Pandit H N Kunzru

PANDIT HRIDAY NATH KUNZRU : A MEMOIR

By M.S . RAJAN*

P ANDIT H.N. Kunzru, former President (1949-1976) of the Indian Council of World Affairs and President of the Board of Governors

of the erstwhile Indian School of International Studies (1955-70), the predecessor of the present School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, died in his ninetieth year at Agra on 3 April 1978; he was born in the same place on 1 October 1887. With his death, the country has lost the last of the great Liberal leaders. He was also the last of the generation of non-party public men of national stature — and, in this case, also one who pioneered public interest in the study, research, and publication on international affairs.

President Zakir Hussain said about him in July 1967:

He is one of the illustrious Indians of our generation who have contributed in various ways to the advancement of our nation and helped to enrich the quality of our public life. A man of intense, liberal convictions and of remarkable catholicity of outlook, Pandit Kunzru represents in his person the best of India's composite cul-tural heritage. For almost half a century, as a leading parliamen-tarian and a public man of this country, he has applied his keen and incisive mind to such diverse subjects as India's constitutional and political problems, its foreign relations and defence, its cultural and educational progress, and the tasks of undertaking social reforms.1

WIDE SCOPE OF PUBLIC LIFE

This great tribute from another eminent Indian touches on practically every aspect of Pandit Kunzru's many-sided, long, and fruitful public life. He was a veteran parliamentarian, having been a member successively of the Legislative Council of the United Provinces (1921-26), the Central Legislative Assembly (1926-30), the Council of State (1936), the Con-stituent Assembly (1946-50), the Provisional Parliament (1950-52), and finally the Council of States (1952-64). Pandit Kunzru took his parlia-mentary duties seriously and was one of the most dedicated supporters of the parliamentary system of government. As a parliamentarian, his interest and competence were extensive, covering every major aspect of public affairs, but he will be particularly remembered for his learned interventions in matters relating to foreign policy and defence. He was

* Dr. Rajan is Professor of International Organization, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi and Managing Editor of this journal. (See also footnotes)

442 M.S. BAJAN

also one of the few parliamentarians with sustained interest m the welfare of people of Indian origin abroad, having personally studied their problems in many of the territories of their settlement.

From very early in his adult life, Pandit Kunzru took an active part in political and public affairs. For many years he worked with the Indian Nafoual Congress; he once served as one of the Secretaries of the Congress. When the National Liberal Federation was founded in 1918, he joined it and became its President in 1934. He was a zealous fighter for India's freedom, but by constitutional means and channels; he was not in favour of mass politics or the use of satyagraha or-non-co-opera-tion to serve political ends. Like the rest of the Liberals, he stood for self-government for India within the (then) British Commonwealth of Nations. During the years of the Second World War, he was critical of the "war aims" of Britain and the Allies and of the unwillingness of the British Government to grant full self-government to India at the end of the war. He never aspired for any political (ministerial) office, although he had every qualification for being a very successful Minister. There was hardly any major public issue with which he did not concern himself. He persistently fought for Indianization of the civil services and the armed forces; he was a standing spokesman for strengthening the defence forces; he was Chairman of the Committee for the reorganization of the National Cadet Corps and of another Committee on the training of officers for the defence forces whose report eventually led to the establishment of the National Defence Academy at Khadakvasla; he took keen interest in the modernization of the rail-ways; he had a hand in the reorganization of the states on a linguistic basis, having been a member of the States Reorganization Commission; he advocated the use of the mother-tongue as the medium of instruction, but equally urged the compulsory study of English; he supported refor-mation and modernization of the Hindu social system in all its aspects; and he urged rapid industrialization of the country.

Par.dit Kimaru was associated with a large number of publ'c institu-tions dealing with many aspects of public life. To only a few of them could there be references in this memoir. He joined the Servants of India Society in 1909. He became its President in 1936, and remained so until the end of his life. He was associated for many years with a number of Indian universities like Allahabad, Delhi, Banaras, and Agra. He was for a little over twelve years (i.e., from December 1953 to February 1968) a member of the University Grants Commission. The University of Allahabad conferred on him the honorary degree of LL.D. in 1936.

The other institutions with which he was closely associated included the Indian Council of World Affairs and the Indian School of Inter-national Studies (about which more later on); the Seva Samiti of

p a n d i t h r i d a y n a t h k u n z r u : a memoir 443

Allahabad; the UP Harijan Sevak Sangh; the Bharat Scouts and Guides; the Children's Film Society; Indian Institute of Public Administration; and the Indian Council for Cultural Relations.

