Prelude:

Quite some time back, I received an invitation from a former colleague at JNU, Professor R. R. Sharma, requesting that I write, in about 5000 words, my reflections on the time I spent in JNU for a collection that he was putting together. This was followed by a phone call from Professor Y. K. Alagh, our former Vice-Chancellor, telling me that he too was interested in the project that Professor Sharma had told me about and that he had suggested my name to Professor Sharma. In the circumstances, I agreed and submitted, after a few months, a piece entitled “JNU in Retrospect” to Professors Alagh and Sharma. There were some typos and the article needed to be shortened; I sent back a revised version. I was happy to note Professor Alagh’s one-word response, “Wah!”; Professor Sharma, in a conversation, said it was a good write-up. Waiting for the print to appear, we noted with dismay the fast deteriorating health of Professor Alagh, and ultimately, to our great regret, he passed away. So, the project lay in shambles under the control of Professor Sharma. The publisher had not been fixed, and on top of everything else, Professor Sharma, being ill, it seemed that the project itself was in terminal stages. One day, I heard that a publisher had been found and that the project was alive. I was a bit surprised when the proofs were not sent to us, and yet the book was out in November, with the title ” Nehru’s Luminous Legacy, The Jawaharlal Nehru University, Fifty Years and Thereafter”. When the book came to me, I was shocked, surprised, and bewildered. The article had been changed beyond recognition; “corrections” had been introduced, which made sentences garbled and their meaning altered, and the worst was when I found new data about myself. I took the publisher to task who feigned complete helplessness since everything had been done by either the Editor or someone that he had requested. The Editor thought that someone was cracking a practical joke at my expense. It was neither practical nor a joke. The publisher offered to withdraw the books printed and make the blatant errors right. He took away the extra copies that I had ordered for distribution among friends, promising that he would replace them with the corrected copies. I believed him. Now I learn that the uncorrected copies were sold during the Golden Jubilee celebrations of CESP. In the circumstances, I have no other alternative but to make available my original piece, since the errors are many. Further, I felt that since the word limit is no longer binding, I should reintroduce some parts which had been left out. Finally, it should be noted that I have not been associated with any other University as Pro Vice-Chancellor.

JNU in Retrospect

Anjan Mukherji 

I joined JNU on Monday, April 16 1973.  There was no Economics Department nor was there any room assigned to me; someone pointed to an empty room with no furniture. We got a small table from another room and a chair; the chair used to disappear every day and I had to look around in other rooms and drag a chair into my room. In this makeshift arrangement, one day I was told that the VC wanted to meet me! I called up the office of the Vice-Chancellor, G. Parthasarathi, from the nearest phone, and his office told me to come, so I walked down to his office. I talked to him for a fairly long time. He knew about my background in Mathematics and my PhD in Economics, and told me that very soon, we should have people in Economics and Mathematics. And he knew that the Indian Statistical Institute in New Delhi had also made me an offer and he said that joining JNU was the correct decision. Given the unprepared state of affairs, I was not quite sure that I had made the correct decision. Probably that showed on my face and he rang a bell and requested that I be taken to the Registrar. I had never met a VC before but I must say that I was impressed. And he told me something that I remember, that we should be able to build something great. 

My visit with the Registrar, Mr N.V.K. Murthy revealed another major character; he appeared at ease in most of the Indian Languages it seemed. He was speaking to me in Bengali; speaking to some one  else in another language, Tamil , effortlessly  switching to yet another, Malayali. Absolutely impressive. That I could speak only two, Bengali and Hindi, made me feel quite inadequate. He helped me take some important steps.  I had to choose between two alternative forms of pension benefits: CPF and GPF. I asked him for advice.  He said well you are young and you will probably quit and go off elsewhere; for you CPF it is. So CPF it was.  Little did I realize what an absolute blunder that choice would prove to be.. And I was set. Or so I thought.  

What should a University stand for? I cannot find better lines than the following penned by Jawaharlal  Nehru: “A University stands for humanism. For tolerance, for reason, for the adventure of ideas and for the search of truth. It stands for the onward march of the human race towards ever higher objectives. If the Universities discharge their duties adequately, then it is well with the Nation and the People.” These lines used to be printed on the front cover of the JNU telephone directory.  Looking at JNU over the last few years, the University has neither stood for any of these ideals nor did it perform its duties adequately.  

There are three parts of any University: the Students, the Faculty and the Administration.  A fourth institution, the Government, sometimes influences what happens within the University. Largely though during the last fifty years or so, the only influence the Government exerted was through the appointment of the Vice Chancellor.  We have had 12 Vice-Chancellors in JNU till date. Mr Parthasarathi, while leaving, visited each one of us in our offices to bid us goodbye and wish us luck. This did not happen with anyone else. The Vice-Chancellors generally adopted an attitude of ‘benign neglect’: never attempted to do anything. In my opinion the first Vice-Chancellor had a decisive impact and left an impression. Before I say something more about this, let me describe a scene from an Academic Council Meeting in 1974; there had been some instances, of what some teachers said were students misbehaving. And things had become ugly, as they do, when handled badly and the matter had come before the Academic Council. The teachers spoke and the students made their representation. It was clear that had there been a debate, the students would have won hands down: they spoke much better. Anyway, since I was relatively junior and new, I was sitting quietly and watching what happened. Mr Parthasarathi requested the students to withdraw so that teachers could deliberate. The students left without any further fanfare and after gates were closed, the Vice-Chancellor rebuked the teachers who were baying for the blood of the students. I remember what he said: please remember that you may be speaking to a future Prime Minister of the country. So, respect them.  Later on, when they will walk into your room you will stand up, said the Vice Chancellor. You should be fair and look at their current blemishes kindly. Punish them of course, but punishment should never be out of line with what has been done.  This vision that the Vice Chancellor painted before us remained for some time to come. And he was not far away from the truth. I myself have had a future Nobel Laureate and a future Finance Minister in my class; I often used to say when I started teaching a batch, that maybe someone from their midst would do such foundational work that I will be able to teach future batches; even this came to be true; amongst our alumni there is a Foreign Minister too and any number of senior bureaucrats and researchers spread allover the world. JNU alumni adorn media houses, the offices of publishers and there is even a distinguished Cinema Director.

Not too many Vice Chancellors communicated the same feelings. Except Professor Alagh who, when the students went on a hunger strike, on what he considered to be unreasonable demands, decided to sit down on hunger strike himself, after informing the Chancellor that he was doing so and that his salary for the days he would remain on hunger strike be deducted. This was the JNU ethos that we admired and that should have been talked about. Maybe if this ethos had survived, the distressing incidents of recent times could not have taken place. The picture that Partasarathi had put before us, the standards of behavior that people like Alagh set for us, unfortunately did not last. The following is an attempt to discover what might have led us astray. 

Returning to the early days, I learnt to my utter disbelief that three students had been admitted into the MA economics programme (non-existent); my senior colleague and some others were teaching some courses in the Political Science Centre and some economists in the Regional Development Centre were teaching too. I was suddenly asked to teach something. With the advice from some seniors, I started to give some lectures on Linear Economic Models. It was totally unplanned and the entire thing for the three students must have been horrendous. If you have to teach Linear Models you have to teach some basic things first, and then it struck me that people who were suggesting that I teach Linear Economic Models had no clue what that entailed. This prepared me to the way that JNU was to take decisions going ahead. Well-meaning at best, but with little understanding of what was at stake.  

The admission to the M.A. Economics programme actually took place once the Centre for Economic Studies and Planning (CESP) was formed by means of an office order some time in July 1973 with Krishna Bharadwaj, Amit Bhaduri and myself and with the announcement that Prabhat Patnaik and Utsa Patnaik and Sunanda Sen were to join. The first three being available, handled the entire admission process. And by August lectures had to be started; the curriculum for the programme was drawn up again by the three of us supervised by Professors Sukhamoy Chakravarty, Ajit Biswas and K. N. Raj. It was exhilarating to chart out the entire programme for M.A. in Economics. Often, I felt inadequate, I did not know enough to chart out the course of the entire curriculum and Professor Chakravarty would speak confidently and forcefully about a large number of things, and seemed to be at ease with everything under the sun. Professor Chakravarty had taught me when I was an undergraduate, and as I had felt then, I still felt that there were so many things yet to be understood.  

There were several Economists employed in other departments or Centres, but we at the CESP kept to ourselves and my suggestions to involve some of them were hardly ever favorably met.  The Centre continued to grow but still maintained an aloofness from the rest of the University which was often held against us.  But among us, inside the Centre, there was a great deal of bonhomie and friendly chatter.  

Students continued to flock to CESP. And by the early 80’s, we had managed to attract the best students from Delhi University, apart from the best from Kolkata and other parts of the country. How did the rest of the economics profession see our department? They did not look upon us with any affection. Many students passing out of CESP looking for teaching jobs in say Delhi University colleges were often ridiculed and sarcastically asked, can you compute how much labour is congealed in this chair? This was a sarcastic reference to Professor Krishna Bharadwaj and her expertise on the works of Piero Sraffa. In fact, I was for a long time, the odd one out, amongst the faculty. And come to think of it, right through my long stint at the JNU, I remained just that, although there were some additions to my tribe. 

It is a bit difficult to talk about what I thought went wrong with the University so hereafter, I shall speak about the Centre I know the best and about which I had first-hand information. I often complained that the usual refrain from my colleagues that we were different from the rest was a big mistake. We ought to have argued that we were better, which for most of the time I firmly believed. I think we were better since we taught things from first principles. It was not a bits and pieces approach, by any of us at the beginning. The second reason we were better was the emphasis that we placed on India in our curriculum. Our better students could talk about things happening in India with some degree of confidence.  Which students with similar record from other Economics departments could hardly do.  Our better students could in addition speak on theoretical aspects as well. But there was a neglect of standard economic theory in the curriculum which percolated into treating the entire area as non-existent or worse. Some ‘important’ colleagues did say that our curriculum encompassed all schools of thought, but clearly some schools of thought were emphasized over others in their thoughts and deeds. This made the discussion on Indian economy slanted politically and helped set up a false narrative about the Centre and indeed about much of JNU, which would create a lot of damage. But the apparent bonhomie inside the Centre continued. 

In 1982, there was the first upheaval in JNU; not so strangely, perhaps, it began with students from Kolkata whose results had not appeared by the time the admissions at JNU closed. So the temporary admissions given to some with results still awaited created a problem for the administration. Students given this temporary admission were sitting in classes appearing in mid-semester examinations and appearing at end-semester examinations as well and we wanted to see them through to the next semester. Not so, said the administration, who argued that the faculty had no right to allow the students to appear in examinations. Things became quite heated on both sides and Sheila Bhalla and I, arguing on behalf of the Centre, since the Chairperson, Ramprasad Sengupta, was down with some throat infection and had been advised to maintain silence, realized that there was nothing very much that we could do and I was really looking for an opportunity to hit out. The then Rector, Professor M. S. Agwani claimed that Universities abroad would only consider the JNU marksheet as being the valid certificate when they consider students for admission and I remember with great glee, accepting the opening and telling him that he was mistaken: it was what people like Anjan Mukherji said that mattered most to Universities abroad. Which was correct of course, but that basically upset everyone. In retrospect, I wonder what would have happened if someone had made the same argument in the present regime. But this also shows what JNU was then. Professor Agwani became the Vice Chancellor and I was then to become the Chair of CESP but whatever he may have thought of my outburst privately, whenever I had the occasion to interact with him, he was correct.  

But there was trouble brewing. Our first Vice-Chancellor’s admonishments were being largely forgotten by the administration but fortunately, several senior Faculty members remembered and when the police entered the campus, they helped the students under siege. It was at the behest of these faculty members that the Vice-Chancellor finally relented and withdrew charges. But this incident changed matters drastically. The admission policy of JNU changed. The link between faculty and students changed. I remember once in a discussion, a colleague sneeringly asked me whether I felt paternalistic towards the students! They don’t consider you to be their father though, he continued. Mr G. Parthasarathi’s admonishments were being forgotten. 

But things had really started going downhill.  If I have to put a date to it, it would be around the mid-90’s ( Professor Bhardwaj died in the March of 1992) when we noticed that the top students would write our admission tests, would be chosen but decline admission. Some of us would worry, but the remaining seemed unconcerned that the so-called good students were not coming any longer. The problem as I now realize, was that the so-called good students were the ones who could think independently and maybe would realize that the emperor wore no clothes.  That there was really little to choose in the narrative that we were different; we were caught out and were found wanting.  

The signals were there from the beginning.  I should say that there were stray isolated incidents first and could be overlooked. The incidents I have in mind related to our unwillingness to engage with anyone who was not our friend and follower. Even as early as 1974, when Amartya Sen was a Visiting Professor at JNU, instead of visiting CESP, he was a Visiting Professor at the Zakir Husain Centre for Educational Studies; that was odd enough but he was not invited to the Centre for even a talk What made things worse, was the horrendous incident of a really outstanding scholar from the UK, Professor Partha S. Dasgupta; now, he is Professor Sir Partha Dasgupta; he was distinguished enough then and he wrote to CESP wanting to visit the Centre for a term and he was willing to give some lectures; no money was involved,  as he wanted to spend time with his father who was then staying in the Campus. CESP turned him down. I was then on leave and had taken an appointment at the London School of Economics and I have never felt more ashamed at the decision of my colleagues. These were public events; I mention them as a sign of the festering malaise; and there were some manifestations of this in private too.  A bit later, there was the incident of the Ford Foundation offering to the CESP some funds for the purchase of computers and books; it was flatly rejected by the faculty in a meeting; I recall asking what was wrong about accepting the money from Ford Foundation or even a fellowship from them.  If I did so, I was told, the faculty would think less of me! Fortunately, JNU did not lose this grant since it was picked up by another Centre. Yet, some years later, when some of these members of CESP who had objected and denied facilities to students at the Centre, formed some NGO, they did not think twice about accepting Ford Foundation money to either go abroad or hold conferences.  I did raise it with a senior colleague, only to be told that he too disapproved of their accepting the money from Ford. But that did not stop them.  By their token, we should think less of them. And that is exactly what began to be played out. 

Over time though, the false narrative that I have alluded to, continued to gain ground, and solidified; and students pursuing other fields, no matter what they achieved or did, would be studiously ignored. These achievements were good by any standards; the area of Law and Economics was developed at the Centre, and students produced first rate papers published in good journals and were considered among the best in the country. There were faculty members supervising students carefully and producing competent scholars not only in various topics in theory but also in areas such as Industrial Organization, Environmental Economics, Applied Industrial Economics, and other areas of Applied Economics. No one really talked about achievements which would be of little help to the narrative that was being nurtured. Some students in the doctoral programmes of the CESP published papers in International Journals; even the chapter of a M.Phil. dissertation appeared in an International Journal. While these students were well thought of outside the University, within the University circles, they were just forgotten and overlooked since the flavour was not right.    

Right from the beginning there was this feeling within the Centre and to a large extent, within the JNU, that something great was happening within the University. Great things were indeed happening, but people did not realize what were these great things. Thus, what won general appreciation and acclaim, were never great while what were great achievements went unappreciated and sometimes even ridiculed. JNU did not really care about teaching and research unless it was of a particular type. There was no scrutiny of work by independent scholars. In fact once, a UGC visiting Committee had “experts” who were trying to deny grants because we were doing research in spite of not having grants, so why should we be supported? And they presented some of us with Cards containing pictures of some deity with his blessings. 

So far as matters at the CESP were concerned, many of us were at fault. We really wanted to avoid possible conflict within the Centre. Promotions became routine and merit was never looked at. The faculty should have noted with concern, the departure of several colleagues who were excellent teachers; apart from being available to students all the time they added sufficient breadth. Instead, what came to be valued is working on projects and lecturing elsewhere.  This was talked about within smaller sub-groups though and this made the Centre weak from within. Although for most of my time there appeared to be a calm within the Centre; it was a false calm and the predominant part of the faculty, those who routinely nurtured the false narrative, appeared to start taking full advantage of this calm. It was indeed the calm before the storm.  

But we did get some outstanding students: absolutely first rate by any standards. I say this not only on the basis of their performance in the programme but what they achieved in later life. Let me speak about some really outstanding students that came to us for their M.A. and since there were many, I shall choose among the students who I felt were really outstanding. I believe the students are the centre-pieces of our performance. Accordingly, I shall choose some who I felt ought to have been singled out in any reckoning but were largely left unsung since they were outside the narrative.  

