The Great Transition in Indian Museums: From NMML to PMML

Introduction

At the outset, I would like to qualify how I am using and placing “transition” within the ambits of this work. Seshan and Kumbhojkar, in the edited work, “Re-Searching Transitions in Indian History,” have argued that while transitions are extensively discussed as representing shifts between historical periods, integrating changes across economic, social, cultural, and ideological realms, transitions are not depicted as discrete events, but as ongoing processes that encompass a spectrum of transformations in different realms. Based on this definition, I situate the act of name-changing as one of the many areas witnessing transitions and, therefore, implicitly, and explicitly being reflective of how altering names reshape history, its perception, and categorization. In this light, I delve into the conundrum of “What is in a name?” Moreover, why the change is significant? This also highlights that transition as a concept that is layered, where numerous concurrent shifts occur, and not linear (Seshan & Kumbhojkar, 2018).

The Nehru Memorial Museum and Library (NMML) has been established in 1966, in memory of the first Prime Minister of India, Jawaharlal Nehru, who died in 1964. It has a wealth of archive materials including his papers, political memorabilia and artifacts that reflect his life and works. In addition, NMML had a comprehensive library with historical documents, books as well as periodicals that were related to the Indian independence movement and early years of the republic. It served as a focal point for Nehruvian thought and the narrative of Indian independence as its first Prime Minister envisioned it. It also expanded and grew as to move beyond ideological boundaries and became a rich archive for papers of the Hindu Mahasabha, Communist Party of India, All India Muslim League, the private collection of Savarkar, among others. Thus, it transcended the singular focus on Nehru as is the widespread perception (The Hindu, 2018).

The inauguration of Pradhanmantri Sanghrahalaya/Prime Ministers Museum and Library (PMML) on April 14, 2022, represents a shift toward wider storylines. It seeks to encapsulate the lives and achievements of all Indian Prime Ministers, showing no regard for their political affiliations or length of tenure. This approach aims at producing a level playing ground for the political history of India and reflecting on its democratic development’s intricacies. There have been several public and academic discussions regarding the transition from NMML to PMML. For critics, such steps are another way of undermining, misrepresenting and rubbishing Nehru’s contributions while proponents argue that this is aimed at ensuring much more holistic representation of the country’s political interests (ANI, 2023a,b; Times Now News, 2023). This argument revolves around reconciling historical significance with broadness of representation in museums as well as raising the question of how museums can shape national narratives.

This transformation into PMML which ostensibly claims to depict all prime ministers of India is seen as an attempt to make history more pluralistic. But it also shows the need for a critical enquiry. By renaming NMML to PMML in India, this act underscores how politics employs memory as a symbolic instrument. Thus, it reflects a desire to alter public recollection and historical perspective, from a solitary nationalist leader Jawaharlal Nehru’s name toward several prime ministers. The present political regime may convey a more inclusive narrative of Indian governance which might be consistent with its wider political program. This process of renaming restructures historical narratives and serves as a symbolic act capable of determining how nationals see their national histories.

In order to shape historical narratives, the state uses these institutions and there is a need to carefully examine how political agendas influence cultural spaces. Yet again, is PMML impartial, particularly given the complex political dynamics in India where Prime Minister’s legacy varies greatly and may also be viewed through partisan lenses? Herein lies the difficulty of adopting an even-handed approach that would neither excessively glorify nor belittle any particular person thereby guaranteeing that the Museum is educational in nature rather than serving as a propaganda tool.

In this light, this paper investigates the connotations of such a renaming, considering it as an important, though controversial, move toward a re-conceptualization of political history in the museums of India. It also examines how institutions like these help to shape memory in the public domain and define who its people are. Hence, there is shift in national historical perception as well as toward museums and the society at large. At the same time, this paper attempts to unravel why politicians resort to renaming by showing that they may use these acts to consolidate their power and manipulate collective memory toward certain directions. Finally, by exploring how this change affects museum visitors and institutional educational roles, we can see that construction and maintenance of national memory through history, politics, and museum practices have complex interconnections.