CHARACTERISTICS OF PUBLIC LIFE

Dedication to Work Pandit Kunzru's public life was inspired and guided by uncommonly

high moral and ethical principles—principles on which he declined to compromise. He-believed that what was ethically wrong could not be politically right, even if it did yield some immediate public good. In this and other norms of his 70-vear-long public life, he was a worthy disciple of Gopal Krishna Gokhale, the founder of the Servants of India Society and the great leader of the Moderates. It was on the pattern of Gokhale's distinguished public life that he appeared to have built his own.

The wide spectrum of his public life was characterized by many notable features which inspired deep respect for his personality, border-ing on awe. He took active and deep interest in all the institutions he was associated with and in all matters of public interest that he felt con-cerned about. He took them all seriously, casualness having no place whatsoever in his life. He spent on them all his working hours—and these were regular and long—wherever he was for the time being, in India or abroad. He maintained a large and regular correspondence with numerous individuals and institutions, whether or not he had any formal or official connexion with them. He sought no public position for himself; he was always interested in promoting an institution or a cause. For instance, it was he (along with P.N. Sapru) who established the Indian Council of World Affairs in 1943; but he managed to have Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru installed as its founder-President. When Sapru House was about to be completed (towards the end of 1954), there were suggestions that a marble bust or a painting of Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru should be installed in the building and that the Council should sponsor a biography of the founder-President. Pandit Kunzru discouraged all of them, to the puzzlement of many members of the Executive Com-mittee. His whispered explanation stunned and silenced all of us: he said if any of these suggestions were carried out in respect of the first President, there would automatically be similar demands in respect of every succeeding President!2 His unselfish dedication to public in-stitutions and causes was truly exceptional and exemplary.

Pandit Kunzru was a voracious reader—of four or five daily papers, of many weeklies and other periodicals; he somehow managed at least to glance through all notable new books. He would read thoroughly and digest reports and documents on the many institutions with which he was associated. Even the mass of parliamentary reports and papers

444 m.s. r a j a n

could not escape his attention. Whenever he had to make a speech in Parliament or outside, he would spend many days reading up the relevant papers and preparing himself thoroughly otherwise also by extensive consultation with others. The result naturally was that every speech of his reflected wide study and deep reflection. And, of course, he wrote and spoke in impeccable English (or occasionally in Urdu). Apart from his character, this was the reason why his speeches were heard with respect and widely read.

Secular and Independent Outlook Pandit Kunzru was remarkably free from communal, regional, or

linguistic prejudices. His outlook was transparently secular. One felt in him the embodiment of a true Indianness: his outlook, his thinking, and his actions were all characterized by that quality. It is largely because of this catholicity that Pandit Kunzru was chosen to head nume-rous all-India institutions located in different parts of the country.

Thanks partly to his life-long membership of the Servants of India Society, Pandit Kunzru maintained throughout his public life an extra-ordinary outlook of independence and impartiality in his thinking and pronouncements on public affairs. He was regarded by one and a l l -even by his occasional critics—not only as a non-party man but as one who was perennially non-partisan. He was one of those rare men in public life who, in spite of strong views of their own on any public issue, made their critics feel immensely confident about persuading them to a different view — by reason, by argument, by the sheer weight of facts, by the justness of a cause, or, where there were a large number of people differing with them, simply by an appeal to their democratic sentiment. This remarkable outlook and attitude to public issues was due to the fact that Pandit Kunzru himself had no axe to grind; all he was concerned about was the public good. His transparent unselfish-ness and shining integrity often proved overpowering to his critics. Whenever, eventually, he yielded to the opposite view, he did so with charming graciousness and generosity.

Pandit Kunzru's patriotism and his concern for the good of India and Indians were fathomless. He was very proud of all that India stood for, and of the fact that he was an Indian. At the same time, he was no chauvinist. For example, he never discouraged the various institutions with which he was associated from seeking foreign exper-tise, whenever necessary, for their own benefit.