I shall mention them in the order of their appearance on the scene at CESP. First to appear was Sudhakar Rao Aiyagiri in 1974.  He was working towards a Ph.D. in theoretical physics in IIT Delhi when he decided that the work was not what interested him and he wanted to study economics. My advice to him was to study economics formally that is join a master’s programme. He applied to our programme and qualified. In fact he perhaps topped the list of candidates admitted that year. His performance was extraordinary. Sudhakar Rao did extremely well at the end of two years and on the strength of our recommendation went to Minnesota for his PhD. At that time, Minnesota had the strongest doctoral programme in economics. The bitter cold probably got the faculty and students to spend more time with each other, and one after another, outstanding students emerged. The choice of the programme had been mine and Sudhakar Rao went along with it cheerfully. I was to run into Professor James Jordan, a very well known faculty from Minnesota, a few years later and enquired about Sudhakar. Two things emerged after our conversation: first, that they knew him as  S. R. Aiyagiri,  and that he was probably their GOAT (greatest of all time). I felt relieved that my prediction that he would do great work had come true. He did outstanding work in the general area of macroecomic theory. Very very unfortunately, he died in 1996, at the pinnacle of his career, shortly after he accepted the position of Professor of Economics in one of the strongest departments in the area of Macroeconomics, the University of Rochester. A proper appreciation of his career appeared in the piece “S. Rao Aiyagiri, My Student and My Teacher” by the very well-known Macroeconomist, Neil Wallace. A special issue of the Quarterly Review of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis in the Summer of 1997 was published in his memory and contained this piece. 

The second person in this category, to appear in front of us was in 1978, Sunil Gupta, who too is unfortunately no more. He did not pursue what would undoubtedly have been an outstanding career in academia, spent his entire life working for the tribal in Madhya Pradesh, was a true Gandhian in thoughts and deeds. In later life he was known as Sunil, dropping his title. He was really remarkable. Fortunately, there are people who hold him in high regard, and the Sunil Memorial Trust holds annual Sunil Memorial Lectures delivered by important scholars and activists.   So while he was talked about among friends and fellow students, there was little recognition from the University. He was a remarkable scholar and his presence in the classroom kept us, his teachers, on our toes and helped us to learn a lot.  

And finally, Abhijit Vinayak Banerjee appeared in our classrooms in 1980. What can I write about him that has not already been said?  Except to note that neither the University nor the CESP   said anything about this great recognition. Were people embarrassed? I am surprised that none of my colleagues  spoke to the media immediatey after the award, since everyone from the media made a beeline to my door: apparently, they were all directed towards me; it has never happened in the past and I suspect it never will too in the future. On one channel, I was asked what does this award mean so far as the attack on JNU and its faculty was concerned? Does any other University boast of a Nobel awardee among its alumni? And what about two Cabinet Ministers and any number of bureaucrats, corporate honchos, those employed in publishing houses, media personnel, at all levels and some even at senior positions? Universities and research Institutes, all over the country and in Europe, Australia, New Zealand and the US, had many members of faculty who were our students, and we needed a defense?  

When Amartya Sen received the same prize, he received great adulation; at a meeting to felicitate Amartya Sen in the School of Social Science, only one or perhaps two, spoke about Sen’s work favourably; the rest spoke rather disparagingly about Sen and his achievements.  But the then Vice-Chancellor, Professor Asis Datta,  had the good sense to organize a special convocation to award Sen a honoris causa doctorate. And JNU got R.K. Laxman to sketch for the invitation letter for the event which showed the Common Man garlanding a beaming Sen. This was a JNU effort; while some of us may have been engaged in preparing the citation, but that was for the Vice Chancellor, the CESP once again was not involved in this.   But for Abhijit, our own student, it was all ho hum! Some even took cheap shots at the fact that Abhijit was no more an Indian citizen. And the congratulatory letter from the faculty, I understand, mentioned that the Centre was happy that Abhijit has recognized his JNU roots. I would have pointed out that the shoe was on the other foot: this was the first time that faculty of the Centre was acknowledging even the existence of such a scholar. Only once before, Abhijit had come to give a talk at the Centre. But he visited Delhi regularly and often spoke at the Delhi School of Economics!   Apart from that solitary instance, we never made any effort to ask him to come.  But what made my day was the phone call from the man who has a small kiosk in one of the Munirka complexes, who has maintained our old watches and clocks over many years. Just because he had seen the TV programmes and learnt that Abhijit had been my student, his congratulatory messages were something really extraordinary and I will always treasure them. At least he seemed to have realized that this was something that should be appreciated. 

Thus, what made JNU great were the students: really exceptional students. Some of us tried to keep talking to them and learning from them. One established himself internationally. Unfortunately, the other two did not get the chance. But it is clear to me that had they lived, and continued as they were doing, each would have got international recognition of the highest order.  The amazing thing is there were many others who should have been talked about. Many others were there doing good work given the constraints placed on their functioning; some even did outstanding work with international scholars acclaiming their work to be of the highest order.  By and large, it was the Faculty and the Administration which let the University down. Of course there were exceptions. 

Apparently, the Centre’s attempt to be different mentioned earlier, began to be passed off as  ‘hetrodoxy’.  In a Conference the other day, I asked the meaning of the phrase heterodox economics. The only meaning that I could get was that heterodox meant not mainstream, or not the standard approach. What then was the mainstream? Day was not night and night was not day. Thus, vagueness was in vogue. A student who achieved some importance in later life, during his student days, claimed that he would score very high in term-papers written for some teachers by first smoking pot! I do not know how much weight one should put on this story, but given the way things were done, it appeared believable.  And the division of the faculty into factions was detrimental to the Centre.  And more recently, when a senior colleague in a written response to some students, lambasted those who taught mathematical economics and game theory as being no better than drug pushers, the false bonhomie that existed was shattered.  

 It was not clear to most of us how empty the JNU or CESP middle was; the thin veneer did not take long to crumble when someone came along with a hammer.  Most blame the current disposition; certainly, they should be held accountable for what has happened on their watch;  but the ones prior to the current also contributed in many ways to make the JNU kernel vague and crumbly. They just made it easier for the floodgates to open during the present regime. The general belief among all and sundry that JNU was a single monolithic structure, strongly favoring “left” scholarship was established over the previous years.  And for this warped single story behind JNU, the starting point was the attitude of those who claimed we were ‘different’ and encouraged students to spread the same message. It’s a great pity they were able to succeed in these short-sighted efforts. And while we were aware of the solidifying false narrative, we did not make any effort to counter it. 

Reflecting on the almost four decades spent in JNU, Charles Dickens’ immortal opening lines come to mind: “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, ….. it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair.” 

It appears that we are currently in the midst of the winter of despair. Is there some chance of a spring of hope too? Good students will keep turning up since JNU remains one of the top ranked Universities in the country. I hope that there would be some competent members of the faculty who would help them. One of the students in the first batch that I taught at JNU, told me that he had thought before coming to JNU, that teachers were generally losers, the most useless bunch of fellows who did not even know the subject they were supposed to teach. Only after coming to JNU he felt that his opinion had to be altered; he noted for the first time, that there were teachers from whom he could learn some things and there were some faculty members who he thought of as worthy of being emulated. This was in 1973-4. Would students that come to JNU today feel similarly? 

Students will continue to come to JNU and many among them may be able to provide the spark, provided their mentors remember the pitfalls of the past. Remember we still don’t have a PM among our regular alumni (we may have a PM from Nepal though, among the alumni and we do have a PM from among our students of the parttime courses;  it may not be generally known,  that during 1977-79, P. V. Narsimha Rao studied at the Centre for Spanish Studies and obtained the Diploma and Certificate in Spanish.  I wonder why this has not been as widely recognized as it ought to have been.) and there are many other international awards and recognition to win and get before we can achieve the dream of our first VC. As Alexander Pope wrote in his An Essay on Man, “ Hope springs Eternal in the human breast”.

The great Swedish Director Ingmar Bergman’s film, The Seventh Seal, released in 1957 made quite an impression; some say that it is the greatest film ever made; the film is set in the background of the Black Death in Sweden and depicts the travels of a mediaeval knight (brilliantly played by Max von Sydow) through the Swedish countryside playing a game of chess with the Grim Reaper, and discussing at the same time, the meaning of life and the existence of God; in a way, we are all traversing our lives, playing the same game every day, but most of us do not ask the kinds of questions raised in the film. Most of the days though, we do not even think of the game that we are in. There are times however, when this game looms large over us. Bergman and the protagonist, Bloch are aware that the Grim Reaper ultimately wins; it is just a question of delaying the inevitable. I am going to describe the events during 1998-99 when I felt that I was following the mediaeval knight closely, with the Grim Reaper making threatening moves and how I, hoping to delay the inevitable outcome, was forced into the ‘game’.

The year 1998 had started out well for me, I thought. I had received a letter from a friend in Tsukuba University, Yuji Kubo, who I got to know during a previous visit to Tsukuba. He reminded me of my promise to come back to Tsukuba and that he was holding on to a position for me but that he could not hold on much longer and asking me whether I would be able to come that year. The previous year I had not been able to accept the offer, so this time fortunately I was able to get leave and accept and started planning. However the Grim Reaper had made a move, which I got to hear of in a day or two.

The next message from Yuji Kubo made frightening reading; he had been diagnosed with a cancerous tumour in the esophagus and had been advised immediate surgery which was going to happen soon. The Grim Reaper had located a weakness in Kubo’s defense and was moving in very quickly; apparently, the cancer was a fast spreading one and within a few days of the surgery, Professor Yuji Kubo had breathed his last.

Now in Japan, when you visit any department in any University or academic institution, there is a well defined position of a host. Kubo naturally was to have been mine and with his passing, I had realised that matters relating to my visit were in jeopardy. I was also quite taken aback by the turn of events and was contemplating my next step. I was actively considering cancelling my plans.

While I was in this state of indecisiveness, I received a mail from Professor Kuroda who identified himself as a friend of Yuji Kubo, telling me that in spite of the turn of events, I should continue to make my plans to travel to Tsukuba: he had seen the mails between Yuji and myself and given that courses had to be taught, and that we were almost on the brink of the semester starting, they had no way of finding a replacement for Kubo. And further he would be very happy to act as my host during my tenure. I recall I was moved by Professor Yoshimi Kuroda’s mail and wrote back that I would be coming. Almost my first task on reaching Tsukuba, was to present an eulogy of my friend Yuji Kubo. The department had insisted that I should be one of the speakers from the department and that another colleague would provide a translation of what I said. We worked out a pattern whereby I would speak for minute or two and then he would translate. Professor Yuji Kubo had been a practicing Christian and the entire ceremony was organised in the Church that he belonged to. It was a sombre occasion and I had to borrow a black tie to go with my black jacket. Ten years ago we had met and one of the things that drew us close was the fact that we had studied under a well known Japanese economist, Akira Takayama; he at Purdue and I at Rochester, at different times. I mentioned this and at the end of my talk, while we are standing around, a lady approached me and spoke to me in English; she was Mrs Akira Takayama. I had studied under Akira Takayama in Rochester in 1969-70 and I recalled, that’s when they had just married. It was a surprise runnng into her; the world is not that big a place, after all. At that time Akira Takayama was no more and Mrs Takayama was in Japan. Professor Yuji Kubo’s elder brother approached and through the translator spoke to me about his appreciation of my comments. I felt quite awkward given the circumstances.

The academic grind picked up next and Professor Kuroda laid it down that apart from whatever teaching duties had been decided between Kubo and myself, I would have to teach the graduate seminar in Growth and Development that was Kubo’s and for which there was good demand among the PhD students. I could teach that course but since I did not work in the area, it would be unfair to the students, I tried to argue. But it was useless, his mind was made up. I got the course pushed back to the last quarter of my stay. Professor Kuroda sprang another suprise: Yuji had agreed to review Yujiro Hayami’s book Development Economics, which had just appeared, for a journal that Kuroda edited. Now Hayami was one of the most respected economist in the field of Development Economics in Japan and I did try to get out of that more strenously. Debraj Ray’s book of the same title arrived at the same time. Kuroda noticed the book on my table and since he had not seen the book, he picked it up and noticed the ‘For Anjan da’ over Debraj’s signature and said that this established my credential as a scholar in the area and that I should not hesitate any more. So here I was saddled with a review as well as a course which ordinarily, I would not have attempted.

Professor Kuroda proved to be an admirable host thereafter; he used to invite his students and some of them were my students as well, for parties where we ate and drank, in his garden. There was bar-be-cue but what was being roasted was fish and any amount of beer and there was good cheer. The trout, it was mostly trout, was fresh and tasty. During the new year, the Japanese festival of rice pounding and eating rice cakes ( kagami mochi) once again held in Kuroda-san’s garden, and beer were enjoyable. I was taken in to be a colleague and accepted unequivocally. Professor Hayami turned up in the department to address Professor Kuroda’s seminar and wanted to meet me. By then I had finished the review and apparently Hayami liked the review. So I had discharged the reponsibility adequately. So much so that Hayami acknowledged my comments in the second edition of his book. The course too seemed to go somewhat better than anticipated. Academic matters seemed to have been taken care of and I was fast approaching the end of the quarter and was looking forward to our son joining us. Our social life was helped tremendously by the fact that Anit Mukherjee who had been our student in JNU was then a graduate student in the department. And through him, we got to know Mahmuda Akhter and Mahfuz-ul Hoque from Bangladesh and a lot of the other friends of Anit as well. The quality of social interactions, specially for my wife, improved tremendously, particularly since Anit took on, effortlessly, the role of our interpreter and chauffeur. And we are grateful that he devoted so much time to us. Our life in Japan minus Anit’s presence would have been rather dull.

It was then that the Grim Reaper decided the we had enough fun and games and made a move. I heard from my parents that my mother was ill; she was having daily high fever which did not seem to respond to any line of treatment. And doctors at Patna where my parents lived, had suggested that she be taken to Kolkata. My son decided to go to Patna and inspect things first hand and quickly, it became evident that he would have to accompany my mother to Kolkata; his Japan plans were shelved. Matters reached a head when my mother was diagnosed with Cancer. My nephew, a doctor, had taken a lead in oganizing matters but he was also hampered by my absence. In our country, a serious illness needs an organizer of matters from the family; she or he would keep track of expenses, arrange for funds when required and if feasible too, provide whatever advice possible to the remaining family members. Clearly I was needed there.

There was a problem; under the conditions of my appointment, any Visiting Foreign Professor in a National Univerity in Japan could not leave Japan during the tenure of the appointment. I could terminate, of course, but there were heavy costs associated. I decided to consult my host Professor Kuroda, whom I had got to like quite a lot. He knew about the regulation and asked me to seek an appointment with the Dean. In the meanwhile, I had decided to quit, if necessary and had booked our tickets. I did not know the Dean and had not met him earlier.

The meeting with the Dean was a surprise; on hearing of my predicament, his first question was whether my father was still alive; I told him, he was; the next question was who usually looked after my father; I told him my mother usually did ; his immediate repsonse was that I should immediately proceed to India to look after my father when my mother was ill. He told me that the University will look after the procedure for seeking permission from the Ministry of Education. I was almost on the way out, when he asked me whether I had finished my teaching and had graded the examination scripts and submitted the grades. I had done so. And a final question, would I be able to return and complete my tenure. I could only say, I will try.

And I was permitted, just like that, to return and take up the challenge that the Grim Reaper had thrown. I have taught in so many places, under so many different regimes; sudden leave from academic institutions even if leave is due, is difficult; when no leave is due, it is impossible. I did ask Yoshimi Kuroda whether he had put in a word; he claimed he hardly knew the person and had just filled out a form when making my appointment with the Dean. So we were back in Kolkata and joined the battle. I think it was early July 1999 and within a day, my mother was operated upon. Particularly given the rapidity with which the disease moved in the case of my friend Kubo, I was mentally prepared for the worst news. But our efforts were successful and mother steadily improved and I made all arrangements possible for her help and also towards my father’s upkeep. Given my mother’s age, and the biopsy of the tissues removed during surgery, the oncologist did not recommend chemotherapy or radiation. My father did not like this that we should await the next move by the disease passively; he wanted that we pursue some line of treatment.

I was discussing my mother’s case with a senior colleague, who was a scientist and had retired from JNU and shifted to Kolkata; she was able to point me towards another biochemist, who was researching cancer cells and had been testing a substance, which she thought would inhibit the growth of the rogue cells. The scientist was located in Kolkata and was willing to take my mother on as a test case; this material would have to be taken by my mother as an oral medicine and reports of various kinds would have to be sent to the lab periodically, on the basis of which the dosage of the substance could be changed. Now someone had to actually collect the medicine on a monthly basis and have it sent to my mother in Patna. Mritunjoy Mohanty, a student from our department in JNU, was then employed in Kolkata and hearing of this logistical problem, stepped in and picked up the packet regularly for almost two years from the scientist and handed over the packet to my grandaunt, Indira who then sent it on to my parents in Patna; when he could not, an aunt, Oormi, thankfully stepped in. I am most grateful to these persons for their help in making the process work, without any problem, for over two years; after this period, the scientist decided that, that was enough. Even on hindsight, it seemed that I had made the best possible moves to counter the Grim Reaper and I was planning to return to Tsukuba well in time to pick up my assignment at Tsukuba. I must say that returning took a great act of faith that things would ultimately work out. There were many who argued that I was making a mistake in returning; that I should wait for the inevitable. My parents however, were very strong people and they favoured my returning to the job that I had left unfinished. In fact, my mother lived till 2011. I should also add that the Medical Council of India did not permit the use of this substance as a medicine for cancer; the evidence from my mother’s treatment was dismissed, since it did not establish matters, according to them. In this connection, at the end, I shall put in my two bits towards the chess game that unfolded on the screen of the Seventh Seal. As one can see, our moves are not quite like moves in chess. We continue with our narrative.

