous, it is very unfair to have a meeting where in the name of democracy, people who have no idea about either the text or Ramanujan or his works or his contributions are allowed to discuss and what is very remarkable is that the whole process of the debate, which apparently democratic debate I was told lasted for 4 hours over which apparently it was not a question of history, the meaning of rationality, science, the question of diversity of our very rich cultural heritage, our rich pluralistic past, our as in not necessarily Indian but as you know Ramayana, this text has references to what could be called Near East, Thile and Cambodia and how people relate to the Ramayana there. And then in the name of sentiments being hurt, a text which is an optional text is dropped and it was very interesting that along with the university establishment, the congress official, the congress unofficial and the BJP were on one side and there were 9 people who were defending the fact that this, please do not do this. And the head of the department pleaded saying that you know Supreme Court has not told us to drop or accept this but Supreme Court has told us to take opinions and let us go back and tell the court that you know these are the opinions and you know let us look at it in this way that you know give us some you know ways in which I mean let it be discussed debated and maybe we can go to the history department, various things we can also add. I was talking like a scientist, I would argue that you know you have had Galileo and you have known the experience when Newton discovered gravity on the basis of that apple falling you know maybe you know if the academic council was sitting on judgment they would have you know persecuted Newton like Galileo was. So that is how the story is. What is also very encouraging is I must add that the Sanskrit department had supported the history, he was among those 9 people and the argument given was very interesting. The argument given was that it is very rational and very scientific argument. This is all that I have heard I mean I have not obviously I do not sit in that body. So I have been told that the Sanskrit department head argued that you know we teach things where we discuss you know parts of the female body, female sexuality and various other complicated things which might appear very difficult to teach and we teach them and what is so terrible about it and this has been done by people who obviously are like us teachers they must have looked at all the pros and cons and decided to take something and it is an option. Similarly the Punjabi department head and the commerce department head extremely rational I mean the arguments being in the same genre that you know I mean after all some people have decided to offer this as one of the 4 or 5 texts and let that be I mean why do we want to interfere. So this is I mean I don't want to use strong words but well I mean this is obviously reminiscent of as I said of this whole idea of pushing in an agenda which has no academic standing which is irrational which goes against the very basic sort of idea of what could be called India. So do you think actually that the central point of debate is not really the procedural lapses but the fact that the multiplicity of views or points of view it's an attack on that. It's an attack on the very fabric of it's an anti-national act I will argue but because you were you know not acknowledging that there is something called South India. You know it's not a question of you know I mean a text. A text is completely harmless I mean I will appeal to all these people who are so angry including the ABBP students and everybody who supports it also this idea that this text should be there to ever look at this text you know I mean in fact if I am not wrong I have read it many times but most probably it starts by saying 300 Ramanians or 1000. In fact I had I mean a million Ramanians because you see I mean I keep on giving this example I mean in Orissa if you actually check the you know the different districts we call them in India. There are different districts every state has. I know at least there are three or four Ajodhyas. In Oriya we call it Ajodhyas which becomes Ayodhyas as you come to. I mean that there itself is the plurality of how you pronounce a name. You call it Rama but I will call it Rama. You know I mean this itself you know itself shows the type of what I am trying to get at which is that you cannot just have one version of anything. I mean beyond sciences in social science to imagine that you discuss something without having the possibility of debating that basically means that you are looking at zombiizing the whole mind and I think this is tying up with that whole neoliberal thinking process where you are supposed to be dumb creatures. You are not supposed to question anything. If you could just talk about the text because it's a different kind of a genre that is there and why is this particular text in your opinion I mean though I understand that one has to go beyond it but still coming back to the text do you think there's some importance that we can attach to the text per se in this particular case? The significance of the text is purely related to the fact that it's a brilliant mind and nothing else and the brilliant mind obviously is trying to you know take you through a journey. You know it's hardly 40 I'm so sorry I mean I very bad with numbers maybe 40-45 pages. You know is trying to take you through a journey. A journey where maybe I don't know I mean it appears as if he is also thinking as he's writing it's not just you know an attempt to communicate something in a very you know formal academic way because you see the type of references the way he moves from you know he talks about Tulsita. He talks about so many other Ramayans and you know for example we all know very well that there are traditions where Rama and Sita you know are brothers and sisters it's so interesting and what is so wrong about it I mean it's there I mean you can't just you know I mean you can't murder me because I am saying that Odisha has three ajudyas it's not my fault I mean at the same time I wish that certain things are done in the way that people read things I remember when Tamas that was the Jantapati regime maybe much before your birth or you were just born I remember that very classic statement of Advani he was the information minister and that's where you know that's where the debate focused for some time saying that I have not read Tamas I own read Tamas but it should be mad I mean you know it's I thought India had travelled you know quite a bit from that phase but at least Delhi University shows that you know we going back to the period when I am talking about Advani's famous statements But I think out of all this an important question arises that why history as a subject has always been attacked by the right wing we it during the anti-government we had this whole revision of textbooks which where history and myth got completely they were combined in a sense what do you think is that importance of history where it comes under attack it's not India only if you look at German fascism if you look at Hitler's rise and if you look at you know I mean it is I think part of that whole process because this is a discipline and let's be very clear I take pride in the fact that Indian history you know the way things stand today it's a very very developed history world we have we have fascinating scholars I mean you know I mean today the type of work that historians work on even 5-10 years back you know you would not imagine that somebody would work on a little lunatic asylum that somebody would work on local I mean for example Indian history congress if you look at the papers few are really good historians a good historian will definitely have certain very basic beliefs accepting you know liberalism as a very major feature could this also be like this fear of history also because a community finds its identity or there is always an attempt to link a community's identity to the past and therefore history as a discipline becomes important to attack anybody who has certain very basic understanding of the rhythms of history will obviously like to question that very feature that you know how can you identify anything with a particular community or a particular religion or a particular language and we look at interactions I mean the very basic thing is that imagine how the world would have been if you had one version of Ramayana it would be terrible I mean what would you discuss then history would be the end of history because there is nothing to debate we have always had one interpretation of how human beings came to this planet you know how they emerged or whatever you want imagine how horrible it would be and you can put it this way that maybe that there is this tremendous fear and insecurity with this discipline because this discipline actually subverts very basic agendas or programs that you know some of these people might try to propagate thank you sir thank you so much it was an enlightening discussion