Role of Museums in Constructing Public Memory and National Identity

Museums are crucial in constructing public memory and national identity (McLean, 1998; Waterton, 2014; Zhang et al., 2018). They select what to present and how to influence public perceptions and collective memory. Traditionally seen as custodians of history, museums are increasingly viewed as dynamic spaces that can influence national identity and collective memory (Verovšek, 2016). The PMML, by drawing on the legacies of different Prime Ministers, is capable of expanding the public’s knowledge about India’s past and encouraging a keener engagement with its history. This change (both the renaming and the shift in academic discourse in museums) also mirrors global shifts in which museums are now increasingly becoming centers for inquiry and dialogues as opposed to mere depositories of historical artifacts. This trend makes museums more active players in shaping societal values and historical consciousness.

The move from NMML to PMML marks an important turning point for how museums are perceived and employed in India. The transformation is part of a larger reconsideration concerning how nations remember their pasts and the people who defined them. Such a process gives rise to key questions about the role of museums in today’s society especially with regard to their obligation as sources of knowledge that offer inclusive narratives that can accommodate diverse viewpoints while encouraging analytical thinking. In reflecting on this change, it becomes evident that the evolution from NMML to PMML goes beyond name or scope changes. It means redefining the Museum’s place in India’s democracy — it should be an institution that imparts knowledge, facilitates thought-provoking debates, and encourages self-discovery on matters pertaining to complex paths that have been traversed by the Indian leadership over time. This could be a turning point for reevaluating and even perhaps altering how historical narratives are formed and conveyed, enabling better understanding of India’s complex political past.

Moreover, the PMML may become a dynamic space that enhances dialogues among different interpretations of Indian history, thus prompting visitors to explore different influences by various leaders. This can serve as a foundation that paves the way toward an enlightened populace, who understand governance complexities and political leadership in a large and diverse country like India. Moreover, museums have changed over the years from being exclusive spaces accessible only to privileged learners to being inclusive community hubs (Sudevan, 2021). This trend also shows how digital technology is imperative in museum strategies (Singh, 2019). Additionally, global discussions on international museums influence the way museums worldwide perceive engagement and inclusivity, leading as well as guiding Indian museum practices (Henderson, 2014).

Museums are not mere storehouses of objects of historical significance; rather they are a medium of flux where cultural and political aspects interact and propagate (Mathur & Singh, 2015; Zimik & Ranganathan, 2021). The transformation of NMML into PMML highlights the intricate interplay between museological practices and the politics of memory, mainly how institutions can reshape national identity and historical consciousness (Mathur & Singh, 2015; Waterton, 2014). Conventionally, museums have been seen as the keepers of history, whose task is to protect and show cultural and historical information. This includes how history is told, in addition to keeping it alive. Museums are noted by Duncan (1995) as being “institutions of public representation” because they play an important role in the remembrance of past by societies and understanding of present times. The case of NMML being transformed into PMML exemplifies how the act signifies changes in India’s political landscape and collective memory at large. The NMML not only served as a repository for Nehruvian memorabilia but also represents his ideological contribution to modern India — secularism, socialism, and democratic governance.

The renaming of NMML into PMML came into effect in August, 2023, after the NMML society resolved to change its name to PMML society in a specially convened meeting earlier that year (Das, 2023). It marks a paradigm shift in using the power of museums to influence collective memory of the public. It is important to note that by controlling the flow of information, powerful entities can paint a self-serving picture of the past, as seen in the colonial-era museums of India. The history of the museum establishment in the Indian subcontinent arose in connection with its colonial history (Thapar, 2014) and the British administration’s need to strategically control the documentation of the country’s culture and geography (Sharma, 2021). This shows how, through such institutions like museums, the colonial state employs strategies to maintain authority over its dominion (Anderson, 2006).