I returned to Tsukuba after a month and reported to my host; it seems he was proceeding on sabbatical and would not be around to close my tenure but he had made arrangements with an young Assistant Professor, Yoshikatsu Tatamitani, to take over the formal duties of the host. Now I knew Tatamitani quite well; he was a theorist and ten years ago, when I had visited Tsukuba, I had taught him! In any case we had one more month to go. I also enquired from Kuroda to find out whether my position had already been filled since if not, I would like an extension till the end of the year. On my way back I had approached the JNU and found out that the extension was feasible from their side. I was keen to prolong my stay at Tsukuba for many reasons; some were academic and the other, was the financial side of things. It turned out that this was feasible provided I agreed to teach in the short-term programme, where students went through an accelerated programme and lectures were held for longer hours and the course for which they wanted me was some applied micro-economics for senior level undergraduates, if I recollect. Anyway I agreed and thus my tenure was extended till December 31, 1999. Financially, this was a huge step. But Mr Reaper must have been overjoyed since it was now possible to take another swipe at me.

Let me in passing, comment about the facilities available to Professors in Japan; apart from salaries which are reasonably high (at comprable levels, US academic salaries are higher), there was a huge research grant, specially at National Universities which could be used for research and associated activities. Unfortunately, while Foreign Professors such as myself were paid salaries at par with Japanese faculty of comparable attainments and rank, the research grant was much smaller. For Japanese faculty at senior level, one activity which could be supported was the holding of meetings of small groups, including the research scholars of the particular professor and one or two other outside scholars who work in the area of interest; the purpose of the meeting was to invite the outside scholars to address the gathering over a couple of days. Questions were raised and lively discussions ensued and there was a good dinner at the end of the day. Kazuo Nishimura, at Kyoto had organised such a meeting for me where he asked me to address questions relating to Non-linear dynamics as I had encountered in my own researches. In fact this helped me to work out many things and complete a rough draft of a survey I was preparing at the request of Professor K L Krishna for their journal and I used that as a text for my lectures at the Kyoto seminar: there were four or five sessions each about a couple of hours spread over two days; and we were meeting at a small hotel in Kyoto, where each of us stayed for the night. So there were was no outside interference. The extension allowed me to complete what I had started working on. This concentrated effort in preparing for the talk was a big help in identifying problems and made a progress towards solving some of them.

Originally I was to have stayed till about the middle of September 1999 and leave thereafter as soon as my tenure was completed. However now, there were some additional few weeks of hectic teaching. Our personal plans also intervened; my wife’s nephew was getting married in the US and she had applied for a US visa in Tokyo to attend the marriage. This was done even before we had to rush back on account of my mother’s illness. So she decided to leave for the US for a fortnight’s stay leaving me to my own devices. My mother was doing well in India, my lectures were happening without any problems and I was making steady progress towards the completion of the survey that I had discussed above.

Tsukuba University, was so named because of Mt. Tsukuba, which was located to the north-east has two peaks, and Tsukuba meant twin peaks apparently. And beyond the mountain in the same direction, is Tokaimura i.e., the village named Tokai. Also to fix matters, my office on the 12th floor, in Tsukuba University, was small and had a window which overlooked a mammoth parking lot and looked across to Mt Tsukuba and beyond. All this will have a bearing on what is described below.

On September 30, 1999 I was in my office working on my computer when there was a knock and Tatamitani (my temporary host, you may recall) came in looking somewhat more serious than he usually did. He told me that the University was shutting down and had asked people to pay attention to directives on the radio, because of a serious nuclear accident in Tokaimura where the atmosphere had been exposed to radioactivity. If the aircurrents favoured it, the radioactive air would travel towards the University of Tsukuba and beyond and those in the path will suffer contamination. The extent, seriousness etc were still not known. I did not know what to do; Tatamitani was going to stay put in the department; his wife was in Tokyo; like me, he had no one at home. I looked out of the window, the parking lot was completely empty. There was not a single car in the lot. So I decided to stay put too since then I could have access to the radio bulletins via Tatamitani. I asked whether keeping the windows shut helped; apparently it did not. The entire problem surfaced around 1030 am ; since I had no lecture to give, the whole day was a blank. Basically, we were waiting for the contaminated air to engulf us.

Radiation was one thing that I did not know anything about; I was all alone in a country where the emergency messages on the radio, I could not follow. I was dependent on Tatamitani to translate messages for me. What if something happened to him?

I started getting calls from various people in the US.. my wife and my friends, all asking what was I doing. Incidentally, the cafes and restaurants in the University were all shut and we had been advised to stay indoors and away from windows. The only way I could be away from the window is if I moved out of my room. But then the corridors were all empty and no one was around. Better to stay inside my office, I thought.

Clearly the Grim Reaper had launched an attack unexpectedly and more importantly, there did not seem to be any way of countering this move. The whole day went like this in great anxiety and complete helplessness. Even now, thinking about the day leaves me panic stricken. Round about 5 pm, Tatamitani came in with a smile and told me that the emergency was over. Apparently, the contaminated air, being heavier than the normal air, sinks to the lowest strata; the air current would have to be strong and blowing in our direction to lift the contaminated air above the Tsukuba mountain and towards Tsukuba science city, where our University was located. Apparently the air was neither strong nor blowing in our direction and consequently the contaminated air stayed put. And consequently the shut-down enforced by the authorities had been lifted. Public transport had started operating and it was safe to venture out. Slightly later than usual, I returned home.

As we found out, the village of Tokai, to the north-east of where we were, had been the scene of two nuclear incidents; the first was in 1997 when there had been an explosion at the Power reactor and Nuclear Fuel Development Corporation radioactive waste bitumnisation facility. Several people had been exposed to radiation. We were unfortunate to be subjected to the second incident, described as a ‘criticality accident’ at a separate fuel reprocessing facility due to improper handling of liquid uranium fuel. The incident spanned approximately 20 hours, causing radiation exposure to some 600 workers and death of two. The report was to blame human error in handling. An enquiry in March 2000, was to cancel the plant’s credentials for handling nuclear wastes. So far as I was concerned, I lived through scary times. Were we affected at all? I think the jury is still out on that one given the large number of people who were later to develop illnesses of various types. Amongst nuclear disasters, there is a scale, (the International Nuclear Event Scale) where 7 is the worst like the one at Chernobyl; this was rated to be of level 4.

So we had eveaded the Grim Reaper yet again. We ran into yet another problem. Government of Japan, Ministry of Education requires that a Foreign Professor whose contract was upto December 31, as mine was, could leave Japan only on January 1. In my case, the twist was that this was December 31, 1999. And in November or early December 1999, no airlines was in a position to make bookings for January 1, 2000 or thereafter, since computers were just not accepting dates in 2000. There were dire predictions that the computers would crash on December 31, 1999 because of the turn of the century. Particularly given the huge volume of traffic during the New Year’s break, tickets had to bought well in advance. I was at the end of my tether; the trip had begun badly, with Yuji Kubo’s death. And there were one set of problems after another; now I was eager to get back. I approached the University once more, seeking advice. Once again, in the face of circumstances, I was advised to get the latest possible ticket on or before December 31; I aimed for Dcember 29 and received acknowledgement from the travel agent and the University accepted the arrangement. Nothing really happened at the turn of the century; computers did not crash as had been talked about. Flight schedules did not appear to have been disrupted. And we all went on more or less as before. I at least heaved a sigh of relief when I returned; the Grim Reaper seemed to have been held in abeyance. Surely, through serendipity, rather than design, I thought.

The piece has become long but I cannot restrain myself from commenting on a report on the Seventh Seal. There was something wrong with the depiction of the game of chess that Antonious Bloch was playing with the Grim Reaper. So much so, Bergman was blamed for no knowledge of the Game of Chess; that the rules being used were actually in use much later than when the Black Death affected Europe. Writing in the Empire, (posted on 11.07.2011, Ian Freer analyses the Game of Chess played), the post ends with the brash sentence: “Ingamar Bergman then, master filmmaker, doofus chessplayer.”

The critic surely misunderstands the contest between the Grim Reaper and Bloch; every one knows that any such contest will have only one outcome; Death will prevail; the question is whether some time can be bought by postponing the inevitable. Whether you call the game chess or something else is quite beside the point. A particular point that is picked up to show that Bergman did not play the game of chess was to point out that as the game progressed, more and more pieces were left on the board. One would expect that as a game of chess progresses one would have fewer pieces on board. Clearly it was not chess that was being depicted but it seems to me that chess was just a symbol of the contest that Bloch had engaged in. Interpreted in this manner, clearly more and more pieces are engaged in thwarting Death as the contest progresses. Whether Black wins or White wins is quite besides the point; as I said, we all know, Death will eventually prevail. The point is when up against the Grim Reaper, the essential question is whether one is able to buy time; some do and many are unable to do so. But clearly to dismiss Bergman even on matters relating to chess, is not proper.

This was written when CESP or the Centre for Economic Studies and Planning was getting around to celebrate 50 years of existence. How did I get into the act from the initial stages. What follows are my recollections.

In 1959, I was in Standard IX or as we grandly called it, the Pre-Senior Cambridge Class of St. Xavier’s in Patna and we had an English teacher, who was also our class teacher and would remain so for the last two years of our school. He was a remarkable person, Rev Father James W. Cox, SJ, a Jesuit from the US. He was later to become an Indian citizen but that’s another story. One way that he was remarkable was that he had a collection of paperbacks in his room that he would let his class read. The first time I went up to his room to ask him for a book, I clearly recall I was somewhat nervous and I asked him “ Father, may I have a book to read”. And he laughed this glorious laugh that we became familiar with, “ what else do you do with a book”. And boy did he give me a book. It was Hilaire Belloc’s “ The Path to Rome”. I struggled with the book since I found the English tough; I sat down with a dictionary and struggled through the travelogue of a walking tour which led the author to Rome.  This too is a travelogue, although not quite a walking tour. How I ended up teaching at JNU. In school, it was said that I would do aeronautical engineering, whatever that was.

The journey from school and college and further was interesting but nevertheless, I ended up with a M.A. in Pure Mathematics in Calcutta in 1966. Most of my friends were studying Economics and with my degree in Pure Mathematics, since I had done well, I could have immediately got the job of a UDC (Upper Division Clerk) in Writers’ Building. That provision had appeared much to the general merriment of our class that year. But it was somewhat unappetizing and I later heard through the grapevine that IIM C (the Indian Institute of Management Calcutta, to the uninitiated) had advertised for a Research Assistant; there were two positions, one with a background of Mathematics and the other with a background in Statistics to work with the Economics Group at the Institute. I applied for this position since the pay was in the University Lecturer’s grade; but since  I was not sure whether I would get the job, I also wrote to Professor Amartya Sen at the Delhi School of Economics asking whether I would be eligible to enroll myself as a PhD scholar in DU.  Looking back, it is clear now that these were my first steps on my path to JNU. Not perhaps obvious at that stage.

What happened was that I first received an inland letter from Professor Sukhamoy Chakravarty, from Delhi School; he was in charge of the PhD programme then and he had taught me as an undergraduate in the  Economics classes, I had Economics as one of my subjects when I had  studied for an honors degree in Mathematics. He told me that DU regulations would not permit me to enroll for a PhD in Economics since I did not have a MA  degree in Economics and I should apply for the MA programme in Economics first. That did not attract me. IIM C called me for an interview where I had a rather interesting interaction with Paresh Chattopadhyay about Bourbaki and the French school and he advised me to learn French if I wanted to study  Mathematics; and at the interview I would  meet a tall lanky person from ISI, Nagi Reddy his name was and we chatted a bit. He had just completed his MStat from ISI. As luck would have it, we both got the job  and had a rollicking time at the Institute along with Hitesh Ranjan Sanyal, who was a bit older than us, and was working in Art History of Bengal. Not very obvious then that JNU was calling. In fact, there was no JNU then and that would be the state for some more years to come.

While we enjoyed the camaraderie and the atmosphere in the Social Sciences Group; we also enjoyed the friendliness of other faculty members at the Institute. We would travel by a special bus from Gariahat to Sinthee More, where IIM C was located then. The Campus where IIM C was located was next to the Economics Department of Calcutta University and these days that campus is taken over by Rabindra Bharati University. Among the bus fellow travellers, there was Professor Kamini Adhikari of the Behavioural Science group; her husband Dr B.P. Adhikari was the Director at ISI because the famous  Dr C. R. Rao was on leave ( I am not sure about this). In the ISI there was only one Professor  and that was PCM or Prasanta Chandra Mahalanobis; everyone else was Dr this or Dr that.  After a year and half, I realized, I was not going anywhere and doubts started creeping in my mind that maybe I should shift back to doing Mathematics. ISI was the best place to study Mathematics, but I didn’t know any mathematicians there. I knew an economist Dr Deb Bose, who had come to IIM C once and asked him for some advice.  As I recall, the conversation that followed stumped me, completely.

It turned out that it was he who wanted to talk with me! He had just returned from the US where he had been just introduced to computers (remember this was around 1967), and was working with a von-Neumann type model and as he knew that I was studying that model, he thought it would be possible to look into the cmputer programs and ISI had computers even then. Actually, I had visited the ISI library to study the original RES paper on the von-Neumann Model and I had needed an introduction to the library which Deb babu had gladly obliged. I had spent three days there just copying out the paper into my notebook to study since there was no Xerox machines too. Anyway Deb Babu had plans that he shared with me of starting a ERU (Economic Research Unit) and he had thought of me and another person, Amit Bhaduri to join. I was overjoyed, here was something that seemed to be interesting. I had met Amit Bhaduri when he joined Presidency Economics Department immediately after his tripos and we had chatted briefly (in Coffee House!). Apparently Deb Babu had put the proposal to Dr Adhikari, who had been wamly supportive of including me. Apparently he had liked what he saw when we had interacted socially and the whole proposal was waiting for Dr Rao’s OK. Deb Babu wanted to know whether I was agreeable; I said that I just need to check with people at IIM C and he just waved that out of consideration and asked what I thought. I just said that I was on. Dr Rao apparently shot the thing down though Deb Babu and B. P. Adhikari had both pitched in and I recall Deb Babu being surprised at Dr Adikari’s strong suport of my entry, even though I had nothing to show except for a good MA in Pure Mathematics and some people thinking well of me. I learnt Dr Rao had told Deb Babu that he should prove himself first. And then he was not quite convinced about the matter of Amit Bhaduri joining the proposed Unit. So that opportunity fizzled out.

So I had to look for something else; it was clear that I did not want to spend more time at IIM C; the Director had spotted me speaking to some people and decided to nominate me to study for PhD in Management in Stanford and being brash, I told him thank you I will go on my own steam so I do not need the Institute’s sponsorship. This riled him enough and he complained to Barun De, the senior professor in Social Sciences, what does the young man think of himself. The Director had missed the point: it was he that I didn’t think much of.

I had been attending Professor Dipak Banerjee’s class on Linear Economic Models; there were three students in the class including myself ( the other two were Asis Banerjee, who later became VC of Calcutta University and Somnath Sen who became Professor at Manchester; if memory serves me right, they were a couple of years junior to me.) I was also writing essays for Dipak Babu, which were not very good. At this stage I was advised to apply for a PhD in Economics to places where I could use my mathematics background to advantage. Two places were chosen for me to apply: Rochester in the US and Essex in the UK. Professor Morishima was still in Essex and of course Professor Mckenzie was in Rochester. Both admitted me but Essex had no money and Rochester gave me a fellowship. The choice was clear.

Three years of hard work and I realized I was close to finishing since I had a couple of papers out in the journals; everyone said that I had done well. I knew that I had just got lucky. Professor T. N. Srinivasan (TN to everyone) turned up at Rochester for a seminar and learnt from Professor McKenzie that I was almost done and would be going back to India. There had been some talk in the department about that decision when I didnt join the cattle show, viz., meetings of the AEA where all graduate students showed up looking for jobs. The department wanted to show me off but I was determined not to allow that; in fact Professor Jones who was in charge of graduate students wanted me to put in an appearance, stick around for a few more years. Anyway I will talk about that on another occasion. TN asked me whether I would be interested in a job at the ISI; Dipankar Dasgupta, a close friend had returned so I naturally was excited about the chance. With his advice, I wrote to Professor Pranab Bardhan enclosing my CV. I also wrote to my mentor my uncle, Tapas Majumdar; he wrote back saying that of course I should seriously consider ISI but there was a new university in Delhi, JNU, coming up and that they had advertsied for jobs in Economics as they wanted to set up a new department of economics and I should apply immediately. I did so. Almost immediately, TN called me up saying that the ISI job was done and I should just await Dr Rao’s letter. I started laughing saying that my past experience was not good. Anyway I think I told him that I will wait.