Intellectual Interests Pandit Kunzru was distinguished among Indian public men of his

generation by his unusually wide and deep intellectual interests. In spite of his many and varied public interests remote from intellectual

p a n d i t h r i d a y n a t h k u n z r u : a memoi r 445

matters, he managed to maintain sustained interest in education and educational institutions, in books and in research and publication. As we have stated already, he read widely. He often spoke nostalgically of his student days at the London School of Economics and Political Science under such distinguished scholars as Alfred Marshall, Wester-marck, J.M. Keynes, and Graham Wallas. He always managed to find time to meet scholars, Indian and foreign, for exchange of ideas and of information on new, and • forthcoming books. Many young scholars have had the pleasure of meeting him and of getting inspired by his encouragement. At the same time, Pandit Kunzru was very scrupulous in not seeking to impose his ideas and views on young scholars. He would never interfere in the intellectual freedom of the educational and research institutions he headed. Indeed, the greatest tribute that one can pay him as an intellectual is that he had the immense capacity of stimulating and encouraging young scholars and intellectuals and promoting research institutions, without at the same time seeking to interfere in the freedom of opinion and information within those insti-tutions. Such indeed was the experience of all those who worked with him in two of the great institutions that he founded and over which he presided for many years — the Indian Council of World Affairs and the Indian School of International Studies.

As a traditional Liberal, Pandit Kunzru strongly believed in the flourishing of non-govemmental institutions—many of which he headed during his long public life. He apparently believed that that government was best which governed the least; that the power and authority of governments must necessarily be limited in the interests of the freedom of citizens; that the intentions of a government, how-ever high-minded, do not by themselves justify policies/actions which cannot always be controlled or determined by the intentions of well-meaning ministers; and that an individual, ad Iwc action, or policy of a government should be judged, not just on its own merits but in terms of an overall or long-term philosophy of government—the Liberal philosophy to which he and his life were dedicated. Practically till the end of his life, thus, he remained chary of non-govemmental insti-tutions seeking governmental assistance, especially financial, for their support. Not that he was particularly afraid of interference by the government in the affairs of these institutions by means of the finan-cial lever; his own personality was sufficiently intimidating to any gov-ernment which had any intention of interfering in an institution headed by him. He was rather concerned that many people would think that the functioning of the institutions had in fact been affected because of governmental assistance. Furthermore, as a true democrat, with deep and firm belief in pluralism and a plural society, he was opposed to the (undemocratic) tendency of looking to the government, instead

446 m.s. r a j a n

of the general public, for support for the activities of private institutions. Once he was so provoked by the pressing demands made by some members that a certain institution with which he was associated should seek governmental assistance that he exclaimed in anger; "Well, if the public cannot support the institution, I would prefer it to be closed down, rather than go to the government for help !*

Foreign-Policy Stance Pandit Kunzru was a firm supporter of non-alignment and the major

objectives of India's foreign policy. He was sometimes critical, how-ever, of the way the policy was implemented in specific cases. In gen-eral, during the years of Jawaharlal Nehru's Prime Ministership, he advocated a "realistic" foreign policy—one in which India's national interests were promoted with the backing of adequate military strength. He was also critical of the government showing (what he thought was) undue deference to the susceptibilities of the Soviet Union and its allies and being unduly critical of the United States and Western policies and actions in world affairs. It might be unfair to say that he was anti-Communist, partly because he was all for India's close and cordial relations with the Soviet Union and its allies. Also, I believe, Pandit Kunzru was not ideologically committed one way or another to any "ism." It is, of course, true that he was clearly and firmly in favour of India having the Westminster model of government and a political value system of Western origin, such as individual liberty, freedom of the Press and association, sanctity of private property,3 a multi-party political system, and so on. He was an ardent supporter of the Com-monwealth of Nations and India's continued membership of it.

Legendary Integrity Pandit Kunzru's integrity was legendary. Each of those who came

into close touch with him can recall one or more instances to confirm it. Here is an instance of it within the personal knowledge of the present writer. When, in the early 1950s, the government sought Parliament's approval for instituting national awards for "public ser-vice," Pandit Kunzru strongly opposed the proposal. He pointed out that such awards were contrary to the provision of the Republican Constitution (which had expressly prohibited the Central government from conferring titles). Besides, he argued, they could (notwithstanding the assurances of the government to the contrary) easily degenerate into a means of political patronage for t h e political party in power. However, Parliament eventually gave its approval to the proposal to award national titles for "public service." Some years later, on the eve of the 18th Republic Day (1968), the government decided to con-fer on Pandit Kunzru the nation's highest title Bharat Ratna and