In the process of changing from one name to another under a government led by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), known for its adversarial stand against Nehruvian legacy (Jaffrelot, 2007), renaming and re-contextualization were not just administrative steps but deeply significant decisions. It did so to create space for all Indian Prime Ministers, thereby reflecting a more inclusive yet contested view about India. Anderson (2006) argues that nations are “imagined political communities” where members share a sense of belonging despite the many differences. Theoretically, the PMML incorporates the concept of an “imagined community” in terms of transition in the museum space by presenting a narrative that highlights a sense of shared history and experience. However, content selection and presentation reveal the power dynamics within a society. Despite its focus on inclusivity, the PMML highlights and implicitly silences certain viewpoints (such as the silence on the Babri Masjid demolition, raising questions about “political museumizing”) — who gets represented? Whose points of view are prioritized? Who has the right to define and contest national identity?

This shift also highlights the politics of memory — how memory is constructed, whose memories are preserved, and whose are marginalized or omitted as the history of memory also includes the aspect of forgetting (Nora, 1996) (which in this case can be viewed as deliberate forgetting where such omissions may not be entirely accidental; emphasis mine). It is key to note that museums actively participate in this procedure through the exhibitions and narratives that they present, thus giving insights on how historical stories are shaped by power structures from earlier times as well as today (Said, 2003; Spivak, 1985).

Selecting what to exhibit, how to exhibit it and the associated narratives in these exhibitions can either reinforce or challenge prevailing historical accounts. In its renewed form, the PMML aims at democratizing the space by expanding Museum’s scope to include all prime ministers thereby providing a more balanced view of Indian history (ANI, 2023a). However, critics argue that the strategy reflects a broader political motive on reframing and possibly neutralizing Nehruvian narrative’s dominance within India’s collective memory by incorporating different types of political ideologies and leadership styles; and they believe this inclusiveness could weaken the distinct material contributions of the past Prime Ministers making such museum not an object of specific commemoration but serve a purpose of general eulogy for political leaders. Some aspects being argued about in relation to changing NMML into PMML are the role played by museums in shaping national identity, the consequences of changing historical narrations, and politics involved in such transformations. Supporters of the transformation argue that the new Museum reflects a more democratic and pluralistic approach to history, recognizing all prime ministers’ contributions rather than focusing solely on Nehru. They claim that this approach is more aligned with India’s diverse and multiparty democracy. Others, however, contend that the transformation attempts to rewrite history to suit the current political milieu. The museum’s new narrative may undermine Nehru’s foundational role in establishing the Indian Republic, thus reshaping public memory to conform to a certain political ideology. These criticisms highlight concerns pertaining to narrative control — how historical narratives are shaped by those in power and the impact it has on the public understanding of history.

The transition from NMML to PMML has broader implications for museum practices in India and globally as well. It raises questions concerning the role of government in managing and funding museums, the independence of cultural institutions from political influences, and the responsibility that museums must undertake to represent history inclusively and critically (Agha, 2018). As museums evolve in the 21st century, the balance between education, entertainment, and engagement becomes increasingly important. Museums must navigate these challenges while ensuring they remain spaces for meaningful reflection and learning, not merely venues for nationalistic propaganda. It exemplifies how there is scope for museums to be used as tools for political and ideological purposes, influencing how history is remembered, taught, and (re)shaped in the public domain. The ongoing modification of the PMML will likely continue to be the epicenter of cultural negotiation and public debate, reflecting the dynamic and often contentious nature of India’s political climate and historical memory.

Historical and Contemporary Aspects of the NMML Transformation

The transformation of the NMML into the PMML has come to be a watershed moment in preserving and presenting India’s political heritage. It demonstrates how India’s political history is curated and communicated. Historically, the NMML served as a testament to Jawaharlal Nehru’s legacy, offering insights into the ideational and political backdrop of India’s formative years and the freedom struggle that preceded it. The change into the PMML comes across as a strategic repositioning and expansion of this legacy to encompass all individuals who have held the prime ministerial office. This section traces the history of the NMML, delves into the vision of the PMML, and highlights the implications of this rebranding.