At Rochester there was a Physics Graduate student, named Abhijit Mukherjee and he stayed in the same block of flats. Our address differed only in our apartment numbers. In a few days, he came to me with a telegram which offered a job at JNU. He asked me whether I had applied for a job at JNU and hearing that I had, handed me the telgram saying that this was probably for me. It was. I received the letter a week later; JNU was willing to pay for our fares back too but the catch was that I had to agree to sign a bond to serve JNU for three years. I told TN about the letter from JNU since the letter from ISI was yet to arrive. TN told me that ISI did not pay fares and in which case I told him sorry TN, I am accepting JNU then. He told me that I should not make such decisions over such matters and I told him that I needed the money since my wife and I were on a meagre fellowship, we just needed some start-up money once we got back. Apparently Dr Rao was somewhere in the US and would be returning soon and the job offer was pukka. Anyway we got back to Delhi; I joined JNU, the ISI letter remained unsigned I learnt; at JNU, I signed the bond, got the money and started to set up house. We couldnt get a flat on campus; we had rented a house in Sarvoday Enclave. It was a hand to mouth existence. A month had gone by when TN and Kirit Parikh hurried into my office in JNU, waving C. R. Rao’s letter; saying come to ISI. But it was too late. I wondered why they had taken the trouble. I had signed the bond and I had to stay for three years at least. I stayed thirty seven odd years till the end of my tenure.

Dr C. R. Rao, 102 years old was very much in the news recently. Clearly, he ensured that I remained in JNU; I did not know any one in the department that I helped initiate when I joined; Amit Bhaduri joined later and I breathed a bit. If either Dr Rao had agreed to Deb babu’s formulation of ERU in 1968 or if he had been around to sign my appointment letter when the decision had been taken, I would have probably not come to JNU. But as you can see, I was destined to work with Amit Bhaduri.

I do not think any one at JNU particularly wanted me to join, but circumstances, Tapas Majumdar telling me about the opportunity and luck or maybe, destiny, saw to it that I did join.

Over the last several decades, one has participated in Conferences, big and small, in various capacities. One used to think that Conferences are fun places where you meet various people and exchange ideas and talk about research and the possibilities appear limitless. But things happen which may be considered funny or even sometimes, scary, depending on your luck and skill; I think a fair bit of tension may develop as the following may exhibit. You may be a participant presenting a paper, or maybe a discussant and later on, with age, be asked to Chair or even if you just decide to be part of an audience, listen to some talk by a Nobel Laureate, please be very very careful. For there are traps everywhere and unless you maneuver carefully, and Lady Luck shines, you may fall right in. And your career will take a hit. You may find it difficult to live down a performance like that. Or alternatively, you encounter an opportunity, recognize it as one and seize it with both hands, and jump right up to a different plane. As you will read, these meetings can lead to unexpected outcomes. The events I shall describe are all true events and I shall try to stick to the truth always. And I wish to point out that our Conferences, the ones that we were involved in, were never lavish. And for people like us who taught in Indian Universities on low salaries, it was almost impossible to participate without considerable support.

In the case of traveling from India to international venues, the Government of India was quite capable of throwing an additional spanner or two to spice things up.

The Foreign Exchange crisis

First, the problem is writing a paper that would be acceptable to the Committee making the selections. In the beginning, you have to contribute a paper and ask “Is this worthy of presentation?” and hope they would like to listen to you and say yes. Much later, in your career, once you have arrived, so to speak, you would get a letter saying why don’t you write something for us? For most of us, for most of our careers, we had to submit papers hoping they would be chosen for presentation. Some selection is made and say, you are in. The next thing is funding. If it is inside the country, the University would spend some money on you and in any case, it is not that expensive. While organizers in India do their best to keep you comfortable, you know how things are. But in going abroad, funding IS a big problem. I have generally obtained full funding for outside-the-country conferences. Otherwise, I have not gone. But even with full funding, there are problems.

For instance, consider what happened when I wrote a paper and submitted it for consideration; it was selected and not only that, I received full funding. Let me describe what happened thereafter.

In 1980, I was due to travel to Aix-en-Provence to present a paper at a World Congress of the Econometric Society. Fortunately, as I had said, I had received full support which basically meant that I had the days at the Conference covered and I had a cheap ticket; the catch was that the cheap ticket involved staying at the destination for at least one week; the Conference was usually for three days max; so one had to get a little more support from some source.

I had even worked that out; since I had returned from LSE in 1978 or 79, I knew enough people there to write for support. One would get some money which would cover my four days and since I knew my way about London, I could live cheaply. But all this was possible when one was young. I thought I would have a pleasant break from the usual routine and if I could really rough it out in London, I would even bring back some things for my wife. But the googly from our regulations and ensuing circumstances almost bowled me out. The problem was this. We were entitled to take a small amount of money with us in foreign exchange in those days but, here is the rub, getting the money in French francs became impossible. The currency easiest was US $ for the amount was sanctioned in US$. I thought I would convert some money into French Francs at the airport in Delhi. Alas, that was not possible; they claimed they did not have any French Francs.

So I traveled all the way with a vaguely uneasy feeling; problems began at Delhi itself with our flight getting delayed. We had to make a change in Paris and catch a flight to Marseilles and from the airport, we would be taken to the Conference site in buses. So my idea was to change some of my dollars into Francs in Paris. But then when we landed at Paris, our flight to Marseilles was waiting for us and we had to literally run helter-skelter to catch the flight. So onto Marseilles, still no French Francs in our pockets. The next thing that happened was that the flight to Marseilles started getting delayed after we boarded and the net result was that we landed at Marseilles at around 10pm. I tried to locate a bank at the airport; unfortunately, everything was closed. There were buses to take us to the venue alright but there was a ticket to be purchased, in naturally, French francs. And I did not have any.

Looking around, I tried to locate some European who would be heading towards the same conference. How does one identify such a person? I somehow did manage to locate one person who was rather suspicious of the whole thing. I explained my predicament and I offered to give him a 100$ note if he bought the ticket for me and I would settle the next day. There was a coordination problem, where to meet, and at what time to complete the transaction. He did not take the 100$ bill and we made the transaction the next day after I had exchanged most of my dollars for French francs. He seemed to think that either I had made up the entire story or that I had no idea that dollars were not a universally accepted currency. It was just a stroke of luck that one managed to overcome all these hurdles. With age, my hurdling abilities weakened considerably; some hurdles were removed, over time of course, but then some remained.

Strange Encounters in Strange Situations

I should have titled this section, The Loo and other Encounters, specifying what the strangeness was. But the Loo I am referring to is not the hot winds that blow across the plains of North India during the summer when temperatures soar to 44 degrees C and beyond. I am referring to the slang phrase usually used to describe the toilet. Apparently, according to some, this was something that the American GIs coined from the phrase “Le Eau” or the water.

The year was 1997 and Hong Kong was to get away from British rule. More importantly, the Chinese mainland will now be in full control. It would however not be fully swallowed into the mainland and there would be a special protectorate to preserve its distinctive economic structure. Thus Hong Kong was to become a SAR, or a Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China. There would be no Governors as for other regions; instead, there would be a CEO, a Chief Executive Officer. Thus Hong Kong would remain capitalist heaven or so the People’s Republic was trying to convey. And to uphold what was touted as the “One Country Two Systems ” platform, a very suave person, Honourable Mr. Tung Chee-Hwa, clad in western suits, was appointed. This was an interesting time but I am not going to discuss this political situation any further. All this is to introduce how I landed up in Hong Kong (HK).

The Far Eastern Meetings of the Econometric Society was scheduled to be in HK that year as an attempt perhaps to showcase HK before a galaxy of economists from around the world to signal that this was a different China. And in support, the government of HK had raised a lot of money; the Universities of HK were spruced up and were venues for the different sessions on the different days. The Programme Committee for the Conference was drawn up in advance; the chair of the Committee was someone who had been at Rochester after I had studied there, decided that they needed a theorist working in India, in the Committee and thus I was roped in.

Papers came in, routed by the Programme Committee Chairman. By then emails had become fairly common and I could rope in some people from around Delhi to help me in selecting papers. We managed to send a set of selected papers back and I thought my work was done. But soon the people in Hong Kong wanted my travel plans! I told them I was planning not to attend as there was no way that I could raise the necessary funds for the visit. Fortunately, they wrote back saying that they would fund my visit and I should plan to come. And I landed up in Hong Kong. Lavish arrangements had been made; sessions had been set at various Hong Kong institutions and the infrastructure was really outstanding. I had to chair a session but I will not speak about it here. The Inaugural session was over dinner and the lecture was by Professor Robert Lucas, who was also President of the Econometric Society; the Chief Guest was the Honolurabe Mr Tung Chee- Hwa, the CEO of Hong Kong.

We, the invitees, were sitting along a huge circular table; one side of the circle had been made the head because that’s where Lucas and the others were sitting facing us; the screens were there and the acoustics were first class, as we found out. The plates and glasses were set in front of us, as were our names. So we had been assigned places. It was a big area and we had reached early, to search for our names. I found my name and then went up to meet the Programme Chairman and say hello to Professor Lucas. I had met him briefly in Chicago when I had visited the Economics Department to meet Jose Scheinkman, someone I knew from Rochester; this was in 1973; I do not think he recalled but he was polite. Then the Chief Guest arrived and we hurried back to our seats.

First, there was the welcome address, by the Finance Secretary of the Hong Kong Administration: a Chinese gentleman who welcomed us and in passing informed us that he had a Ph.D. in Economics from Chicago! He spoke with an American accent and it was clear that given his governmental responsibilities and his philosophical background, capitalism and the free market would reign supreme and that the One Country Two System Paradigm would have no problem in flourishing. If I recall correctly, Professor Lucas’ talk was titled “Industrial Revolution: Past and Future”; I listened enthralled since it was the kind of economics that you seldom get to hear. It was also a rather humid evening and I was feeling thirsty and kept sipping on the glass of orange juice that I had opted for. Wine was being served too, but I had been warned to stay off given the kind of medication I was on then. I was enjoying the lecture very much and not paying attention to the fact that there were liveried waiters filling up our glasses whenever we took a sip. They were standing at our back. The lecture lasted for 45 minutes or thereabouts and since I had been drinking a fair amount of orange juice, I realised I had to urgently look for a loo and as soon as Professor Lucas finished, I pushed back my chair, got up, asked the waiter where the loo was and headed there as quickly as I could.

I located the place and noticed that the loo was empty and so walked up to a stall and started to complete what I was there for. I suddenly noticed two very tough-looking persons in dark suits come into the loo, and stand at the back of the loo, facing me looking very serious, hands by their sides. Obviously secret service types, I figured. I wanted to get away but I was still not done when I noticed that the door opened and who should walk in but the CEO of Hong Kong; he walked into the next stall, looked at me and smiled, and began his activitiy. I then realised, why the secret service was there. I finished and walked to the sink, washed and walked out, and realised what had happened. There was a long line of fellow invitees, held up by the secret service waiting to get to the loo; there had been empty stalls but then they had to wait for the CEO to finish. D S who was waiting at the top of the queue, knew me from my time at the LSE, asked me how did you manage to get in? I said I was in first and walked away to sit down for dinner. It was a first-rate dinner. First mover advantage is what I should have called this piece. The point is that the authorities in China acceded to my rights due to my first move. What would have happened in other countries? And more importantly, would the authorities in Hong Kong today be so gracious? It is not every day you share the loo with the head of state.

On Chairing Sessions

Chairing sessions, one would think, is easy. The difficult thing is to keep the speakers within the time given to them. Usually, the standard practice is to show cards saying 5 minutes more; most of the time, that card is enough; occasionally, you have to flash the other card which says 1 minute more, when the speaker shows no sign of winding down. If you have to flash the card saying STOP, then the speaker has decided to eat into the other speakers’ time and you, as Chair of the session, have lost control. Let me describe how bad this can get with truant speakers.

I think it was the same Hong Kong conference where I got to share the loo with you know who. I am not too sure though but this happened at one of the Far Eastern Meetings. I was to Chair a session with three speakers; one of them was H A; he had been on my thesis examination committee, one of Lionel McKenzie’s early graduate students who had been visiting Rochester when I submitted my dissertation, and we had been together at the Value and Capital 50 years Conference and finally, he had once hosted me at his University in Japan for a whole academic year. So he was someone I knew well and he was my senior. The other two speakers I did not know; one of them was a Chinese academic and the third, I do not recollect. I also think the time allotted for the entire session was perhaps 90 minutes. So thirty minutes for each paper. That’s about normal for these conferences, in fact, it was somewhat generous by the norms, for three speakers.

The Chairman’s main job is to control the speakers and see that the room is available for the next session according to the schedule. Also if there are questions then, it is the responsibility of the Chair to see that some discussion takes place and again, see that the schedule is adhered to. So in this case, there were about thirty minutes per paper, as I said and I did not perceive any problems. I walked into the room slightly ahead of schedule just to find out who the speakers were. I noticed Professor H A of course; went up and spoke to him. Called out the other two names, but there was no response. Chatted with some of the others who had come to listen; some were friends who had come to listen to Professor H A. And it was time to start. I once again called out for the other two names and once again there was no response. So I signaled that Professor A should begin but speak for 25 minutes. And we were on the way.

Around the time there were 5 minutes left; I flashed the 5 minutes more card and that somehow upset Professor A. He had still some things to speak on and he decided to ask for more time. I was still not worried; I asked whether the other speakers were there; there was no response. So I decided to give some more time to Professor A. Maybe 10 more minutes. He again began in full flow and now I was a bit worried. After 10 minutes I tried to halt the speaker and now he turned against me: How can you not give me more time he said. And further he claimed that his paper was the best paper in the entire conference and he made the claim that since I was like his student, I had to yield and in any case there were no other speakers. I inquired whether the other speakers had arrived: still no response. So he had a point, or so I thought. He took the entire 90 minutes, stopped, very pleased at the way things had gone. And we were going off from the room in time, some of us who knew Professor A, were laughing at his antics. While I was leaving the room, the person sitting in the first row all this time started saying something. He looked Chinese and in broken English, he was enquiring whether he should speak now! He was apparently one of the persons who had been scheduled to speak. I asked him why he had not responded when I had asked and there was nothing I could do at that moment. HA had disappeared by then. I wondered whether he knew that the Chinese speaker was present; I know he spoke reasonable Mandarin. I went up to the Programme Chair and explained what had happened. He did say he would like to see whether the speaker could be fitted in some empty slot somewhere. I apologised as profusely as I could to the Programme Chairman, but still, I have not figured out why the Chinese did not respond.

Another extreme situation took place in a silver jubilee celebration of an Indian institution and in an economic theory session with two extremely well-known speakers, I was again chairing. I accepted because one of them was like my student while the other had been my student and I thought I would have a nice time with them. The first speaker did his bit and answered questions and then I found out that the second speaker was ill and had sent a video, which the organisers wanted to play. I asked whether it was alright for time and the organisers said that it was. That was not entirely true; the video went on and on and there was no way anyone could do anything. The very eminent T. N. Srinivasan was in the audience and he told me audibly, Anjan shut off the proceedings he has had his say and everyone laughed and the session had lost its seriousness. Let me emphasise, the second speaker is one of the most beautiful expositors that I have come across and he was speaking really well. But still, he exceeded the time that had been allotted to him. And that was not kosher.

Walking away from the end of the session, T. N. Srinivasan and I were chatting, I recall saying how the younger lot should learn to stick to the time. I told him T N, as he used to be called, presenting or discussing papers can be very scary too. I had thought Chairing was safer. I told him about the experiences over lunch and he enjoyed my reminiscence so much that I made a note of them. Alas, T N is no more. He was a very interesting person and I am grateful to him for he gave me my first job after my Ph.D. But that is another story altogether.

On Discussing or Presenting at Conferences

Let me discuss my encounter with Kenneth Arrow; he was in the audience and I was a discussant of Frank Hahn’s paper. Arrow was the Last of the Mohicans. His reputation intimidated everyone. In 1988, the conference to celebrate the 50 years of Value and Capital was held at Bolognia. This was certainly a conference where I was pitched in to bat in a league where I was totally outclassed. I spoke and while speaking, my attention was diverted to Ken Arrow sitting in the front, tossing the pencil and catching it continuously. There was John Hicks quietly sitting in his wheelchair with twinkling eyes and smiling whenever I mentioned something from Value and Capital. Friends had warned me that the danger man was Kenneth Arrow; the minute he stops twirling the pencil, be prepared, he is going to launch into a question. I had just mentioned something and used a result that I attributed to Metzler when immediately the pencil stopped, and Arrow said ” Why do you say it is Metzler’s result?” I said nervously, ” because it is Metzler’s” and he said “No it is mine” and then there was complete silence. You know everyone working in general equilibrium was there. I had to say something: I stuck to my guns. He said that what was Metzler’s result and launched into something at the terrific pace that he spoke; I of course said that what he said was correct but what I had said was also correct. But since Ken Arrow wanted to claim the result, who was I to intervene. And proceeded. After the talk he came to me and said you know, you have got it wrong. We had a coffee break and several people, Guy Laroque I specifically recall, came up to me and said you know you were right. I did say I could have done with some support. I recall Laroque telling me, that was Ken Arrow, who would like to take him on. I remember telling Lionel McKenzie also and he said well you stood your ground. That was not the end of the encounter. I came back to Delhi and located a paper by Arrow which mentioned the result I had used as Metzler’s, was introduced by Arrow himself as ” one of the lesser-known results of Metzler was…”. I xeroxed the page, underlined the sentence, and sent it to Ken Arrow saying ” I now have the best authority on my side: Ken Arrow”. I forgot about it but a letter did come from him which said he was being silly in Bolognia and of course I was correct but what he had actually meant was… You know I used to keep that letter on my table in JNU. Someone, to my great regret, removed it from the table. But Arrow had done me in; people, who didn’t know, thought that I had been caught out. And incidentally, this lot was the larger lot; those that knew the result were in a minority, and to them, it did not matter. But I felt completely helpless at the Conference. Fortunately, other things happened and that was also talked about much more.