p a n d i t h r i d a y n a t h k u n z r u : a memoi r 4 4 7

informed him of its decision. Pandit Kunzru promptly, and firmly, declined to accept the award. Surprised at his decision (because ap-parently nobody in the government remembered his earlier opposition to the very institution of the system of awards), a high official visited Pandit Kunzru presumably to ascertain the reasons therefor. After listening to the reasons for Pandit Kunzru's stand, the official argued, somewhat tactlessly, that the public did not remember that Pandit Kunzru had opposed long ago the institution of the awards and that, therefore, he should not bother about public reaction. This made Pandit Kunzru explode: "I remember it, and that is enough!" The official was stunned into silence. It is said that when, subsequently, Pandit Kunzru called on President Zakir Husain to explain personally the reasons for his inability to accept the proposed honour, the latter was quite apologetic about his forgetting the stand Pandit Kunzru had taken in Parliament on the institution of the system of awards. Such was the measure of the integrity of Pandit Kunzru (and, of course, of the graciousness of Dr Zakir Husain). The abolition of the system of awards by the new Janata Government in July 1977 is a vindication of Pandit Kunzru's principled stand on the subject.4

In spite of his great reputation, public standing, and many-sided achievements, Pandit Kunzru retained till the end of his life a degree of self-effacing modesty and humility that has few parallels in living memory. His refusal to accept the award of Bharat Ratna partly illus-trates this point. Here is one more. A Committee of distinguished public men, with President Zakir Husain as Chairman and Dr Mohan Sinha Mehta as Secretary, decided to honour Pandit Kunzru on his eightieth birthday (1 October 1967) by presenting him with a volume of essays on social and political development in India from the time of independence to 1967. When the volume (edited by Dr A. Appadorai) was ready, the organizers fixed the date and the time for its presenta-tion by President Zakir Husain at Rashtrapati Bhavan. They, however, forgot one very vital fact: not take Pandit Kunzru into their confidence about their plan! When he was told about it, Pandit Kunzru declined to oblige them by his presence on the occasion! Such was his modesty and humility! It took a lot of persuasion by the members of the Com-mittee eventually to make him agree to go to Rashtrapati Bhavan for the purpose of receiving "the volume of essays.5

Personal Habits Pandit Kunzru's personal habits, manners, and practices, in their

totality, were markedly uncommon for a person of his age and status in public life, living and w o r k i n g under many self-imposed limitations of various lands. He exuded (what used to be noticed by one and all who came into contact with him, irrespective of their status or age)

448 m.s. r a j a n

"old-world courtesy." If he was occasionally stern in his tone or words, it was because some principle dear to him was being compromised, or the justice of a cause was being ignored, or there had been a serious lapse on the part of somebody; it was never due to intentional rude-ness. As for his respect for punctuality, both his own adherence to punctuality and his expectation of a similar adherence by others were uncompromising. One could always depend upon him to do exactly what he said he would do; and he expected others also to do likewise. He appeared sometimes to make little or no allowance for practical difficulties in the way of somebody's carrying out a word or promise. However, he always showed great understanding if the defaulting per-son had convincing reasons and duly explained them to him personally. He was prone to judge a man severely—but usually only once—as regards his integrity, and he would stick to that judgement ever after — unless, in any particular case, he was confronted with evidence to the contrary by a third person whose integrity he respected.

The daily routine of Pandit Kunzru's life was as simple as it was rigid. His food, his medicines, his hours of work, his daily engage-ments — all these were regulated as by a clock-work; and the men he worked with, whether his personal servants or officials, also organized their daily lives by the same clock-work. Pandit Kunzru could not easily suffer ill manners, irregularity, inefficiency, unpunetuality, and, above all, dishonesty. He minimized his dealings with persons of such habits (especially the last), if he could not altogether avoid them. Sometimes, however, he seemed to tolerate a little too .much persons who tried to cover up some of the grave shortcomings mentioned above by their ostentatious respect towards him.

Pandit Kunzru did not tolerate carelessness, indifference, or sloven-liness in any aspect of one's life. For instance, he dressed himself always well; he expected even his servants to do likewise, and he paid for them to do so. Even in his advanced years his physical appearance was very smart and endearing. He was alert and observant in noticing the omissions and commissions in physical appearance (however small) of others in company and made it a point, later on, to tell them about them, at least to the younger people, in his own sweet manner. (Once he admonished the present writer to either keep his hair brushed pro-perly or to wear a cap!)

