Backpage

WITH more than fifty well-known and regarded academics/scholars writing an ‘open letter’ to the prime minister, urging immediate ‘necessary steps to save one of India’s great national institutions’ – the Nehru Memorial Museum and Library (NMML) – from a ‘culture of apathy and neglect’, the rot afflicting our higher education institutions has once again been pushed centre-stage. At a time when the higher education sector is being promised a major makeover – both funds and autonomy – pushing the issues raised under the carpet, or dismissing them as just another case of sour grapes and factional fights, would be a grievous error.

Over four decades, under the careful stewardship of its earlier directors, the NMML has come to be recognized not just as a ‘first-class research library and archive’ but increasingly, particularly under Ravinder Kumar, as a creative site for vibrant public intellectual engagement. The fellowships awarded under its Centre of Contemporary Studies, the various seminars and lectures held under its auspices, the many quality publications, above all a vigorous programme of acquisition – private papers of key individuals, the oral history archives – all helped create a wider base of interest, support and legitimacy.

In an environment where government institutions (the NMML is controlled by the Ministry of Culture) are routinely looked at with suspicion, more a site for patronage dispensation or pursuit of partisan agandas, acquiring and consolidating a reputation as an independent, liberal and professionally run institution wedded to excellence is unusual. Scholars may recollect the inglorious fate of the Indian Council of World Affairs, Sapru House, once it slipped into the control of crass politicians like Harcharan Singh Josh, better known for staging crude Punjabi plays than efforts at sustaining its formidable library which rapidly sunk into decline. Or the many controversies surrounding the running and management of the Indira Gandhi Centre for the Arts, despite its amazing archive of rare manuscripts.

All this, if the charges levelled in the ‘open letter’ have any credence, now stands at risk. It is alleged that under the current management the NMML has become captive to a partisan political frame, even opening out its premises for use by political actors; has let its publications programme slip; fallen behind in the acquisition of new research material; damaged staff morale and so on. If other centres of learning experience a phase of decline, one can still imagine the likelihood of other institutions coming up to take up the slack. Depository and archival centres like the NMML and the National Archives, once damaged, are far more difficult to revive or replace. That is why it is important to act, and now.

The fate of the NMML will continue to draw attention, and not only because of the ‘public presence’ of many of the signatories. It is often forgotten that the academic and scholarly community is fairly risk averse, preferring to gossip and complain in private rather than risk the ire of institutional masters whose goodwill they need. The ‘tone’ of the open letter is welcome precisely because it eschews personal attack on current management and focuses in a constructive manner on public-institutional concerns.

One could, for instance, ask why an institution like the NMML should be run by the Ministry of Culture? Should merely the fact that it is fully-funded by the Government of India make it subservient to government rules, be it salary scales and working conditions, or decisions regarding research agenda and acquisitions? More specifically, one wonders about the constitution of its Executive Committee and why it is dominated, not by scholars but retired bureaucrats, politicians (of the ruling party) and journalists.

All this raises larger questions about the management of our institutions, particularly in a situation where we do not seem to appreciate the distinction between government and public. What holds true from the NMML is equally applicable to other institutions like the National Museum, the National Gallery of Modern Art, the National Library, even the Indian Institute of Advanced Studies. Instead of constantly praying for an intelligent minister, sensitive to the requirements of these specialized institutions, particularly in matters relating to staffing, why is it so difficult to imagine alternative frames of autonomy where, despite official funding, the real sources of legitimacy are drawn from the larger community of scholars.

For a country and a government ostensibly committed to revitalizing higher learning, how the controversy surrounding the NMML is handled, will provide clues to the larger imagination and process. At stake is not just the fate of one institution, but what we will do to and make of the many new IITs, IIMs, Central Universities and so on which are on the anvil.

Harsh Sethi