This was during the presentation of a paper in another session. When the speaker, it was my old friend and teacher HA, who has appeared earlier, stopped, there was a question from a VVIP ; the speaker immediately said “thats a stupid question” and stood grinning. There was shocked silence in the room. Suddenly Lionel McKenzie: started laughing and he said nicely to the speaker… You can’t quite say that you know and then launched into some discussion of why the question needed to be answered. And some people joined in. A first-class crisis was nicely defused and bore the stamp of an excellent chair. That day over dinner, there were two large tables; one for the big guys like Arrow, Debreu McKenzie, Uzawa etc and one, for those who also ran, people like us. But there was a big guy with us too, David Cass. He did remark on the eccentric behavior of the speaker concerned and then said how well McKenzie had handled the situation. I could not add to my story of HA since that happened much later.

Many years ago, when the ISI campus in Delhi was being inaugurated lots of big shots had come. TN had asked me to present something and I had decided to present my paper on Choice which I had just completed. I was somewhat nervous because it was the first time, I was presenting this paper. I knew that it was OK but how it would be received by my peers, one did not know. Frank Hahn set upon me from the word go. It was really difficult to speak with so many interruptions. In fact, I did not know Frank Hahn at all at that point in time. A friend, Dipankar Dasgupta, also in the audience, told me later that as soon as my name was announced, Frank Hahn whipped out something from his pocket and compared the names and launched into his tirade. Dipankar also knew what Hahn had taken out from his pocket; it was the copy of a review of Arrow and Hahn’s magnum opus on General equilibrium, which Dipankar and I had reviewed in the ISI journal, Sankhya. It was a good review but Hahn obviously while skimming through it, he had it only for a few minutes, decided that it was not laudatory enough. We thought we had written a good review though. But anyway, my presentation was shot. Incidentally, the paper I presented at the ISI conference ultimately appeared in Econometrica, one of the really prestigious journals, so Hahn was just being difficult I thought. Over coffee, Hahn relented perhaps and told me it was a nice paper! I mumbled something but then he went on to say that he had just seen our review of his book with Arrow. And he said that there was one result in the book which was erroneous and the review had not caught it. He continued that it had been pointed out by some guy. named Mukherji, he fumbled over the name and then it struck him, it is not you is it, he asked. I did own up and he suddenly became very friendly. The review had talked about the problem but there had been no dancing up and down saying got you; consequently, he had missed it.

During the same conference, against my protestations to TN who was the chief organizer, I was appointed to discuss a paper by Hirofumi Uzawa. The problem was Uzawa kept dodging sending me the paper till he caught up with me and just before he started speaking he said the paper is a standard two sector model, and I still wanted to have a look and then he dropped his bombshell that the paper was in Japanese. That somehow angered me: the complete disrespect to ISI did not make any sense; perhaps it was just his laziness or that he was caught up with too many things. I refused to discuss the paper after his presentation. I generally have thereafter refused to discuss papers insisting that unless the paper is with me at least a week before, it’s off. When Professor McKenzie asked me to discuss Hahn’s paper ( I have already talked about it and my interchange with Arrow), Professor McKenzie said that I had missed an opportunity. I should have discussed Uzawa’s paper in Hindi.

On Organizing Conferences big or small

Organizing Conferences are difficult; large conferences are naturally more difficult to organize. First of all, they require more money to be raised and then you need a reasonable accommodation for the participants, transportation costs need to be covered too. My only experience with organizing a large international conference was with the organizing of the Meeting of the Econometric Society, South East Asian Chapter. The countries of South East Asia are not really known for their interest in such activities; Malaysian members expressed a willingness to organize and host and were confident to raise enough money. Our regional boss who was basically in charge convinced me to be the Programme Chairman and I set out to draw up a programme. The Call for papers went out together with the announcement. Papers arrived and there were a large number of papers from the region which bucked us up to no end. We made the selections and just when we were about to send out acceptance letters and I kept asking the Local Chair of Arrangements to let us know what arrangements had in fact been made, I was told that they could not host it and would like to cancel. Canceling was easy; forget about the loss of face etc., we realised that the next time we would not get a chance to host these meetings. We talked about the matter with our local boss and we talked with the ISI in Delhi and checked whether their hostel/guest house could put up about 40 odd outside participants and they agreed and we announced the change in the venue and the conference was held. Speakers arrived from all over; it was the month of December and the year was 1998, the first year that massive fogging took place and all flights, international and national, were grounded. And we had lots of speakers with cancelled flights. There was nothing very much we could do but use our travel agents to get them new flights. And of course, arrange for additional days of lodging. Somewhere along the way, the purpose of the conference was lost, I felt.

During the later stages of my working life, after my retirement from JNU, in 2010, I became the Country Director of the India-Bihar programme at Patna; this was a programme of the International Growth Centre (IGC) which was run by LSE and Oxford University. The funds came from the British Government through DFID. In the initial stages there was a big gap of understanding of what constituted research. For instance I was asked whether we knew what we were doing or going this way or that way and suddenly finding the end conclusion. He was smiling sarcastically while he described this. My response that if we knew what the conclusion would lead us to, we wrote memos, and that research meant following up on something which can at best be called a hunch which may or may not be ultimately correct.

Anyway the gap remained. Our job was to set up an advisory set of experts that the Bihar Government could call upon to seek input into their policymaking. The challenge was to get really good professionals located anywhere in the world to engage in evidence-based research which could be presented to the Bihar Government. And the other equally important aspect was to explain to the Bihar Government why this could be beneficial for them. This was really a dicey process and we had to be extremely careful but I am not really going to be discussing these things here. But in this capacity, I had to organise a section of an annual conference held at the LSE. And once again my task was to cajole researchers to be present at this conference to showcase what was being done. The objective was different from the usual academic conference that I have been involved with previously. One aspect of these Conferences was to get people from the Bihar Government to come to London for the Conference as well. In the first year, our brief from the people in the UK was to get the Chief Minister to go to London for a special session of the Conference. This was easier said than done; and in spite of our best efforts, while the CM never said he wouldn’t come to London, he did not commit either and kept putting up one difficulty or the other. The IGC wanted a session on Governance where senior academics like Timothy Besley and Paul Collier would talk to policymakers. The idea was to get the CM of Bihar and someone from Africa and they thought that would be a great session. But the CM was not repared to accede to our request and time was running out. We found out that Mr Sushil Modi, the then Deputy Chief Minister and also the Finance Minister of Bihar was going to be in Europe for some other work around the same time. And on hearing this, the CM said that why dont you ask him and see wheter the Deputy CM can accommodate being at LSE. I thought that the CM wanted to get rid of the constant repeated requests from us and thankfully, Mr Modi agreed. So we wrote back to London saying that the Deputy CM (DCM) would appear in their planned session. At the LSE, I was asked by IGC whether the DCM would be up for the task; and I had to spend some time with the DCM before the planned session and I could see that although he is a seasoned politician, he was somewhat out of his comfort zone, within the confines of academia and on top of that was the fact that he does not usually speak in English. By then we knew that the special session on Governance would have the two senior British academics and the DCM only, the African policymaker having pulled out. The DCM had no idea what was to happen and he asked me in Hindi .. kya poochhenge mujhe? I realised that he needed to be talked to and told him that there would be no Q& A ; and that DCM should speak about the policies in Bihar that were being adopted and if he could connect them with what the academics had said, it would be great. Due to the IGC hype on Governance session, the entire auditorium was completely filled by the time I arrived and the usher told me there were no seats; fortunately behind me was the then Executive Director of the IGC, who waved me inside and I asked him whether the IGC people would escort the DCM in. I was kind of apprehensive whether the huge crowd would upset Mr Sushil Modi; but I needn’t have worried. Crowds do not affect seasoned politicians adversely. Well the introductions over, the two academics spoke. Each talked about Governance what it entailed, what was needed to be done; the kind of things that had been established through research , the different facets of things that had to be kept track of. Throughout all of this Mr Modi was taking copius notes. Once he began speaking and in English, he was fully in command; he said that he was sorry that he had not read the things that the academics had referred to ofcourse and there was a big round of laughter from the LSE student crowd. Mr Modi had found his supporters. He then took up point by point each of the suggestions made by the previous speakers and he showed how each of the new policies followed by the Bihar Government could be seen to follow. And since the academics had mentioned about adequate quality of leadership, in Bihar we were fortunate in the leadership provided by the CM. This was a remarkable statement since they belonged to different political parties and the government was run by a coalition. But the affirmation of the quality of leadership that we saw there is seldom seen. He went on for quite some time and then the moderator had to stop the session and let the audience have its say. Thunderous and sustained applause came first and there were some remarks and questions. Mr Modi was now prepared to answer everything. The last question was more of a comment, a wishful thinking from a young lady from Pakistan, she said, doing the B.Sc (Econ) at LSE; she asked if Mr Modi would be willing to come to Pakistan and talk about what policies were being followed. That brought the house down. From a humdrum session yet another talk fest, Mr Modi had weaved magic. I must have been congratulated many a time in our choice of the representative. Although we had very little say in the choice; IGC had wanted the CM and we had got the DCM and all of a sudden, he was the hero of the entire IGC conference. This was exactly what the IGC wanted to propagate. Conferences are so unpredictable. Anything may happen.

Finally, over several years my colleague Satish Jain and I organised far smaller affairs. These were easier to arrange and we started arranging for Theory and Policy Conferences which would have about a fixed number of participants, people we could rely on to deliver papers, well worked out in advance. Such conferences helped students to see reasonable papers and we have had students developing into paper presenters in later editions of the Conference. And people we got together enjoyed being there and we thought such meetings were good and useful. But raising say about 5-6 lakhs for a two or three days conferences and having Institutional support on a regular basis became increasingly difficult.

Research support to faculty has never been present in India; in contrast, Japanese faculty received substantial research support. In the early years, I have heard some Japanese faculty grumble that it was money being wasted. The increasing number of Nobel prize winners in more recent times is surely the result of such support, it should be noted. Senior professors have adequate support to run seminars which are mini-conferences; participants are their students and one or two speakers who work in their area. I can testify to the usefulness of such seminars since I was once invited to speak over three or four sessions, each about two hours or so, on what I had been working on. The people listening were mostly younger scholars who were working in similar areas. The task of organising and discussing whatever work I had done and was doing first uncovers some areas which can be developed and clarifies issues that would not have been clarified otherwise. This was an extremely useful way of going about things and very pleasant too because you do get to meet people, share a meal and interact. And of course, the organization of such seminars is really quite hassle-free. I tried to get people in India to see the point of such conferences but was not successful.

Finally, conferences can be fun places; but unexpected things can happen as well, so do be on your guard. Happy Conferencing!!

Srobonti Chattopadhyay translated my earlier pieces on NGM into Bengali. I am posting the translation here with her very kind permission.

ননী গোপাল মজুমদার : এক বিস্মৃত স্মৃতিচারণ

দিন দুয়েক আগে হঠাৎই আবিষ্কার করলাম যে পাকিস্তানের সিন্ধ প্রদেশের দাদু জেলায় নাই গজের তীরে একটা N G Majumdar Memorial Point আছে; শুধু তাই নয়, এর পাশে একটা N G Majumdar Memorial Café-ও আছে। এদের গুগল ম্যাপের অবস্থানও পাওয়া গেল নীচের লিঙ্কগুলোতে : 

N G Majumdar Memorial Point

https://maps.app.goo.gl/1SFM4dWm7abVqzUQ9

N G Majumdar Memorial Point Café

https://maps.app.goo.gl/xNR17MJUURsnufpJ8

কিন্তু এ কি করে সম্ভব হল? যেটুকু জানতে পেরেছি তাতে, দশ বছরেরও বেশি আগে, ২০১১ সালের ১৬ই জানুয়ারি Dawn সংবাদপত্রে একটি রিপোর্ট বেরোয়, তাতে লেখা ছিল :

রবিবারে রোহেল জি কুণ্ডে প্রখ্যাত প্রত্নতত্ত্ববিদ ননী গোপাল মজুমদারের প্রতি শ্রদ্ধা জ্ঞাপন করতে এক বড় অনুষ্ঠানের আয়োজন করা হয়; এ হল সেই জায়গা যেখানে কচ্ছ অঞ্চলে প্রত্নতাত্ত্বিক অনুসন্ধান চালানোর সময় ১৯৩৮ সালের ১১ই নভেম্বর এক দস্যুর আক্রমণে তিনি নিহত হয়েছিলেন। এই স্থানে একটি ফলক উৎকীর্ণ করা হয়।^[1]

আবার ২০১১ সালের ১৭ই জানুয়ারি আগের দিনের অনুষ্ঠানটি সম্পর্কে আরও একটি রিপোর্ট/ চিঠি প্রকাশিত হয় যাতে লেখা ছিল :

১৬ই জানুয়ারি কচ্ছ এক্সপ্লোরেশন, আনিস একাডেমি, এবং সুজাগ সংসার, জোহি একটি সাইনবোর্ডে তাঁর প্রতি কৃতজ্ঞতাসূচক কিছু শব্দ লিখে ৭৩ বছর পর তাঁকে স্মরণ করল। এই কৃতজ্ঞতাসূচক শব্দগুলি হল, “সিন্ধ আপনাকে শতাব্দীর পর শতাব্দী ধরে মনে রাখবে, আর যারা সিন্ধের প্রত্নতত্ত্বে উৎসাহী তাদের জন্য আপনার কাজ পথনির্দেশক হয়ে থাকবে।”^[2]

যেখানে তাঁকে হত্যা করা হয়েছিল, সেখানেই এই বোর্ডটি স্থাপন করা হয়। কিছু মানুষের এই উদ্যোগের অংশ হিসেবে সিন্ধ বিশ্ববিদ্যালয়, জামশোরো, শাহ আব্দুল লতিফ বিশ্ববিদ্যালয়, খৈরপুর মিরস এবং করাচি বিশ্ববিদ্যালয়কে ননী গোপাল মজুমদারকে যারা অভিযান এবং বিশেষত প্রত্নতত্ত্বে উৎসাহী তাদের জন্য এখনও পর্যন্ত অনুপ্রেরণার উৎস হয়ে থাকার জন্য মরণোত্তর ডি লিট সম্মানে ভূষিত করার আমন্ত্রণ জানানো হয়েছে।^[3]

এই রিপোর্টগুলি প্রকাশিত হওয়ার অল্প কিছুকাল আগে অধ্যাপক দীপঙ্কর দাশগুপ্ত টেলিগ্রাফ সংবাদপত্রে (১৯শে অক্টোবর, ২০১০, কলকাতা সংস্করণ) তাঁর শিক্ষক তাপস মজুমদারের ওপর তাঁর প্রতি শ্রদ্ধা জানিয়ে একটি প্রবন্ধ লেখেন; সেখানেই আরও অনেক কিছুর মধ্যে এটাও উল্লেখ করেন যে তাপস মজুমদার বিখ্যাত প্রত্নতাত্ত্বিক ননী গোপাল মজুমদারের সুযোগ্য পুত্র। এই রিপোর্টটি প্রত্নতত্ত্ব বিষয়ে সুপণ্ডিত সিন্ধি অধ্যাপক আজিজ কিংরানির চোখে পড়ে। তিনি ননী গোপাল মজুমদারের ব্যাপারে বিশদে খোঁজখবর নিতে অধ্যাপক দাশগুপ্তকে চিঠি লিখলে অধ্যাপক দাশগুপ্ত তাঁকে আমার সঙ্গে যোগাযোগ করিয়ে দেন। এখানে বলে রাখি, আমি ননী গোপাল মজুমদারের দৌহিত্র, তাঁর জ্যেষ্ঠা কন্যার পুত্র। আমরা তখন তাপস মজুমদারকে সদ্য হারিয়ে শোকের আবহে ছিলাম, তার মধ্যেই আমরা ননী গোপাল মজুমদারের সম্পর্কে বিশদে বেশ কিছু তথ্য একত্রিত করে অধ্যাপক কিংরানিকে পাঠাই। ধরে নেওয়া যেতে পারে যে অধ্যাপক কিংরানি এই তথ্যের ওপর ভিত্তি করেই ২০১১ সালের ৩১শে জানুয়ারি Dawn সংবাদপত্রে চিঠি লেখেন এবং এই চিঠির মাধ্যমে এর আগে প্রকাশিত রিপোর্টে ননী গোপাল মজুমদারের জীবনী সংক্রান্ত যা যা ভুল তথ্য ছিল সেগুলিকে শুধরে দেন। তার সঙ্গে তিনি সরাসরি পরামর্শ দেন –

“এই বাঙালী প্রত্নতত্ত্ববিদের প্রতি সম্মান জানাতে, যেখানে তাকে হত্যা করা হয়েছিল সেই স্থানটিতে প্রত্নতত্ত্ব বিভাগ ও সিন্ধ সরকার তাঁর স্মৃতিতে একটি স্মৃতিসৌধ প্রতিষ্ঠা করুক।”^[4]

এই স্মৃতিসৌধটি স্থাপিত হয়েছে কি না খোঁজ নিতে সম্প্রতি আমি অধ্যাপক কিংরানিকে চিঠি লিখেছিলাম। এমন তো কত প্রস্তাবই আসে, কিন্তু সবসময় সব কটি বাস্তবায়িত হয় না। কিন্তু প্রবল বিস্ময়ের সঙ্গে জানলাম যে স্মৃতিসৌধটি প্রতিষ্ঠিত হয়েছে তো বটেই, গুগল ম্যাপে তার অবস্থানও নির্দেশ করে দেওয়া হয়েছে!