Even in his seventies and eighties, Pandit Kunzru kept up a y o u t h f u l outlook and demanded the same of much younger people. He was not exactly pleased when anybody showed any concession to his age. He made it a point to take an extra-spoonful of sugar among a group of younger people, to underline his own excellent health, to the embarrass-ment of the others. Once the present writer was standing along with Pandit Kunzru at the foot of the marble stair-case in Sapru House. As

p a n d i t h r i d a y n a t h k u n z r u : a memoi r 449

they were both going up together, he tried to suggest to Pandit Kunzru that they might use the lift. Hardly had he finished the sentence when

» he found that Pandit Kunzru had already climbed up to the first landing and was looking down at him smilingly, but triumphantly: "Come on, Rajan! What is wrong with you?" Thus the youthful pre-tentions of a person thirty-two years younger were plainly exposed!

There was a certain conscious precision about him, a certain neat-ness and orderliness about his doings and his surroundings, which often intimidated those who worked with him. But behind it all there lay the nobility and kindliness of a great man, which those who worked with him closely could not long fail to discover. Whenever, occasion-

» ally, he found — or was informed about — a bad error committed by anyone working with him, he generously forgave him—sometimes jokingly!

LASTING CONTRIBUTION

Indian Council of World Affairs This brings us finally to Pandit Kunzru's lasting contribution to the

promotion of study, research, and publication in India on international affairs and area studies. It is for this contribution that he will be re-membered for a far longer period than for anything else he did for the country. As a founder and President of the Indian Council of World Affairs from 1949 to 1976, he helped build one of the best public institutions in the country and a great memorial — Sapru House — to its first President, Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru. This great and prestigious memorial is as much a monument to himself as it is to Sir Tej; for it was almost wholly due to his intensive and extensive efforts that it came into existence. He travelled through the length and breadth of the country to collect funds for it from the public. Even more than funds, it is the labour of love that he inspired in a vast number of persons that contributed in many ways to the putting up of the build-ing and the lawns and the bushes around it. Where he was not able personally to intercede, his very name proved enough. It evoked enor-mous goodwill and support for the cause of raising the building. His great reputation as an utterly unselfish person working only for the

t public good served like magic to inspire thousands of people to help the ICWA (and other non-governmental institutions with which he was associated in some way or other).

Within a few years of its opening (in 19.55), Sapru House became a haven of intellectuals, a very distinguished auspices for meetings and conferences (of the ICWA as well as of other institutions), and the leading intellectual and cultural centre of the nation's capital. The location of the Indian School of International Studies in the building

450 m.s. r a j a n

for many years also added considerably to the prestige of Sapru House. It is interesting to note that Pandit Kunzru helped found (in 1943)

the Indian Council of World Affairs (ICWA), when another institution was already there in the field, viz, the Indian Institute of International Affairs. This latter institution had been founded some years earlier on the inspiration of the then British Indian Government and was substanti-ally helped also by it in many ways, including financially.6 Pandit Kunzru felt that this was no way of promoting objective study, research, and pub-lication in the field of international affairs. He felt the need for an inde-pendent, non-partisan institution for the purpose. Under his guidance, the ICWA did in fact become such an institution. It was able to estab-lish a magnificent library, get out a journal of high standard, the India Quarterly, publish many learned books, and hold a large number of lectures, seminars, and conferences. By the late 1950s, it became the most prestigious research institution in the national capital and one of the best in the whole country.

Indian School of International Studies As a result of the experience of developing the Council, it was felt

by the authorities of the ICWA that there was a distinct need to estab-lish a university institution to train young men and women in research and publication on international affairs and area studies. This was how the Indian School of International Studies (ISIS) came to be established by the ICWA in October 1955 as an institution affiliated to the Univer-sity of Delhi.7 Subsequently, in September 1961, the ISIS became an independent, autonomous, degree-granting institution. Pandit Kunzru was the President of the Board of Governors of the ISIS throughout the nearly fifteen years of its existence. It pioneered the study of inter-national affairs and area studies in India, promoted substantial research of very high quality, published many books and a journal of high stan-dard, International Studies, and held numerous special lectures and all-India seminars. There is no question but that the development of the School and the high academic standards it maintained were not a little due to Pandit Kunzru's sustained interest in the promotion of teaching, research, and publication in the field of international affairs in India.

