The Government’s handling of the resignation of NMMl Director has been shoddy at best. It had known for long what needed to be done, but failed to act in a manner that was prompt, and reflected dignity
Mahesh Rangarajan is a fine man and an outstanding scholar. As Director of the Nehru Memorial Museum and library, he did a commendable job and was a serious improvement on recent predecessors. He was appointed for a three-year term in 2011 and was due to end his tenure in August 2014. In the normal course, there would have been a good case for the Government — any Government, irrespective of party affiliation — to give him an extension.
Waters were muddied by the Manmohan Singh Government. It began a hurried process of granting Mr Rangarajan an extension in May 2014 itself, as the general election process was concluding and it was becoming clear that the UPA was on its way out. The paperwork was rushed through, with the final signature coming on May 19, three days after the Government had been unseated and the Congress had lost the election.
The extension that was clumsily and egregiously granted in the dying days and hours of the UPA Government was not an ordinary one. Rather than simply give Mr Rangarajan another term of three years, it sought to absorb him as a regular and permanent employee of NMMl with the job protection that civil servants receive. He could serve as Director till he reached the age of 60 and retired. This would be in 2024 and in effect Mr Rangarajan got a 10-year extension. In recent days, Culture Minister Mahesh Sharma has raised the subject of the incorrect and immoral decision that the UPA Government took in May 2014.
Without explicitly asking Mr Rangarajan to resign, he criticised the Congress and promised to unearth skeletons from its period in government. The Director of NMMl was obviously uncomfortable in the situation and resigned. That is where things stand.
Who is right here and who is wrongIJ For a start, the Congress was clearly overreaching itself and betraying the spirit of democratic governance and of the mandate when it sought to expedite Mr Rangarajan's extension and block any likelihood of a new Director being appointed for 10 years.
This may not have been Mr Rangarajan’s fault, but the episode certainly ended up hurting him as well. It was probably unfair as Mr Rangarajan has no record of political meddling or of being a party partisan, but the fact is the manner of his renewed appointment in May 2014 would inevitably cloud perceptions. The issue was widely reported in the newspapers in May 2014. It was discussed in political circles and senior leaders of the BJP were entirely aware of it.
Yet, no action was taken and no statements were made till a few weeks ago. That was when Mr Sharma made the puzzling announcement that he had found out about the nature of Mr Rangarajan’s extension, courtesy an anonymous whistle-blower who had written a letter to the Culture Ministry.
This claim defies credulity. Why was a matter that was well-known in Government and political circles made known to the Minister only after an anonymous letterIJ If Mr Rangarajan’s continuance was deemed untenable, primarily because of the process by which he was given an extension, it should have been made clear to him at the first opportunity. He should have been nudged to leave a year ago. Alternatively, the Government should have taken tougher measures.
The absence of any such action naturally led many to believe the Government, in its wisdom, had decided to live with its predecessor’s decision. As such, while pointing out that Mr Rangarajan’s 10-year appointment was not on, the Minister is right but also delayed.
This should have happened 12 months ago. Failure to have done so, when the facts were known, does not reflect well on a Government that is supposed to pride itself on its efficiency. Neither does this take away, it must be re-emphasised, from the fact that Mr Rangarajan was a good choice as director of NMMl.
What is the way outIJ The Congress’ and the Nehru-Gandhi family’s proprietary claims on the NMMl are not defensible. The institution — and indeed the rich and deep legacy of Jawaharlal Nehru — are not the sole prerogative of a family or a party. There is national and public ownership over them. For the Congress and presumably the Nehru-Gandhi family to pre-empt any decision by a duly elected successor Government and try and place a favoured person as Director of NMMl for 10 years after the Congress had lost a general election, was not on. This needed and needs to be remedied and combated.
Certainly, there was no compelling case for permanent absorption of Mr Rangarajan. To express disagreement with that is hardly to “embed a narrative of majoritarian triumphalism”, as some over-enthusiastic protestors have claimed in an open letter.
Nevertheless it is important not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. True, the Congress Government took a bad, unjustifiable call in May 2014, but this does not automatically imply Mr Rangarajan is a party worker or political camp follower. His academic and intellectual record, and his public positions, would not warrant such a judgement. One also has to consider that the NMMl is a valuable resource centre for researchers,and enlightened administrators of such institutions are hard to come by in India.
Is a halfway house still possibleIJ Mr Rangarajan has resigned and moved on. The idea of his being a full-fledged employee till retirement is now redundant. A case can be made for the Government to consider his performance as Director since 2011, which the Minister himself says has been satisfactory, and offer him a fresh term for a period of three years, with his permanent employment having ceased with
his resignation. This would undo the damage done by the Manmohan Singh regime in the summer of 2014, while sending the message that the BJP Government can be open-minded in using and working with deserving talent independent of its political ecosystem.
(The writer is senior fellow, Observer Research Foundation. He can be reached at malikashok@gmail.com)