যখন ভেবে অবাক হচ্ছি এখন এমন কি করে হল এবং অনেকেই জিজ্ঞেস করছে যে কি করে খবর পেলাম, যেহেতু এর মধ্যে আর কোন যোগাযোগ হয় নি, ভাবলাম ব্যাপারটা একটু ছোট করে লিখি। এটাও মনে হয়েছিল যে এই সুযোগে সিন্ধের বর্তমান পরিস্থিতি সম্পর্কে আর একই সঙ্গে ননী গোপাল মজুমদারের কাজ ও কৃতিত্ব সম্পর্কে সকলকে একটু জানানো  যেতে পারে। এই ব্যাপারে মূলত দুটি সূত্র থেকে আমি তথ্য পেয়েছি – প্রথমত,  দেবলা  মিত্র সম্পাদিত Explorations In Art and Archaeology of South Asia, Essays Dedicated to N. G. Majumdar (এর পর থেকে এই বইটিকে Explorations বলেই উল্লেখ করা হবে); এবং দ্বিতীয়ত তাপস মজুমদারের একদম ছোট্ট বেলার স্ক্র্যাপবুকে লেখা তাঁর বাবাকে হারানোর স্মৃতিচারণ থেকে। দুর্ভাগ্যবশত এই স্ক্র্যাপবুকটি এখন খুব খারাপ অবস্থায় রয়েছে, এবং এটিকে অবিলম্বে ডিজিটালাইজ করে নেওয়া প্রয়োজন।

অতীতের কোনও ঘটনাকে বিবৃত করা কঠিন বললে খুব কমই বলা হয়, বরং বেশ বিভ্রান্তিকর কিছু তথ্য পাওয়া যাচ্ছে।  প্রথমত, ১৯৩৮ সালে ঠিক কি ঘটেছিল তা বোঝার জন্য এটা খুব গুরুত্বপূর্ণ। ননী গোপাল মজুমদার যখন নিহত হন, তখনও তাঁর বয়স ৪১ পেরোয় নি। দিনটা ছিল ১১/১১/১৯৩৮; মাত্র কয়েক দিন পর ১/১২/১৯৩৮ তারিখে তিনি ৪১ বছর পূর্ণ করতেন। তাঁর শ্বশুরমশাইকে লেখা তাঁর একটি পোস্টকার্ড আমরা পেয়েছিলাম; তাঁর শ্বশুরমশাই ছিলেন সিলেটের এক সরকারী কলেজে সংস্কৃতের অধ্যাপক। পোস্টকার্ডে লেখা চিঠিটি খুব তাড়াহুড়োর মধ্যে লেখা – তাতে লেখা ছিল সব কিছুই ঠিকঠাক আছে, যেমন অনেক চিঠিতেই শ্বশুরমশাইদের লেখা হয়ে থাকে। তিনি এও লিখেছিলেন যে ২৪শে ডিসেম্বর তিনি ফিরবেন! এই চিঠির তারিখ ছিল ৭/১১/১৯৩৮, আর যেটুকু জানা গেছে তাতে এটাই ছিল ননী গোপাল মজুমদারের লেখা শেষ চিঠি।

আপাতভাবে, যখন তিনি তাঁর দলের বাকি সদস্যদের সঙ্গে গভীর মনোযোগে কাজ করে যাচ্ছিলেন, যা তাঁরা জানতে পারেননি তা হল তাঁদের ব্যাপারে তাঁদের উটচালক ও কুলিদের কাছ থেকে খোঁজখবর নেওয়া চলছিল (স্টেটসম্যান, অমৃত ব্যাজার পত্রিকা ১৮/১১/১৯৩৮)। একটি সংবাদ প্রতিবেদন থেকে জানা যায় যে এই কুলি বা উটচালকরা প্রত্নতত্ত্ব কথাটাই উচ্চারণ করতে পারত না, তারা বলেছিল কোষাগার বিভাগের লোকজন ওখানে কাজ করছে; এও জানা যায় যে মাটি খুঁড়ে কি গুপ্তধন বা “খাজানা” পাওয়া গেছে তাও লোকে জিজ্ঞেস করত। ১১/১১/১৯৩৮-এর সকালে  হঠাৎ ক্যাম্পে গুলি চলতে শুরু করে; ক্যাম্পের বেশ কিছু লোক বুলেটে আহত হন; ননী গোপাল মজুমদার ছুটে বেরিয়ে গিয়ে সেই ডাকাতদের বোঝানোর চেষ্টা করেন যে তারা ভুল করছে আর এইভাবে তাদের থামাতে গিয়ে তিনি সঙ্গে সঙ্গেই গুলিবিদ্ধ হন। তাঁর সহকর্মীরা যারা অনেক বেশি সাবধানী ছিলেন, তাঁরা তাঁদের তাঁবুর ভেতরেই ছিলেন,  তারপর দস্যুরা পাহাড় থেকে নেমে এসে তাঁবুগুলোকে ঘিরে ফেললে তখন তাঁরা বেরোন। কিন্তু ততক্ষণে ননী গোপাল মজুমদারের মৃত্যু হয়েছে। তাঁর সহকর্মীরা প্রাণে বাঁচতে মুসলমান সাজেন এবং একজন অনুগত পিওন চিৎকার করে কলমা পড়তে শুরু করেন যাতে বাকিরা তাঁকে অনুসরণ করে একইভাবে কলমা পড়তে পারেন, আর এভাবে তাঁরা বেঁচেও যান। দস্যুরা তাঁবু লুঠ করে, পাঁচটা উট কেড়ে নিয়ে চলে যায়। এই হাত পা ঠাণ্ডা করে দেওয়া বর্ণনাটি পাওয়া যায় Explorations-এ প্রকাশিত  কৃষ্ণ দেবের লেখা “My Last few hours with N G Majumdar” প্রবন্ধে।

ঐ আক্রমণ থেকে যাঁরা বেঁচে ফিরেছিলেন তাঁদের মধ্যে একজন ছিলেন কৃষ্ণ দেব, অর্থাৎ কৃষ্ণ দেব ছিলেন আক্রান্তদের মধ্যে একজন এবং তিনি ছিলেন এই ঘটনার একজন প্রত্যক্ষদর্শী। ইনি পরবর্তীকালে প্রত্নতত্ত্ব বিভাগের আধিকারিক পদে উন্নীত হন। তাঁর নিজের কথায় তিনি ননী গোপাল মজুমদারের  কাছে প্রশিক্ষণ নিচ্ছিলেন।  এটা খুব পরিষ্কার বোঝা যায় যে ননী গোপাল মজুমদারের প্রয়োজনের সময় কেউ সাহায্য করতে এগিয়ে আসেন নি, হয়তো তাঁদের নিজেদের জীবন বিপন্ন ছিল বলেই আর সেজন্যই হয়তো তাঁরা মার্জনীয়।

যেকোন সংঘর্ষে দুটি পক্ষ থাকে, আক্রমণকারী এবং আক্রান্ত। প্রথম তথ্য আমরা পাচ্ছি আক্রান্তদের দিক থেকে – পুরোটাই কৃষ্ণ দেবের লেখা সেই প্রবন্ধটি থেকে। যাই হোক, দস্যুরা ঐ তাঁবুগুলো থেকে টাকাপয়সা লুঠ করেই থামে নি, তারা সমানে অস্ত্র আর মাটি খুঁড়ে পাওয়া গুপ্তধনের সন্ধান করে চলেছিল। দস্যুরা তাদের লুঠ করা জিনিসপত্র নিয়ে চলে গেলে পুরো দলের কাছে আর কোন যানবাহন ছিল না। সব উটগুলো লুঠ হয়ে গেছে, এর মধ্যে দলের একজন শ্রীযুক্ত চ্যাটার্জ্জী সাঙ্ঘাতিকভাবে আহত, আর তার ওপর সঙ্গে রয়েছে ননী গোপাল মজুমদারের মৃতদেহ। সেই সার্ভে দলটি তখন ঠিক করল সেই অভিশপ্ত স্থান ছেড়ে তারা প্রায় পাঁচ মাইল দূরে গজ নই ক্যানাল বাংলোতে চলে যাবে। উটের অভাবে উটচালকদের কাজ চলে গিয়েছিল, তাই তাদের সব মালপত্র  বয়ে নিয়ে যেতে রাজি করানো হল।

এক মাইলের মধ্যেই এক সশস্ত্র উটবাহিনীর সঙ্গে তাদের দেখা হল, এক ব্রিটিশ পুলিশ সুপারিন্টেণ্ডেন্টের নেতৃত্বে এই  উটবাহিনী চলেছিল এবং আপাতভাবে তারা হন্যে হয়ে ঐ দস্যুদলের খোঁজ করছিল। এটাই ঐ সার্ভে দলের সঙ্গে কোন সরকারী দলের প্রথম সাক্ষাৎ এবং ঘটনাটির ব্যাপারে প্রথম রিপোর্টিং। সেই পুলিশ সুপারিণ্টেণ্ড তাঁদেরকে তাঁদের পরিকল্পনা মত বাংলোয় চলে যেতে বললেন এবং কলেক্টর ও সিভিল সার্জনের সঙ্গে যোগাযোগ করার উপদেশ দিলেন। তার পরেই তারা আবার সেই দস্যুদলের পিছু ধাওয়া করতে চলে গেল। কিন্তু এই সার্ভে দলকে তারা কোনরকমভাবে এমনকি দু-একটা উট দিয়েও কোন সাহায্য করে নি। যাই হোক কোনও ভাবে বাংলোয় পৌঁছে সার্ভে দলটির সদস্যরা ঐ পুলিশ সুপারিণ্টেণ্ডের কথামতো ফোনে যোগাযোগ শুরু করলেন। ডেপুটি কালেক্টর ও অ্যাসিস্ট্যাণ্ট সিভিল সার্জন এসে তাঁদের সিভিল হসপিটালে নিয়ে গেলেন।

এই পর্যায়েই প্রাদেশিক ও কেন্দ্রীয় সরকার, দিল্লীতে প্রত্নতত্ত্ব বিভাগের প্রধান অধিকর্তা এবং মজুমদার পরিবারের মধ্যে আলোচনা হয়। অবশ্য মজুমদার পরিবার থেকে কে এই আলোচনায় অংশ নিয়েছিলেন তা ঠিক পরিষ্কার নয়। তাঁর নিজের পরিবারের কেউই খুব সুসঙ্গত কিছু বলার পরিস্থিতিতে ছিলেন না; তাঁর শ্বশুরমশাই তখনও সিলেটে, কলকাতায় তাঁর ছোট ভগ্নীপতি শ্রী এইচ ব্যানার্জ্জীই এই আলোচনায় অংশ নেওয়ার ক্ষেত্রে সবচেয়ে সম্ভাব্য ব্যক্তি।  কিন্তু এঁরা কেউই এখন আর নেই, তাই আমি নিশ্চিত করে কিছু বলতে পারছি না। কিন্তু এই সব আলোচনার পর সিদ্ধান্ত হয়েছিল যে দাদুতেই ননী গোপাল মজুমদারকে হিন্দুমতে সৎকার করা হবে; এবং দাদু-র কালেক্টরের তত্ত্বাবধানে ১২ই নভেম্বর বিকেলে তাঁকে সৎকার করা হয়!

শোনা যায় ১৩ই নভেম্বর শ্রীযুক্ত চ্যাটার্জ্জীর একটি হাত বাদ যায়, এর পর ১৪ তারিখে সেই দলটি ননী গোপাল মজুমদারের চিতাভস্ম নিয়ে সেখান থেকে রওনা দেয়। আরেকটি রিপোর্ট থেকে জানা যাচ্ছে যে এই চিতাভস্ম যখন প্রধান অধিকর্তার হাতে দেওয়া হয়, তখন তিনি ভেঙে পড়েছিলেন। আমি যে যে সূত্র পেয়েছি তা থেকে এটুকুই উদ্ধার করতে পেরেছি। না বলে পারছি না যে এই হোয়াটসঅ্যাপ, ফেসবুক এর ইন্টারনেটের যুগে এর চেয়ে তাড়াতাড়ি কিছু করা সম্ভব হত না। তাহলে অত তাড়াতাড়ি এত কিছু ঘটা ঠিক কিভাবে সম্ভব হয়েছিল?

এবার আসি আক্রমণকারীদের প্রসঙ্গে। শোনা যায় দু’তিন দিন ধরে তারা ঐ অঞ্চলে সমানে তত্ত্বতল্লাশ করছিল। তারা নাকি ঐ উটচালক আর সার্ভে দলের সঙ্গে আসা সহকারীদের জিজ্ঞাসাবাদ করছিল। তাদের জানানো হয়েছিল যে ঐ দলে বাঙালী হিন্দুরা রয়েছে আর তারা মাটি খুঁড়ে গুপ্তধন বের করছে। তাহলে প্রশ্ন থেকে যাচ্ছে যে দস্যুদের আক্রমণের সময় যখন সবাই তাঁবু থেকে বেরিয়ে নিজেদের মুসলিম বলে দাবি করে পিওনের সুরে সুর মিলিয়ে কলমা পড়া শুরু করেছিল তখন দস্যুরা আপত্তি করে নি কেন, যদি তারা জানতই যে এই দল হিন্দুদের? একটা স্ববিরোধিতার জায়গা কিন্তু রয়েই গেল।

১০ই নভেম্বর সন্ধ্যায় ঐ আক্রমণকারী দস্যুরা এক গ্রামে গিয়ে সেখানকার এক ধনী হিন্দু ব্যবসায়ীর বাড়িতে লুঠপাট চালায়, একজনকে মেরেও ফেলে আর প্রচুর টাকা লুঠ করে পালায়; যে পথে তারা ফিরছিল সেই পথেই ছিল এই সার্ভে দলের তাঁবু। ১১ তারিখ সকালে তারা ননী গোপাল মজুমদার ও তাঁর দলের ওপর হামলা চালায়। সেখানে লুঠপাট চালিয়ে তারা তড়িঘড়ি সীমান্ত পেরিয়ে কালাত প্রদেশে পালায়, কারণ এই প্রদেশটি ছিল ব্রিটিশ এখতিয়ারের বাইরে। ঐ ব্রিটিশ পুলিশ সুপারিন্টেণ্ডেন্টের নেতৃত্বে সেই সশস্ত্র উটবাহিনী ঘণ্টা দুয়েক পরে সেখানে এসে পৌঁছেছিল, আর তাছাড়া তারা ঐ দস্যুদলকে ধাওয়া করছিল আগের রাতে সেই ব্যবসায়ীকে খুন করার জন্য।

কালাত প্রদেশের সরকার অবশ্য আশ্বস্ত করেছিল যে ঐ দস্যুদের ধরতে পারলে তাদের ব্রিটিশ সরকারের হাতে প্রত্যর্পণ করা হবে এবং ডিসেম্বরের মাঝামঝি তারা এক মুখোমুখি লড়াইয়ে ঐ দস্যুদলের নেতাকে গুলি করে হত্যা করে ৬ জনকে গ্রেপ্তার করতে সক্ষম হয়। দস্যুদলের বাকিদেরও তাড়াতাড়ি ধরে ফেলার ব্যাপারে কালাতের সরকার বেশ আত্মবিশ্বাসী ছিল। সেই দস্যুরা পরবর্তীকালে ধরা পড়ে, সংখ্যায় তারা ১১ জন ছিল। একটি সূত্র থেকে জানা যায় যে, যে উটগুলোকে দস্যুরা নিয়ে গেছিল, তাদের দুটোর মালিক কোরান হাতে নিয়ে ঐ দস্যুদের খুঁজে বের করে, ঐ উটই যে তার জীবিকার একমাত্র উপায়, কিন্তু বাকি উটগুলোর কি হয়েছিল তা জানা যায় নি। প্রত্যর্পণ পদ্ধতি শুরু হয় এবং শোনা যায় যে ডিসেম্বরের শেষের দিকে ঐ দস্যুদের ব্রিটিশ সরকারের হাতে প্রত্যর্পণ করার পর দাদু-র ‘হুজুর মুখতিয়ারকার’-এ এদের বিচার শুরু হওয়ার কথা ছিল। আদালতে তারা জানায় যে ঐ তাঁবুটা যে কোন পণ্ডিত ব্যক্তির ছিল তা তারা জানত না। এই বিচারটা বোধ হয় ১৯৩৯ সালে হয়েছিল, কিন্তু  মামার কাছে যেটুকু শুনেছিলাম, তার বাইরে এ ব্যাপারে আমার কাছে আর কোনও তথ্য নেই। যদি সঠিক মনে করতে পারি, তাহলে ঐ দস্যুদের যাবজ্জীবন কারাদণ্ডের সাজা হয়েছিল। মনে পড়ে একবার মামাকে দুঃখ করে বলতে শুনেছিলাম যে ১৪ বছর কেটে গেছে, এতদিনে দস্যুগুলো ছাড়া পেয়ে হয়তো স্বাধীন জীবন কাটাচ্ছে।

মাস ছয়েকের মধ্যে নিশ্চয়ই সব ঠিকঠাক হয়ে গিয়েছিল – দলনেতা গুলিতে নিহত, বাকি দস্যুরা গরাদের পেছনে। সরকারের প্রবল আত্মপ্রশংসা করার সম্পূর্ণ কারণ ছিল। কিন্তু ননী গোপাল মজুমাদারের পরিবারের কি হল? কি হল শ্রীযুক্ত চ্যাটার্জ্জীর যাঁর একটা হাত বাদ গিয়েছিল? সরকার তো আর সমস্ত কিছুর দায়িত্ব নিতে পারে না তাই না! কিন্তু সুবিচার কি সত্যিই হয়েছিল?