When, soon after the establishment of the Jawaharlal Nehru Univers-ity in 1969, the authorities of the University invited the ISIS to join the University, Pandit Kunzru was opposed to its acceptance, and for very cogent reasons. Eventually, however, he allowed himself to be per-suaded by the students and the faculty of the ISIS to accept the proposal in the long-term interests of the institution.* After the merger of the ISIS W i e t h e University i n June 1970 (under the new name of School of International Studies), he maintained continued interest in the pro-gress of the school and the welfare of its faculty

p a n d i t h r i d a y n a t h k u n z r u : a memoi r 451

While Pandit Kunzru was keen on a continuous expansion of the area of academic programmes of the ISIS, he showed particular interest in the development of instruction, research, and publication on Asia (especially Southeast Asia) and Africa. Often he enjoyed posing cur-rent international problems to the members of the faculty (most of whom he know personally), and asking for their views, orally or in writing. Sometimes, these exercises were meant for his own intellectual pleasure, At other times they were part of his preparation for the debates and discussions in Parliament or outside. By these exercises he stimulated the interest and strengthened the intellectual competence of the faculty of the ISIS.

The great library at Sapru House that was jointly built up by the ICWA and the ISIS (between 1953 and 1970) was largely due to his sustained interest and encouragement. It is hardly necessary to say that he deeply deplored the break-up of the joint library (consequent on the ISIS joining the Jawaharlal Nehru University) which harmed both the Council-half and the JNU-half of the libraries.

A Great Educational Experiment The old ISIS was a great experiment in higher education in many

ways. There were many previous parallels (in the Commonwealth and outside) for the establishment and development of the ICWA, but there were very few precedents to go by for the establishment and develop-ment of an institution like the ISIS. The framework of the tradition-bound Indian educational system also did not provide for experimenta-tion; and a separate institution for the study of international affairs and area studies under the conditions then obtaining in India was unheard of and even unthinkable. From the time it was eventually established in October 1953 as an institution affiliated to the University of Delhi, to the time it attained University status in September 1961 under Sec-tion 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, it found itself frequently in difficulties arising out of the framework of a tradition-bound university. The conferment of university status gave the ISIS the freedom needed for experimentation and flexibility which new fields of study required.® The ISIS was thus able to expand quickly, and as and when human and financial resources were available, though mostly horizontally and not vertically. It was also able to cover practically (though thinly) the entire field of international affairs and area studies. To train its staff (which was its major preoccupation for many years), it secured the services of many distinguished foreign scholars. Even a short list of these scholars makes impressive reading: Quincy Wright, Percy Corbett, Ely Lauter-paeht, Julius Stone, Philip Jessup, Hans J. Morgenthau, Nicholas Man-sergh, Frederick Soward, Norman Harper, J.D.B. Miller, W.H. Morris-Jones, William F. Ogburn, K. Enoki, and Clovis Maksoud.

452 m.s. r a j a n

A unique scheme of special fellowships was established by the ISIS to train the Indian staff to succeed the foreign scholars. Funds were secured for sending them to their respective countries of specialization. The idea was to enable each of them to learn the language of the area concerned, to complete a research project on the country, to establish personal contacts, and to get a feel of the country and the people. As a result of this rigorous training, many . of these young men/women eventually became pioneers in India in their respective fields of study; so much so that, at one time, almost all the leading Indian specialists on international affairs and area studies were under the single roof of the ISIS.

Many Unique Features The ISIS had several unique features. It was the first (and in its

present form it still is — thirty years after Independence — the only) University School in India exclusively devoted to international affairs and area studies. It has trained in the past (and is continuing to train still) the largest number of Indian scholars in these fields of study — so that almost all the leading Indian specialists in these fields today are either its alumni or members of its teaching staff. It initiated area studies a decade earlier than the University Grants Commission did (in 1963). It was (and perhaps would remain) the only educational insti-tution in India to have been controlled, legally, by a body (the ISIS Society) whose membership was limited to the members of its faculty. It conferred only one degree, and that was a doctorate. It had a more genuinely all-India character than even Central universities. Most state governments of the country had instituted scholarships in the School for students hailing from their respective states. Not for this reason alone, the ISIS made special efforts to encourage students from all parts of the country to join it. Its faculty also had an all-India character. And, finally, it was probably the smallest autonomous university insti-tution in India — with about 50 teachers and 150 students (on an ave-rage) - a very remarkable thing under conditions in India. This small-ness of the size of the academic community was the real secret of the success of the ISIS as a novel educational experiment; for it facilitated personal relations between the students and the faculty, and between the administration and the faculty and students. I t must have been the only university institution in which its Director could identify by name ever)' one of its students. This close personal knowledge and relations immensely contributed to the efficient and smooth running of the insti-tution. There was little of red tape or unnecessary paper work that is typically associated with a traditional university set-up. Problems and difficulties were solved as and when they arose, promptly, and by per-sonal discussion. Considering that in so many cases of trouble in the