Historical Context and Significance of the NMML

Established after Jawaharlal Nehru’s death in 1964, the NMML is housed in his erstwhile residence, the iconic Teen Murti Bhavan in New Delhi (Divya, 2023a,b). This institution commemorated Nehru’s substantial contributions to India’s independence and governance. It serves not merely as a repository of his memorabilia but as a vibrant center for scholarly research on modern Indian history. Four units function as a part of the NMML. Apart from the much-discussed museum, the premises also house a library, an archive, and a research center. During the first two decades of its existence, as the library and archive grew due to the influx of invaluable artifacts and literature, the NMML also developed as a research institution par excellence, which released important historical publications. A researcher’s haven, the NMML preserves and displays a vast collection of manuscripts, private collections of political stalwarts, and books that tell the story of the country’s freedom struggle (The Hindu, 2018; Vinayak & Mohonto, 2022). Through its exhibitions and educational programs, the Museum aims to promote an understanding of the foundational values upon which the Republic of India was established (Lakshmi, 2022).

The NMML is crucial in profoundly influencing public perceptions of India’s formative years post its independence. As an educational institution, it offers many resources ranging from newspaper archives, government records, political papers, and collections of notable individuals — to scholars and the public. Being situated in the epicenter of the Indian politics, the Museum does not only showcase Nehru’s lasting influence on the conversation about Indian politics and history, but also reveals the breadth of the story of the nation’s path toward modernity. However, the Museum’s homogeneous emphasis on Nehru has resulted in a heated debate about the storytelling of the nationalistic narrative through those institutions which include their citizens.

It also heralded a more engaged discourse as to the place of the Museum in forming a national historiography that portrays the country’s diverse and complex past. It is the biggest critique of the NMML in that several individuals believe the museum focuses its narration mainly on Nehru. As a result, it has made the NMML vulnerable to these criticisms as some other major personalities and events are ignored in the history of India. This narrative concern has opened the debate in the country which argues whether the inclusivity of Indian history is incorporated in the memory institutions or not. The discourse on this issue implies that the NMML should not just expand to include more voices and perspectives, but it may also want to showcase the entire political and cultural processes of India.

The response to the NMML’s approach has been divided, in scholars and the general public alike. On the one hand, the museum is known as an iconic repository of Nehru’s legacy and a fundamental instrument in interpreting the ideological underpinnings of present-day India. On the other hand, it can be seen as an image of the Congress party’s historical power of domination which, in turn, may conceal a complex historical narrative. This criticism suggests an extreme emphasis on the Congress-focused narratives that can obliterate other important factors in evolving the country’s national story. As a response, people suggested that the NMML should bring more leaders and history-related aspects into its narrative. Adding this section would broaden the collection of the museum and enhance viewer perception of the country’s political and cultural past. The main purpose is to open up the NMML into a Museum of various aspects of Indian History and Culture as opposed to a monument that focuses only on a single individual. Such a goal can be realized via a broader understanding of narratives and better involvement in present-day events concerning identity, representation, and the concerns of historical justice.

The NMML, being a caretaker of an important segment of India’s modern historical chronicle, manifests the challenges encountered in depicting history in a society that is very diverse. Though India confronts its colonial past and complicated identity, the NMML becoming the PMML indicates a key phase in the future formation of a more democratically honest representation of history. But inclusiveness is not a mere name-changing exercise, it should actually be inclusive. It should be the Museum’s responsibility to construct more than just a pictorial representation of India’s history, while being mindful of retaining its own relevance and accessibility. Moreover, providing digital access of the museum’s rich collection of documents and manuscripts will constitute a possible change of archival and museum realms. Through this preservation, these historical materials will have a better chance of perpetuation, thus facilitating dissemination to a wider audience which, in turn, will promote a more democratic approach to historical knowledge. Further, rethinking their curatorial practices might also be a way of being in line with the world-wide development of decolonized and equitable historical representation where the mainstream museums are beginning to transform in a response to postcolonial criticism (Gamberi, 2019; Zimik & Ranganathan, 2021).