শোনা যায় সরকারকেও এই মর্মান্তিক ঘটনার জন্য দায়ী করা হয়েছিল, সরকারের তরফে সেখানে যথেষ্ট নিরাপত্তারক্ষীর ব্যবস্থা করা হয় নি। ক্ষতিপূরণ নিয়ে অঙ্ক কষা চলছিল, কিন্তু আমার দিদিমার খুব স্পষ্ট মতামত ছিল, সরকারকে তিনি এই ঘটনার জন্য দায়ী মনে করেছিলেন আর সেই রাগে দুঃখে তিনি সেই সরকারের দেওয়া এক পয়সাও ছুঁতে রাজি ছিলেন না। ক্ষতিপূরণ বাবদ তাঁর প্রত্যেক সন্তানের জন্য ১০০ টাকা আর তাঁর জন্য ৬০০ টাকা ধার্য করা হয়েছিল, ননী গোপাল মজুমদারের পুত্রবধূর মতে যতদূর তিনি মনে করতে পারেন এই অঙ্কের ক্ষতিপূরণই ধার্য হয়েছিল, তাঁর শ্বাশুড়িমা, অর্থাৎ আমার দিদিমা, তাঁকে এই অঙ্কের টাকার কথাই বলেছিলেন। এই অঙ্কের টাকা কি কখনও সংসারের একমাত্র উপার্জনকারীর অভাব মেটাতে পারে? সৌভাগ্যবশত আমার দিদিমার মা-বাবা তখনও খুব কর্মক্ষম ছিলেন এবং তাঁরা ঐ পুরো পরিবারের দায়িত্ব কাঁধে তুলে নিয়েছিলেন। দিদিমার মা কিরণবালা ছিলেন খুব শক্ত ধাতের মহিলা, সামনে যে বাধাই আসুক না কেন তিনি মোকাবিলা করার জন্য সদা প্রস্তুত ছিলেন। তিনি প্রথম যে ব্যাপারে জোর দেন তা হল আমার দিদিমাকে আবার পড়াশোনা শুরু করানো। যে সময় দিদিমা বিধবা হন, তখন তিনি কেবল ম্যাট্রিক পাশ ছিলেন, অর্থাৎ কেবল মাত্র স্কুলশিক্ষা পাওয়া। তিনি আবার পড়াশোনা শুরু করে, তাঁর মেয়ে অর্থাৎ আমার মায়ের সঙ্গে একই বছরে স্নাতক স্তরের পরীক্ষায় উত্তীর্ণ হন।

ননী গোপাল মজুমদারের মৃত্যুর পর বাংলার প্রত্নতত্ত্বের অপূরণীয় ক্ষতি নিয়ে অনেক আলোচনা শুরু হয়, মান্যগণ্য ব্যক্তিরা খুব সম্মানীয় সব জায়গায় নানা আলোচনা সভার আয়োজন করতে থাকেন। তাঁর প্রতি সম্মান জ্ঞাপন করতে করতে কলকাতা যাদুঘর একদিন বন্ধ রাখা হয়।

ননী গোপাল মজুমদারের কথা বলতে গেলে কেবলমাত্র তাঁর কাজের পরিমাণ দেখলেই হবে না, কাজের গুণগত মান এবং তার প্রভাবও সমান গুরুত্বপূর্ণ। পেনসিলভানিয়া বিশ্ববিদ্যালয়ের অধ্যাপক গ্রেগরি পশেল Explorations-এ লিখেছেন, “ননী গোপাল মজুমদার সিন্ধু সভ্যতার আদি ইতিহাস গবেষণার সঙ্গে যুক্ত সবচেয়ে বড় প্রত্নতাত্ত্বিকদের মধ্যে একজন ছিলেন। ঝুকার, আমরি, চাহ্নু দারো এবং আরও অনেক জায়গায় তাঁর প্রত্নতাত্ত্বিক খনন আদি সিন্ধু সভ্যতার সাংস্কৃতিক ইতিহাস বোঝার ক্ষেত্রে এক অত্যন্ত গুরুত্বপূর্ণ মৌলিক অবদান… “^[5]। নিউ ইয়র্কের CUNY এর লেম্যান কলেজের নৃতত্ত্বের অধ্যাপক ল্যুই ফ্ল্যাম আরও মুক্তকন্ঠে ননী গোপাল মজুমদারের প্রশংসা করেছেন ঐ Explorations-এই । তিনি লিখেছেন ১৯২৫ সাল থেকে ননী গোপাল মজুমদার মহেঞ্জোদারোতে প্রত্নতাত্ত্বিক খননের সঙ্গে যুক্ত ছিলেন, আর ‘১৯২৭-২৮ সালে একটি ছোট অঙ্কের অর্থ মঞ্জুরি সমেত মহেঞ্জোদারো থেকে মাত্র ২৭ কিলোমিটার দূরে (কাকের ওড়ার গতিপথ অনুযায়ী) ঝুকারে খননের দায়িত্ব পান’। এখানে ননী গোপাল মজুমদার যে কেবলমাত্র মহেঞ্জোদারোর মত একই সভ্যতার সংস্কৃতির, যাকে আমরা “সিন্ধু সংস্কৃতি” নামে জানি, চিহ্ন আবিষ্কার করেন তাই নয়, সেই সঙ্গে পরবর্তী সিন্ধু সভ্যতার সংস্কৃতির চিহ্নও খুঁজে পান, যাকে তিনি নাম দেন ‘ঝুকার সংস্কৃতি’^[6]। সিন্ধ অঞ্চলে সিন্ধু নদীর প্লাবনভূমিতে আরও প্রত্নতাত্ত্বিক খনন চালানোর জন্য ননী গোপাল মজুমদার অর্থ মঞ্জুরির আবেদন জানিয়েছিলেন।  তাঁর আবেদন মঞ্জুর হওয়ায় উৎসাহিত হয়ে ননী গোপাল মজুমদার ১৯৩০ সালে আমরি, চাহ্নু দারো এবং আরও বেশ কয়েকটি জায়গায় প্রত্নতাত্ত্বিক নিদর্শন আবিষ্কার করেন। আমরি আবিষ্কার ছিল তাঁর কাছে হোলি গ্রেলের মত, যাকে তিনি অক্লান্ত ভাবে খুঁজেছিলেন। আর তার সন্ধান পাওয়ার পর তিনি কত খুশি হয়েছিলেন তা Explorations-এ তাঁর  ছেলের লেখা থেকে জানা যায়। আমরি সম্পর্কে অধ্যাপক ফ্ল্যাম মন্তব্য করেছেন, “এমন কিছু বৃত্তির সন্ধান তিনি পান যা সিন্ধু সভ্যতার আগে প্রচলিত ছিল, সেগুলোকে মজুমদার ‘আমরি সংস্কৃতি’ নামকরণ করেন।”^[7]

যারা প্রত্নতাত্ত্বিক খননের সঙ্গে যুক্ত ছিল, তাদের মতে ঠিক কোন জায়গায় খনন করা হবে এটা খুঁজে বের করা ছিল এক দুরূহ কাজ, কারণ প্রথমত চারিদিকে অজস্র বালির ঢিবি ছিল আর দ্বিতীয়ত মাটির নীচে কি রয়েছে বোঝার মত প্রযুক্তি তাদের হাতে বলতে গেলে কিছুই ছিল না। কেবলমাত্র যেটুকু তথ্য হাতে ছিল তার সঠিক পদ্ধতিগত বিশ্লেষণ আর তার মাধ্যমে সঠিক সিদ্ধান্তে পৌঁছনোই ছিল একমাত্র উপায়। তবু এমন অনেক দিন গেছে যখন ননী গোপাল মজুমদার কিছুই খুঁজে পান নি। এ ব্যাপারে ননী গোপাল মজুমদারের প্রশংসায় কৃষ্ণ দেবের Explorations-এ লেখা প্রবন্ধটি দ্রষ্টব্য যেখানে তিনি বর্ণনা করেছেন অতীতকে খুঁজে পাওয়ার পথ তিনি কিভাবে ননী গোপাল মজুমদারের কাছে শিখেছিলেন। কৃষ্ণ দেব লিখেছেন, “এভাবে মজুমদার তাঁর সংগ্রহ করা এবং বিশ্লেষণ করা প্রমাণাদির ভিত্তিতে চাল্কোলিথিক সিন্ধের একটা বিরাট ছবি তুলে ধরেছিলেন, নিঃসন্দেহে তাঁর গভীর পর্যবেক্ষণ এবং অসম্ভব বিশ্লেষণাত্মক মন দিয়ে। তিনি তাঁর আমরি আবিষ্কারের সুদূরপ্রসারী তাৎপর্য এবং ইরান, সেইস্তান, বালুচিস্তান এবং সিন্ধু উপত্যকার চাল্কোলিথিক সংস্কৃতির বৃহত্তর প্রশ্নের সঙ্গে এর সম্পর্কটি উপলব্ধি করেছিলেন।”^[8] তিনি মজুমদারের Explorations in Sind থেকে বারবার উদ্ধৃতি দিয়েছেন তাঁর বক্তব্যের সমর্থনে। এক মর্মস্পর্শী বিবরণে কৃষ্ণ দেব লিখেছেন, “মজুমদার ৭ বছর বিরতির পর আবার ১৯৩৮ সালে সিন্ধু অঞ্চলে অভিযান শুরু করেন এবং কিরথর পাহাড়ের পাদদেশে সার্ভের কাজ চালিয়ে যেতে থাকেন… তিনি যে আগে থেকে অনেক ভাবনাচিন্তা করে তবেই এই সার্ভেটির পরিকল্পনা করেছিলেন, মাত্র তিন সপ্তাহে গোটা ছয়েক চাল্কোলিথিক আবিষ্কার করাই তা নির্দেশ করে, যার মধ্যে রোহেল-জি-কুণ্ডের সাইটটিও ছিল যেখানে তাঁকে হত্যা করা হয়েছিল…।”^[9]

ননী গোপাল মজুমদারের সমস্ত প্রকাশিত লেখা (Explorations-এ মল্লার মিত্রর প্রবন্ধে পাওয়া সূত্র অনুযায়ী) মিলে মোট ৫টি বই ও অজস্র প্রবন্ধ আছে। এই পাঁচটি বইয়ের মধ্যে সবচেয়ে সুপরিচিত বইটি হল Inscriptions of Bengal তৃতীয় খণ্ড (প্রথম ও দ্বিতীয় খণ্ড লেখা এখনও বাকি রওয়ে গেছে) এবং Explorations in Sind, যেটা ১৯২৭-২৮, ১৯২৯-৩০ এবং ১৯৩০-৩১ সালে করা অনুসন্ধানমূলক সার্ভের ওপর একটি রিপোর্ট, Memoirs of Archaeological Survey of India No. 48 এবং Guide to Sculptures in Indian Museum এর দুই খণ্ড। তাঁর প্রায় ৬৫টি প্রবন্ধের তালিকা পাওয়া যায় যারা আবার বিভিন্ন অংশে বিভক্ত:

১। প্রত্নতত্ত্ব : খনন, অনুসন্ধান এবং সংরক্ষণ

২। এপিগ্রাফি

৩। সংখ্যাবিদ্যা (Numismatics)

৪। আর্ট এবং আইকনোগ্রাফি

৫। মিউজিয়াম নোটস এবং অবশিষ্ট

৬। বিবিধ

এই প্রতিটি অংশেই বহুসংখ্যক লেখা রয়েছে। কেউ সারা জীবনে এত কাজ করে থাকলে তাঁকে অবশ্যই অসামান্য পণ্ডিত বলে মানা হবে; আর যাঁর জীবন খুব স্বল্পকালের মধ্যেই হঠাৎ থেমে গিয়েছিল, তাঁর পক্ষে তো এ রীতিমতো বিস্ময়কর, এবং এমন আর কাউকে পাওয়া প্রায় অসম্ভব।

সিন্ধের বিদ্বজ্জনেরা ননী গোপাল মজুমদারের প্রয়াণের ৭৩ বছর পর জেগে উঠে এই মহান মানুষটির অবদানের কথা স্মরণ করেছেন। আর আমরা ভারতবাসীরা তাঁর কাজের তাৎপর্য বোঝাতে মাত্র এক খণ্ড Explorations প্রকাশ করেই ক্ষান্ত হয়েছি। এ কি সত্যিই যথেষ্ট?  

মূল সূত্র :

অনুবাদ : স্রবন্তী চট্টোপাধ্যায়

^[1] A ceremony was held on Sunday to pay tribute to renowned archaeologist Nani Gopal Majumdar at Rohel Ji Kund where he had been killed by a robber while he was doing excavation work in the Kachho area on Nov 11, 1938. A plaque was installed at the place.

^[2] On Jan 16 Kacho Exploration, Anees Academy and Sujag Sansar, Johi, remembered him after 73 years by inscribing words of gratitude on the signboard. These words are: ‘Sindh would remember you for centuries, and your work would be a guiding principle for those who are interested in archaeology of Sindh’.

^[3] This initiative by some individuals invites Sindh University, Jamshoro, and Shah Abdul Latif University, Khairpur Mirs, and Karachi University to award posthumous honorary degree of doctorate in literature to N.G. Majumdar, who is still a source of inspiration for explorers, especially who are interested in archaeology.

^[4] “It is suggested that the department of archaeology and the government of Sindh should build a cenotaph at the place where he was assassinated to pay tribute to the archaeologist from Bengal”.

^[5] “N. G. Majumdar was one of the great archaeologists to have been a part of the early history of research on the Indus Civilisation. His excavations at Jhukar, Amri, Chanhu-daro and many other places were seminal contributions to the understanding of the cultural history of early Sind. …”.

^[6] “1927-28 received a small grant to excavate at the site of Jhukar which was only 27 km (as the crow flies)  from Mohenjodaro”.

^[7] “revealed an occupation which was pre-Indus occupation which Majumdar called the Amri Culture”.

^[8] “Majumdar thus presented as comprehensive a picture of Chalcolithic Sind as was possible with the evidence he collected and interpreted, certainly with keen observation and a highly analytical mind. He realised the far-reaching implications of his discovery of Amri and its bearing on the wider question of the relationship between Chalcolithic cultures of Iran,  Seistan, Baluchistan, and the Indus Valley”.

^[9] “Majumdar resumed his Explorations in Sind after a gap of 7 years in 1938 and surveyed the foothills of the Kirthar Range…That he exercised great forethought in planning his survey is indicated by the fact that he discovered in a short space of three weeks some half a dozen Chalcolithic sites including the site of Rohel-ji-kund where he was killed…”.