p a n d i t h r i d a y n a t h k u n z r u : a memoi r 4 5 3

universities, the cause is disharmony between the administration on the one hand and the faculty and students on the other, a unique feature of the old ISIS set-up was that the former was in excellent rapport with the latter. Indeed, the only student strike in the ISIS (in 1968) was not against the authorities of the School, but against the Education Ministry: a committee appointed by the Ministry had recommended a drastic retrenchment of the administrative staff, especially the post of Secretary to the Director, whose incumbent happened to be very popu-lar among the students. I cannot recall any such student strike in an educational institution in sympathy for the administration of the insti-tution! The incubus of authority, administrative or academic, did not sit heavily on the staff and students. There was, in fact, a sort of family atmosphere in the School — which, of course, sometimes created some problems usual in a family! The ISIS was able to develop these unique features largely because Pandit Kunzru presided over it and it was run by its founder-Director, Dr A. Appadorai (who worked in perfect tune with the ideas and approach of the President). Naturally, today, in retros-pect, the members of the faculty and students who worked in the old ISIS still deeply cherish the memory of Pandit Kunzru's great personality — his ideas, his approach to men and events, and his great encouragement for research in international affairs and area studies. For all of us, it was a great privilege, and a matter of great prestige too, to have studied or worked in either or. both of the two great institutions which he founded, and over which he presided with great distinction.

The greatest contribution of the ISIS to the cause of university edu-cation in India is the intangible intellectual atmosphere conducive to study, research, and discussion by aspiring young men and women, an atmosphere which, for a variety of reasons, is sadly missing from most of our traditional universities. There were close personal contacts between the teachers (most of whom were young men/women with zest for research) and the students. The Director and even the Presi-dent of the Board of Governors (Pandit Kunzru) were easily accessible to the teachers and the students. There was hardly any nagging red tape to delay decisions, whether academic or administrative. Not only did the School afford a good library service, but it also provided excel-lent hostel facilities. It arranged for periodical field trips abroad, not only for the teachers, but for a large number of students as well. It granted, or otherwise made available, numerous scholarships/freeships. It held regular seminars (many of an all-India character), and special lectures by distinguished scholars (Indian and foreign). These and other conditions under which the students and the faculty worked were idyllic — at least as compared with those obtaining in other Indian universities.

Successive UGC Visiting Committees (and many distinguished Indian

454 m.s. r a j a n

and foreign educationists) from time to time commended the pioneer-ing and successful efforts of the ISIS in promoting the study-uniquely amonc Indian universities-of international affairs and area studies. M a n y ° of its publications and its journal International Studies were highly commended by the academic community in India and outside. In the late 1960s, however, it became the subject of a public contro-versy, largely because of the conditions of public life then obtaining.

Precisely because the ISIS was different, and functioned differently, from other university institutions, it was criticized for a variety of reasons - and especially for what appeared to be essentially its non-conformism. It also became a source of jealousy for students and teachers of other universities owing to its alleged opulence (generous scholarships and field trips), its scheme for training its own faculty (when no other Indian university had any such scheme of in-service training for its faculty in new fields of study); its retention of English as the medium of instruction and research (in view of the fact that hardly any research materials on international affairs were available in any of the Indian languages); its low teacher-student ratio (of about 50 teachers to 150 students (in fact, it should have been commended for it); its lack of contacts with institutions in the Socialist group o£ nations (when the Government and the UGC had not encouraged such contacts in the social sciences); its "wasting" of its resources on: stu-dents who had not completed their doctoral research work (although such "waste" was least in the ISIS compared with other Indian univer-sities and the situation in the ISIS in that respect compared very favour-ably with university institutions abroad in the social sciences); the alleged wastage of time and energy by its faculty on telecasts and radio broadcasts (as though they wangled invitations for these); and so on.