The Concept of the Pradhanmantri Sangrahalaya (PMML)

The PMML has added every Indian Prime Minister to make sure the country’s leadership is represented amongst different ideological and temporal landscapes. The core of the PMML’s purpose includes the writing of a story that appreciates every Prime minister. The achievement of this objective certainly demonstrates that the Museum strives to express an objective picture of the complicated Indian political processes. Through this, the PMML will educate the public on the way different leadership styles and policies have influenced and shaped the social economic and cultural fabric in the country. The PMML’s architectural scheme naturally leads tourists through a succession of historical events in the Indian politics.

Visitors are guided through the exhibition which utilizes advanced multimedia technology to narrate the stories of India’s Prime Ministers. The museum has each section dedicated to a different leader that highlights their personal and official records, multimedia presentation, and significant events during their time in office. This immersive strategy is designed to enthrall the visitor by engaging them actively to transform exploring India’s political history into an informative and exciting experience. By showcasing the lives and accomplishments of all Prime Ministers, the Museum meets the need for a better, balanced, historical representation which recognizes the contributions of many different leaders of all political persuasions. It is very significant to fully grasp the extent to which various administrations have contributed to India’s journey since its independence. But there will be the task of staying unbiased when it comes to telling the narratives of leaders that have led during turbulent periods of history. Alongside being a treasury of historical artifacts, the PMML is intended to function as an interactive learning hub meant to enlighten and promote by telling the vision and accomplishments of all the PMs.

Nevertheless, as underscored in the earlier sections, this transition has not come without drawing flak. There are people who take this as a way by the current dispensation to rewrite public’s memory. However, advocates insist that the wider historical approach democratizes history as well as neutralizes and corrects historical biases. This debate highlights the function of the Museum as an educational institution and at the same time a place of clash among the history and political interpretations (The Hindu, 2018). Although the Pradhanmantri Sangrahalaya symbolizes a well-thought evolution of how political history of India is curated and displayed before the public, this Museum should perform a delicate juggling act by celebrating achievements, while responsibly reflecting on both the failures and controversies of past Prime Ministers. The PMML must recognize the global museological trends that envision museums as being transparent, inclusive, and decolonized.

Implications: Forming the Public Participation, Ideas about the Museum Practices

The conversion of NMML to the PMML (Pradhanmantri Sangrahalaya) symbolizes the changing perspective of India with regard to historical conservation and public education. This revolutionizes the way political history is portrayed to the public, giving more diverse political actors and points of view an opportunity to be seen. One of the significant shifts in PMML and museology in India has been its successful integration of modern, interactive technology aimed at engaging and entertaining visitors. The PMML improves the visitors’ tour experience with the multi-touch exhibits and technology to provide historical knowledge in a more entertaining way. The Museum covers digital booths, augmented reality experiences, and immersive multimedia displays. There are kiosks where one can pay and get a selfie with their favorite Prime Minister, a handwriting robot to create memorabilia with a quote and signature of their favorite PM, a stroll with their Favorite PM, a Levitating Emblem, and other such forms of digital interaction and entertainment. This has been strategically endorsed as India is making significant strides in the digital space and a departure from traditional museum practices. Technology is seen as an attempt to compete with other entertainment formats in the digital space. This progress has also been credited to PM Modi as the Museum builder who realized and utilized the soft power of museums and their power to shape public consciousness — rashtriya chetna. Hence, the inauguration of the PMML with all its tech extravaganza is a politically valuable tool for India and global modernity. Hence, the Museum aims to both entertain and educate.

One of the flip sides of this technological extravaganza and edutainment is that the selfies and robot-driven letters are emailed to visitors; they leave behind their names, emails, and political preferences. One of the first surveys in the first few months of the Museum’s inauguration put PM Modi as the most requested selfie at the PM’s Museum (Lakshmi, 2022). This raises concerns about data collection and potential privacy intrusion. While the digital space is undeniably growing and the post-pandemic world has been a big advocate for this growth, these pitfalls with respect to data risk in the digital world highlight the need to rethink how information is collected and used in museums. Striking a balance between engagement and privacy is crucial in the digital age.