A good part of my student life was spent in learning mathematics and of course therefore, learning examples and dreading counter-examples to whatever I may have claimed. I shifted to the study of economics after my formative years were done. Some may say that I continued to dabble with mathematics even then. Be that as it may, I have learnt that there is a distinct shift in the role of examples and counter-examples from the discipline of mathematics to their role in the social sciences in general. In mathematics, these examples play a major role; in fact, I recall a book that we would often consult was one titled “Counter-examples in Analysis”. A book, which a fellow student (who would politically become very important in later life) described as a book containing counter-examples to all theorems! While this was sheer nonsense, imagine writing a book in the social sciences titled Anecdotes, for that is what they are.  Amongst all the social sciences, sociology may perhaps tolerate such a title and content, the others specially economics would sniff and dismiss this as being merely anecdotal. This perhaps is as inane as the claim that Counterexamples in Analysis contained counterexamples to all theorems in analysis.

We try first to exhibit the role that examples and counterexamples play in understanding mathematical propositions. Consider the claim for real valued functions of a single variable, continuity need not imply differentiability of the function. And all that is required in defense of this is the function say y=|x|, the absolute value of the variable x. At x= 0, the function is continuous but lacks a derivative. This simple example suffices; to provide the killing blow of a function which is continuous everywhere but lacks a derivative everywhere ( the Weirstrass function) is only for masochists. But that too is there.  Consider what an important role that simple function plays. No one would sniff at this as being anecdotal surely?  Or consider the claim that continuity is sufficient condition for differentiability. The same example would destroy this claim completely. No one would ask for another example. One is enough. 

I am going to present two examples or anecdotes, which I have used sometimes in lectures but have never written them up. In fact, while writing about them, the differences associated with such examples and the modulus of the variable x arose in my mind and I thought that it may be of some interest to see these differences, if any. 

During the academic year 1988-89, I was teaching at the University of Tsukuba in Japan. No, I did not have to teach in Japanese; all my lectures were in English. The University had given visiting foreign teachers housing which was located some distance away. The bus fares being expensive, the University also provided an allowance for the fare. The problem was with the bus schedules; there was no direct bus. One had to go to the City Centre and the buses from the University campus were very frequent. From the City Centre, there was just one bus route which went past our housing campus, and that one was quite infrequent, one every hour almost. On cold evenings, my target was to catch the bus from the City Centre which left at 640 pm which meant I could be home by 7pm and just in time to catch the news in English. There was hardly any one catching this bus from the City Centre, except one other person, also from the University. He and I got off at the same stop too. But we never talked while waiting for the bus; this was of course quite common between foreigners and Japanese. I need to specify what happens on Japanese buses then. While getting up, one got in from the middle of the bus; and inside the bus at the top, just facing the entrance there was a board which showed the next four stops; the catch was that these stops were written in Japanese. The third stop was our stop and I had by then started recognizing some of the characters. One day the bus came to our appointed stop, doors opened; I looked in and failed to recognize the characters describing my stop, withdrew. My fellow passenger did the same. The bus closed doors and was on its way.  After a few minutes, when I was deciding what to do, my fellow passenger came up to me and asked in reasonably clear English, whether I read Japanese. I said of course no but I do recognize the characters which make up Teshirogi Denchi and I thought these were not indicated. I could be wrong of course. The gentleman confirmed I was indeed correct and wondered where our bus was. It was past the time the bus left; it was almost 645 pm by then. He went towards the small kiosk which housed the bus company office and returned smiling. He explained that the bus driver had forgotten to fix the board before starting out and so it was the driver’s mistake. The bus which had come and left was our bus. And I must have said that Oh no, we have to wait another hour. One might as well walk, I told him. Waiting with a cold wind blowing was not comfortable. And my fellow traveler said, wait they are arranging alternative transport. As he finished speaking two taxis drew up. He and I decided to share a taxi which took us to the Teshirogi Denchi stop. When we tried to pay, the driver said something and my fellow passenger told me that it is paid for by the bus company. The fact of putting up a schedule meant evidently that the bus company will provide a bus service at the appointed time. If for some problem on their side, they cannot meet the stated time they will try to compensate. And they did so that day to the two of us. Thereafter, whenever we met at the City Centre, we would nod to one another with a smile but still we never talked.

This example shows how trust is built, for sure. I do not think anything else needs be said. If you do as you say, come what may, people will trust you. I have used this example many times, once even in Japan. It is of some interest to report a question from a senior faculty who asked “which year was this?”. On hearing the year 1988-89, he said, “that was before; now it won’t happen”; the Japanese economy then was in some trouble thereafter, given the asset price bubble. And the person went on to say how trust was the foundation to the success of all economic activity. Trust was being taken to be a pre-condition for economic success.

The second example follows. In the year 2001 December my father fell down and fractured his femur badly. The doctor in Patna where my father stayed decided that an operation was required and a pin had to be put in; but given that he was old, and was known to have a heart condition, the surgeon would need the presence of a requisite machine (heart-lung machine if I recall correctly) and that we had better shift my father to Kolkata for the operation. Since my father was in pain this was done on an emergency basis and we shifted him by air. He was in no condition to sit down so he was lying on a stretcher which was fixed to the floor of the aircraft cabin and we had to pay for the three seats which had to be removed apart from the tickets for those who accompanied my father.  It was done and he was in Kolkata, operated upon and the pin was put in and a month passed when the hospital released him. He was fit to travel back to Patna by air. He could now sit up for about an hour or so but the flying time from Kolkata to Patna was about 40 minutes. If he did not have to wait too long at the airport, it was feasible. Those days, security concerns were less and my idea was that if he could be lying down in the ambulance till the flight was ready to depart and then check in and go directly to the aircraft, it was done. So we landed up at the airport well in advance, negotiated with the Traffic Police to park the ambulance close by. I went ahead to check all of us in, and told the airlines concerned about my father’s predicament. And there met a complete roadblock to my plans.  The person at the counter sent some one to check on my father; he came back and reported that my father was lying down in the ambulance and that was the end!  We were not allowed to check in and there was some talk of my father not being allowed to fly. The fact that he had a certificate to being fit to fly seemed only to delay the inevitable. I had no other plan but to be the last to check in with my father and hope the flight would not be delayed. Meanwhile the Traffic Police started to complicate matters by saying that the ambulance has to be moved away from where it was parked, since VIP traffic was headed that way. Now as it happens, some senior persons in the administration were my batchmate in college, and I was getting ready to approach whoever VIP it was that was travelling asking for help. What happened thereafter was really a miracle. The person who got down from the VIP car was Professor Amartya Sen. Seeing me he waved and said “Anjan what are you doing here?”. I asked what he was doing, in return, and found he was going to Chennai and the conversation could not have lasted more than a few minutes. And then Professor Sen was on his way. I discovered that a small crowd had gathered by then; Amartya Sen had been awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics and was very well known; I saw the official who had said that we would not be allowed to board the flight was hurrying towards us. He came up to me and said in Bengali, “Sir, you are known to Professor Sen, please tell me how we can help you?”. I was flabbergasted and first I repeated what I had wanted in the first place and he readily allowed everything and we were allowed to be the last to board and the flight left almost immediately. I should add that this was not Indian Airlines. I wrote to Professor Sen later telling him how his presence had helped.

That’s the story or anecdote. What does it show? In India, the quality of service that one may receive varies tremendously; from the first class first world service to no service at all. It all depends on who is at the receiving end. Friends of Nobel Laureates are special of course and therefore provided quality service; ordinary persons are not to be entertained. Often you see extreme behavior from people asking “Do you know who I am?”, in order to establish some right to service; this is the reason why loudmouths appear to rule. And if you are in the market to purchase something expensive, you ask around amongst your contacts and friends whether anyone  knows some one and could put in a word. The airlines people instead of helping me and my father had decided that it was not worth their while to help us. The fact that I may make matters unpleasant for them by complaining (they realized that they were not doing their job!!) given my perceived closeness to an important person, made them change their behavior.

The first example must be pretty unique; the second, must be familiar to everyone at least in India. Together they identify situations where economic activity thrives and where, no matter what, it does not. As conclusively as the example of modulus of x shows the connection between differentiability and continuity.

This too has been privately circulated earlier.

While trying to uncover what the data may be saying, one must have a ‘prior’ or some expectation of what one might see from the data. For example, a friend woke up one early morning and turning westwards, found the sun rising! Something was amiss, he concluded; since his (as well as every one else’s) prior was that the sun rises from the east. He reasoned therefore that it must have been the full moon sinking in the west and enquired whether it was a full moon the previous night. Indeed he was correct.  He did not proclaim that the sun rises in the west sometimes!

One might argue that this was an easy case since the sun rising in the east is an established fact. But people often reject their priors without due consideration. Some years ago, a very well known economist ran into my office claiming an important discovery. He had been trying out an analysis of Indian data through Computable General Equilibrium Models and claimed that as income went up, consumption went down. The relationship between income and consumption was not the positive one but that it was negative and so that destroyed many things among other things, the Keynesian Multiplier, for example. I did try to point out that there could be something erroneous in his formulation but he stormed out in anger at my closed mind refusing to see what was plain. After a few days he did call me up to say there had been a problem in the formulation and that we could breathe easily and stick to the positive nature of the relationship between income and consumption.

I was reminded of this strange behaviour of analysts who ditch their priors, during the exit polls conducted for the recent elections in Bihar. During the presentation of one of the most elaborate exit polls, the anchor repeatedly kept on saying how things were turning up against their expectations, formed during a very extensive tour of Bihar. They continued finding tortuous explanations of why their expectations were not holding up. I was immediately reminded of the income-consumption relationship and wondered whether this was just a case of some one making a complete ass of oneself.  It turned out that this was precisely what happened.

What should they have done? It is easy to say in hindsight of course, but I will present an argument I wrote to a rather distraught colleague in Chennai the night the poll result was announced before the election results were announced. I did say that the exit poll results would be unlikely to be replicated in the actual voting. For, I argued, the exit poll to correctly depict the voting results, three quite unexpected things would have to happen:

• Mr Manjhi’s joining the BJP would have to have a substantial effect.
• Women voters would have to vote  for the BJP
• Events outside the State and comments made by various people in the Central Government which passed off without any public rebuke from the leadership would have no effect.

During the discussion it was repeatedly pointed out that these would have to happen and that surprised the analysts since each one went against their priors. As I told my colleague in Chennai, any one of them could happen of course but all three? Little chance. As it turned out, none of these happened and the exit poll was totally erroneous.

Statistical Inference is difficult of course. The Bayesian method which is adopted by many consists of beginning with a ‘prior’ and then on the basis of the observation, one revises the prior to obtain which is called, naturally, a ‘posterior’. If the revision is drastic, then there must be one of the two: either the prior was formed carelessly or there is some problem in the conducting of the exercise. Or is it that they felt that there was no drastic changes in their prior? In the light of what actually happened, either way they goofed and did so badly.

Again, as the context will make clear, this was written several years ago, immediately after the Bihar state polls in 2015 when the Mahagathbandhan won. Still worth a read I thought and hence retained.

After a fairly long time I was at the College once again; before you correct me and say it is now an University,  my response would be, yes it is so, but I was revisiting the College (hereafter PC) I studied  in during 1961-64. The job which brought me to Presidency University (hereafter PU), was to attend the meeting of a Committee formed to select teachers. I had landed up at the premises way ahead of schedule, and took the opportunity to revisit the College and walk around. I asked, at the foot of the famous stairs, whether there was a lift these days and was told that yes but it was closed at that moment.  So I decided to walk around to while away time and stood in the shade and looked across the playing field in front of the building housing Baker Laboratory. Standing near the Main Building, across, were newer buildings adjoining the Economics and Political Science Buildings. And I thought about many things: the match against St. Xavier’s when Dipak Ghosh thrashed a memorable hundred and I rushed out to get his autograph! And a senior student’s tirade against the umpire beginning with “thrice born yellow b****rd” before moving on to more colourful terms when Dipak was given out LBW, remain etched in my memory. Other memories too come flooding in.

At the selection committee, many people felt that the pay scales that the PU was offering was inadequate when compared to other Central Universities; even senior administrative officials felt the pinch. On my way back, I started thinking of the College as it was and the teachers we had then. The teachers then too did not receive the pay they could have got in Central Universities. And as any student of our time will testify, they were more than competent to be in the Universities and slowly, very slowly of course, the movement started then. But we were supremely lucky to get the kind of teachers that we were fortunate to get.

 I studied Mathematics as my honours subject with Economics as subsidiary and there were the papers in English and Bengali. The people who taught us the subsidiary and language papers, were each legendary teachers; for instance in Economics we had Dipak Banerjee, Sukhamoy Chakravarty, Nabendu Sen and Dipti Bhushan Dutta: the people who taught the major honours papers were teaching the subsidiary papers. Surely this does not happen any longer? In English, we had Amal Bhattacharyya, who even took a tutorial class. I remember his asking us to write a paragraph on “The Street Where I live” and he would go around the class room of 30 odd students reading and correcting. He came to my seat and took the sheet I was writing on and in his typical manner of speaking said “Where do you live” and when I told him, he said with a smile, this is fine, you may go.

I had come to the College from a Patna school after completing the Senior Cambridge after 10 years of schooling; my knowledge of Bengali was weak and had requested my uncle, who taught in Presidency and with whom I stayed, to support my application for studying Alternative English, which was the normal route for all students form the Senior Cambridge. He said what language do we use at home and of course, we spoke Bengali and he claimed that given this, I better learn the subject. So that was that and I was attending the Bengali lectures. It was a difficult course; we read Bankim Chandra, Rabindranath and of course the history of Bengali literature. We were taught by many people but the notable ones were Haraprasad Mitra, Bhabatosh Dutta ( often called Banglar Bhabatosh Dutta ) and Bhudev Chaudury. The last, naturally was known by his Bengali initials, Bhu Chau and taught with great emotion and spoke in a monotone, so that if one was not paying attention, he or she would not notice that Bhu Chau has said “you there, in the corner, stop talking” or words to that effect and may carry on and receive a severe scolding. I was actually enjoying these lectures learning about the richness of Bengali literature, when one day a class mate decided to create a disturbance. He had one of these things which make a bullfrog croak and he started making this noise periodically; there would be smiles all around and Bhu Chau would look around angrily and continue, getting angrier by the minute. Finally the inevitable happened, he burst and rushed towards the benches and caught hold of me, to my complete surprise and indignation. He asked me for an explanation before throwing me out of the class and threatened to throw me out of the College. I of course, could not point to the offending student and  could only protest my innocence. But since this might have led to my expulsion, I was naturally rather worried and informed my uncle about it. He laughed quite a lot and said, let us see what direction this takes and I felt relieved. It had begun with an ill-conceived prank and was turning into a first class mess, till the offending student went up to Bhu Chau and said that it was he and not Anjan. What happened thereafter needs to be mentioned.

The next class began with Bhu Chau seeking a public apology and said how sorry he was for making this error. The offender too was talked about with some praise for having the courage to own up and then promise to be on good behaviour thereafter. And we all felt that we had crossed the Rubicon. But Bhu Chau’s effect on my learning Bengali did not stop. At the end of the half-yearly exam, Bhu Chau caught hold of me and said that I should practice writing Bengali because I was mixing up two types of Bengali.. the formal one with the version we use while talking. He asked me where I stayed and finding it was within walking distance from his own, advised me to come to his home on Sunday mornings. Thereafter every Sunday morning I would reach his home and be greeted and made to sit down and given a task of writing a paragraph while he got ready and went to the bazaar for buying things. He would come back after an hour or so, examine what I had written, advise me how to improve and tell his wife to give me tea and samosas and I would be on the way. I did this for several months till my examinations. I did not have the courage to ask him if any remuneration was required but just tried to learn as much as he had to offer. His commitment to teaching was surely unique.

While visiting PU, on my way out, we met Dilip-da, in the Alumni association office. He was the person manning the office when we studied and I remember that when our BA Part I results had come from the Calcutta University, he said that they were sorting things out and would post the results soon. On our persistent queries, he said that there was some one, a Mukhopadhyay, who had failed in Bengali. I was sure it was me and went to the Coffee House to while away time. Failing in Bengali was the end of the road, so far as I was concerned, since improving my Bengali could not be guaranteed. To my great relief, a class-mate, studying History also a Mukhopadhyay came in and told me that it was he who had failed to secure pass marks. In my euphoria, I jumped up and hugged him screaming, you have saved me. I must say our relationship did not improve. When I recounted this story, recently to Dilip-da, we were laughing, but it had not been a laughing matter then. And Bhu Chau’s help had paid off. Very few teachers would take so much trouble for a weak student. 

We had great individuals as teachers; some were eccentric, some were aloof but many of them were extra-ordinary scholars. Those of us who took up teaching and research as our way of life used these as our role models.  We used to be scared of Biren Babu, but those of us who learnt mathematical analysis would surely admit that we learnt because of him. OR consider Sujit babu, who during the 1962 war with China decided to give away all his gold medals (there were several) to the Government as his contribution to the war effort. This handover was captured in the news documentary that used to be shown before cinema shows, there being no TV then. One can go on and on. Such teachers are rare. They do not exist any longer because we have neither nurtured them nor appreciated them, as they deserved to have been. And if only Presidency U can find out such people and retain them, only then, can it hope to attain the standards of Presidency C in the 60’s.

This was circulated some time back but I thought that it should be here, otherwise, I may not be able to track it down.