During the 1960s, the ISIS was involved in an unfortunate controversy over Hindi being made the medium of instruction and research. I t was, however, able to resist external political pressures, thanks largely to the firm stand that Pandit Kunzru took on the basis of t h e a c a d e m i c autonomy of the School.

Such were the unfair criticisms to which a unique, small, non-con-formist, university institution was subjected before it joined the Jawa-harlal Nehru University in June 1970. And although the students and the faculty of the ISIS undoubtedly desired the institution to join the Jawaharlal Nehru University for wider public reasons, there is no doubt that their decision was at least partly influenced by the difficul-ties they anticipated, and feared to face, in the way of the progress of a non-conformist university institution in the wild conditions of the jungle that obtained then - and which still obtain - in the system of university education in India. They saw that the then ethos in university

p a n d i t h r i d a y n a t h k u n z r u : a m e m o i r 455

education underscored conforinism to tradition and uniformity with other university institutions as the greatest virtues. They also saw how it was plainly impossible for a small university institution specializing in non-traditional fields of study (international affairs and area studies) to justify to the traditionalists with closed minds, the departures made, however salutary, from century-old traditions and uniformities. They, therefore, decided — notwithstanding the wise advice of Pandit Kunzru — that it was, in the long run, safer and better for the ISIS to go along with the rest of the universities than to continue to function in its own unorthodox ways in the inhospitable and even hostile atmos-phere all around.

What Pandit Kunzru wrote some years ago in a felicitation volume prepared in honour of Dr A. Appadorai, the founder-Director of the School, would equally sum up his own work with the Indian Council of World Affairs and the Indian School of International Studies:

. Dr Appadorai s success both in the Council and in the School was due to his character and personality, and learning. His love of knowledge, his keenness to maintain high standards, and his com-plete identification with the institutions which he served, earned him the respect, admiration and good will of all those with whom he worked or came into contact. His capacity for hard work, his selflessness, and his moral enthusiasm for the fulfilment of his responsibilities were an asset to the institutions which he built up and served for nearly twenty years.10

November 1978

FOOTNOTES

The author was Director of the School of International Studies during the years 1965-71. Before joining the School, he served the Indian Council of World Affairs for ten years (1948-59), successively as Assistant Secretary, Administrative Secretary, and Research Secretary. Since the end of 1974, he has been (in an honorary capacity) Editor of the Council's two journals, India Quarterly and Foreign Affairs Reports.

This short memoir makes so pretention to being a thorough study of Pandit Kunzru's long public life; it is largely based on the personal knowledge and impressions of one who worked with him for over twenty years in the best two institutions headed by Pandit Kunzru. The writer has had the benefit of comments by Dr A. Appadorai on the first draft of the memoir. Dr Appadorai, however, has no responsibility for the views expressed here.

1 See Dr Zakir Husain's "Foreword" to A. Appadorai, ed., India: Studies in Social and Political Development, 1947-1967 (New Delhi, 1968).

2 A photograph of Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru was installed in the Sapru House Library only in 1976 (soon after the celebration of the centenary of his birth). By that time, Pandit Kunzru had ceased to be the President of the Indian Council of World Affairs. A photograph of Pandii Kunzru too was hung in library soon after his death.

456 m.s. r a j a n

3 As a member for life, and President for over forty years, of the Servants of India Society, Pandit Kunzru himself had little private property and led an extremely frugal and austere life. Thus, while not being a proclaimed Socialist, he had every kind of what may be called Socialist sympathies.

4 Pandit Kunzru is also reported to have declined nomination to the Rajya Sabha by the President of India in the late 1960s.

5 This volume is cited in n., 1 above. 6 It moved to Karachi soon after Partition and became the Pakistan Institute of

International Affairs. 7 For a short account of the origin and development of the two institutions, see

S.L. Poplai, "Dr A. Appadorai and the ICWA and the ISIS", in M.S. Rajan, ed., Studies in Politics: National and International (New Delhi, 1970), p. xxxi.

8 See M.S. Rajan, "Indian School of International Studies Joins Jawaharlal Nehru University," International Studies (New Delhi), vol. 12, January-March 1973, pp.138-40.

9 University status also enabled the School to have as its Visitors three distinguished citizens of India: Dr S. Radhakrishnan, Dr Zakir Husain, and Mr V.V. Giri. Each of these happened to be the President of India at the time when he was Visitor. It is needless to say that this honour was possible because the institution was presided over by Pandit Kunzru.

10 See Rajan, n., 8, p. xx.