M. G. S. Narayanan

Much of M. G. S's works on the Chera Perumals can be considered as a continuation of the pioneering studies by historian Ilamkulam P. N. Kunjan Pillai (1904 – 1973). Ilamkulam had studied comprehensively Old/Early Malayalam - Vatteluttu inscriptions from the ninth century AD, and with the help of literary texts, claimed they belonged to a single line of kings that ruled Kerala from Kodungallur. He had challenged the very foundations of the then existing William Logan-K. P. Padmanabha Menon construction of Kerala history.[10] He proposed a unitary or imperial state model, emphasising centralised administration, for the Chera Perumal kingdom.[7]

Travelling across Kerala, M. G. S. closely re-examined the Chera Perumal inscriptions. He also examined the estampages preserved in the office of the Chief Epigraphist of the Union Government. The secrecy, inaccessibility and obscurity of the Chera Perumal records, found in difficult scripts and languages (Old/Early Malayalam - Vatteluttu) and preserved in different places were a serious challenge to M. G. S. The Chera Perumal inscriptions were not properly deciphered and chronologically arranged. Even among the published records there were variations in the texts and interpretation. Uneven quality of the decipherment and the need for correction here and there made uniformity of reference impossible.[13]

M. G. S. discovered and deciphered many unpublished, unnoticed inscriptions from originals or estampages. He revisited Ilamkulam’s assumptions about the social and political conditions of Kerala under the Chera Perumal. He analysed the history of Kerala in the light of the politics of southern India, which saw the Pandyas, the Rashtrakutas and the Cholas engaging in a struggle for supremacy. Several of Elamkulam's hypotheses were questioned and reassessed in the course of the work in the light of the fresh evidence. The thesis was eventually published in 1972. M. G. S. concluded in the dissertation that what obtained in Kerala under the Chera Perumals was "a monarchy supported by a Brahmin oligarchy".[10][6][7] The Brahmin oligarchy model was different from the existing standard models of state formation in ancient and medieval India, particularly in the early medieval period.[7]

M. G. S. was one of major critics of Burton Stein's "segmentary state" model for the Chola Empire. Stein denied the centralized structure of the state, and assumed that the state was integrated only ritually. Scholars such as R. Champakalakshmi, Kesavan Veluthat, Noboru Karashima, Y. Subbarayalu, and R. S. Sharma also criticized Stein’s categorical denial of the Chola king’s political authority.[7]

Some of M. G. S.'s ideas regarding the role of the Chera Perumals of Kodungallur and the character of the kingdom were modified when he revisited the sources for preparing a research paper (2002).[14] He concluded that the central government of the Chera Perumals did not have much power, and that the kings were controlled by the leaders of "a bold and visible" Brahmin oligarchy.[7] M. G. S. also asserted that the rule of the Chera Perumals was different from Stein’s notion of ritual sovereignty because it was combined with a Brahmin oligarchy.[7] To indicate the new findings a second title "Brahmin Oligarchy and Ritual Monarchy" was introduced to the 2013 edition of the monograph "Perumals of Kerala".[10] This casual change in the title was criticised by reviewers of the monograph.[6]

M. G. S. served as First Member Secretary of the Indian Council of Historical Research under Irfan Habib in 1990-92 and later as its Chairman from July 2001 to December 2003.[1]

When the Indian People's Party (BJP)-led National Democratic Alliance government came to power in India after the 1999 general elections, one of its priorities was to ensure that academic and research institutions are headed by persons who are not hostile to the ideology of the right-wing politics.[17][15]

In 2001, ICHR Chairman K.S. Lal was asked to step down for "administrative lapses", and M. G. S. emerged as the consensus candidate for the post of the chairman. It was a time when the National Democratic Alliance government in Delhi was attacking the Indian Council of Historical Research as being "Left-oriented".[1] Even though his nomination to the Chairman post, by the Bharatiya Janata Party, had raised some controversy, mainly in the state of Kerala, it was by and large welcomed by academic circles all over India.[18] The media described M. G. S. as Bharatiya Janata Party's "non-controversial" candidate for the post of Chairman.[1] "They may have invited me because I was acceptable to the right as well as to the left, and to the North (India) and South (India). I consented on condition no one would interfere with my work. The Union Education Minister (Murli Manohar Joshi) assured me that", M. G. S. said in an interview.[1] ICHR insiders never expected any controversy over his appointment because, according to them, despite his proximity to the Bharatiya Janata Party, M. G. S. was not a (right) "hardliner".[15]

In the meantime, the media was filled with the news around the controversial project on the history of nationalism, the Towards Freedom project. M. G. S. was keen on the ICHR bringing out the remaining volumes of the project. As per M. G. S. the first thing some media-persons asked him was when he would write school textbooks for Human Resource Development Minister.[1][15]

After a stalemate of over three months, M. G. S. was unceremoniously sacked as Chairman of the Indian Council of Historical Research in December 2003. No official explanation was given in the government notification, and the media was told of some financial irregularities that the Chairperson allegedly indulged in. It was alleged that the ouster was a part of the Ministry of Human Resource Development's scheme to "saffronise" the agenda in academia. M. G. S. made known his displeasure over the manner in which the Ministry had appointed the new Member Secretary of the Council. This was the immediate reason, though M. G. S. had, by taking certain "unpopular" stands, especially in the context of the new National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) textbooks, also upset the Ministry. He had criticized some of the new NCERT history textbooks. Commentators assumed that he had given the impression of a "no-nonsense academic" as far as history was concerned, which may have become too difficult for the Ministry to handle. The sacking also brought into question the nature of autonomy supposed to have been enjoyed by the Council.[19]

Even M. G. S's bitter critics acknowledge that he has brought a "certain discipline" to the ICHR during his tenure. "We published guidelines for research projects; brought out a newsletter with information on fellowships and grants; activated regional centres such as Guwahati and Bangalore, which had been neglected for long. The idea was to break the Delhi-centred outlook of ICHR" , M. G. S. said in an interview.[1] "Research funding rules were codified and published, and the publishing of a newsletter had brought increased transparency and accessibility to the functioning of the Council.", he stated.[19] Several important publications were brought out during his tenure.[19] M. G. S. believed that the Communists have had a hold on the ICHR for too long. His objective was to rid the institution of such monopoly and ensure that "every individual who approachs [sic?] the ICHR for project and research help would be treated fairly regardless of ideological affiliation". M. G. S. also alleged that most of the research funding from ICHR used to be cornered by three universities, Jawaharlal Nehru University, Calcutta University, and Aligarh University.[1]