However, this does not take away from the fact that the PMML’s curatorial practices signal toward a new wave of diversity in historical representation where technology plays a central role in the way PMML interacts with its followers. These technologies allow visitors to engage with the historical content in different ways, bringing historical events and prime ministerial periods to life with depth that traditional exhibits and displays cannot achieve. Through employing digital technologies into the exhibition design, the Museum makes its collections interactive and informative. These technical improvements contribute to giving a voice to a larger audience in both the physical and virtual worlds. Moreover, the museum model that is based on this approach coincides with worldwide trends where the museums are converted from static places into dynamic cultural centers (Henderson, 2014).

The broader narrative range of the PMML has certain political implications. One of the major difficulties of the expanded thematic range of the Museum is the danger of oversimplification. When a museum moves from a focused narrative to more inclusive ones, there is a possibility that an in-depth and nuanced knowledge of the individual contributions could be lost. For instance, it’s well established that Nehru’s role in crafting the modern India is profound. Any attempt to detail each of the tenures of subsequent prime ministers in equal measure without sufficient exploration would result in merely a superficial overview. While this attempt is critically acclaimed, the curatorial selection and presentation emerge as a limitation of this all-inclusive view. Much of the information about the contribution of all PMs needs to stand out. There needs to be a more nuanced weaving of story-telling where the personal belongings of the PMs are showcased. Hence, as a museum, the content needs deep curatorial research in bringing rare archival material to the visitors. In terms of control of the narrative, there is a conspicuous absence of the Babri Masjid demolition; the Bhopal Gas Tragedy has no reference to how the government let the culprits go, and so on. Hence, owing to its oversimplification and its selective dropping of some significant historical events, it leads one to question the attempt at inclusivity and, therefore, its more extensive cultural and educational impact (Lakshmi, 2022).

The PMML has to manage the challenges created by political pressures in order to mitigate the issue of oversimplification and maintain historical accuracy to avoid a skewed narrative. The imaginative approaches of PMML allow to look into the future, and to integrate technology into educational exhibits among the other practices (Sultan, 2022). Going forward, museums will probably remain more digital informatization, achieving higher degree of accessibility and interactivity to cater the needs of the global audience. The transformation journey of NMML to PMML has greatly enhanced the public engagement and now made a new standard for the delivery of national history in India with modernized museum operations.

Future Trends and the Role of Museums

The NMML being changed to the PMML is a move that can bring about differences in the way cultural policies of the country and the museums are organized. It reveals the delicate relationship that deals with politics and cultural heritage management that may both have an impact and some influence for national institutions undergoing similar issues. The PMML’s evolution is a case study in balancing the obligation to maintain historical accuracy and broad representation against conflicting political influences.

Policymakers and museum management must deliberate the consequence of such acts. While the PMML is committed to the deconstruction of the dominant historical narrative and the production of a historiography of the key figures that contributed to India’s journey since Independence, there’s the question of any ulterior political agenda to shape public memory. To overcome the risk of political manipulation, policy guidelines should stress the issue of transparency both in case of curation and the governance of museums. The rules of curatorial independence must be defined to guide all exhibitions and educational programs on a solid background of research, rather than biases and subordination. The case of the PMML highlights a great need for serious dialogues between government bodies, cultural institutions, historians, and the general public. This interchange can feed in the perception of more multifaceted accounts of the varied narratives which a nation’s history comprises of. Policymakers should encourage and foster such discourse and ensure a conducive environment for multiple perspectives to thrive.

This transformation of the NMML to PMML should serve as a catalyst for the country to rethink its cultural policies in terms of museums as keepers of the nation’s history. Suggestions for future policy, then, should be centered around augmenting cultural institutions to act as learning platforms, where the people are presented with unbiased, inclusive narratives. This approach will strengthen the foundations of democratic engagement by promoting an informed and critical citizenry.

Conclusion

The change of the NMML into the PMML opens a new chapter in the country’s political-cultural history. It is indicative of a stream of development that recognizes the role of museums beyond mere caretakers of history globally. They have become lively and dynamic forum for public deliberation and the formation of identity. Therefore, the transformation presents an opportunity to explore the effects of the intersection of political power and the cultural representation on democratic societies.

The emergence of the Pradhanmantri Sangrahalaya in the Indian museum landscape symbolizes the path that political history follows and puts into focus the pride of Indian democracy and its “great traditions.” Utilizing cutting-edge modern technologies with interactive features reflects the transition from traditional to an engaging and dynamic way of visitor experience. With these developments intending to entertain and attract, the museums go away from the routine and traditional settings which have always dominated the parameters of cultural institutions. On the one hand, these technologies and interactivity introduce the possibility of greater visitor participation. However, on the other hand, there is a need to address concerns that can arise if the Museum ignores its educational and historical mandates.

Another problem is how the Museum represents historical narratives, for which there is significant criticism regarding their possible partisan preferences. The selective presentation of PMs and their policies could cause strong visitors’ perceptions of what they’ve seen, potentially reinforcing existing political bias and creating a unique memory that may have little to do with the historically accurate recollection of events (Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, 1998). This selective historiography reveals that the balance between producing attractive materials for general public engagement and sustaining scientific precision is quite tricky. Hence the Museum should be independent of any political interference to pursue its aim of democratizing the institution (News 18, 2018).

Additionally, there is a reservation about the depth of this Museum’s curatorial approaches. An issue to be mindful of when developing the PMML is the possibility that it focuses more on the spectacular experience instead of a real engagement with the historical materials that could devalue the educational aspect. With an emphasis on the understandable rather than on the profound, it is possible that the museum misses the chance of being a place where people can discover the rich history. Criticism of modern museum strategies often revolves around the change of focus from facts to the showy aspects, with scholars and critics arguing that the spectacular appearance of museums may lessen learning from historic materials. As Foster (2011) puts it, there would be the danger of these designs eclipsing the artwork itself, rebranding the museums not as places of enlightenment but as showcases of splendor. This approach could keep the visitors from getting to the multifaceted reasons related to the significant decisions and events throughout the history. This fear emphasizes the debates that already exist about the need to find the right balance between attracting visitors and maintaining the academic nature of exhibitions in museums.

The Museum’s reliance on easily accessible public information, as opposed to more profound, rare archival materials, is another point of contention. This method could preclude the possibility of providing visitors with a detailed insight into the multifaceted nature of India’s political history, thereby simplifying complex narratives (Hooper-Greenhill, 1992). This kind of simplification considerably reduces the role of the Museum in educating the viewers and making them more critical and reflective of their democratic heritage, which is really important for the public to understand.

In essence, the metamorphosis of NMML to PMML is much more than a mere change of names or administrative adjustments. It demonstrates how countries apply culture to the shaping and retelling of national identities. As for India, a country whose history is rich and variegated, the task is to employ these institutions for the articulation of a holistic consciousness about its present. Despite the fact that the Pradhanmantri Sangrahalaya symbolizes the modern museums movement with the use of its interactive and engaging exhibits, yet it is always hard to inspire both academic precision and historical depth. If recalibrated, the Museum’s present approach may no longer be one that is detached and possibly limited in its scope. For the Museum to really take up its educational mission and to add value to the public’s knowledge of the evolution of democracy, it needs to aspire for a more neutral and coherent depiction of history. Therefore, an institution such as PMML and any others that aim to be places where different historical narratives co-exist must strive to be a place which encourages the public to discuss, debate and engage critically with history. Only then will museums be able to fulfill their true role as the cornerstones of democratic societies by educating the public about the past and the process of constructing the narratives of history, thus adding effectively to the ongoing process of dialogue on national identity and collective memory in general.

As a postscript, particularly as the world celebrates the International Museum Day on May 18, the emphasis in India should be more on spending money to enhance existing museum infrastructure in India rather than building new, elaborate, and technologically sound buildings (Kohli, 2021). It will also pave the way for a more sustainable future for the transition of museums ensuring the integration of advanced technologies in a manner that is both cost-effective and heritage-conscious.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Hankuk University of Foreign Studies Research Fund of 2023 and the National Research Foundation of Korea Grant funded by the Korean Government (NRF-2017S1A6A3A02079749).

ORCID

Aditi Singh  https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3883-5233