October 03, 2007
A Chapter a Week: Ram Guha's "India After Gandhi"History
I’ve had Ramachandra Guha’s India After Gandhi on my shelf for a couple of months, waiting to be seriously cracked. 
Why not read it together? It’s not a book club that I’m suggesting, or at least, not exactly — since anyone who proposed an 850 page historical tome as a book club selection would have to be out of his mind.
What I propose is this: we’ll look at a chapter or so a week, and go in sequence. In each case, I’ll try and present some of the main ideas in each chapter in a blog post, so readers can participate in the discussion even if they haven’t read that chapter of the book. The idea is to do a survey of post-independence Indian history with emphasis on the conflicts that have occurred in various states. Guha tends to be much more pro-Nehru than is fashionable these days (since liberalization, many people blame Nehru for keeping India behind; I think this is mistaken). He is also scrupulous in looking at “marginal” communities such as the tribals, who are often left out of major histories. From the chapters I’ve read, Guha seems to be quite fair in his approach, and his style of writing is accessible without being ‘dumbed down’ in the least.
If all goes well, and there’s interest in this approach, next week’s topic will be chapter 3, “Apples in the Basket,” where Guha looks at how the Princely States were incorporated into the union — sort of a neglected topic. For now, however, I wanted to look at a controversy that has come up around one of the earlier chapters (Chapter 2), where Guha talks about the events leading up to Partition.
Reihan Salam has given his opinion, on the “Partition” chapters, and on the book as a whole, which he disliked. The following is from a blog post Salam did at the blog The American Scene shortly after Tyler Cowen announced he would be discussing the book at his own blog:
Because I hold Tyler Cowen in the highest esteem, so much so that I will buy almost anything he recommends, I purchased Ramachandra Guha’s India After Gandhi.
And it’s bad. Really, really bad.
Basically, this is a work of hagiography (of Nehru, specifically, who deserves better by dint of having been an actual human being, and a quite shrewd one at that) that reflects an intensely partisan outlook: Guha is a partisan of the India’s bien-pensant upper-middle left. You’d be far better served by reading anything by Ayesha Jalal or the Marxist intellectual Aijaz Ahmad. Amazingly, given that Guha is a serious scholar and (supposed) left intellectual who has considerable spent time outside India, he offers a Attenborough-esque portrait of a dastardly Jinnah and he demonizes Pakistan. (link)
I couldn’t disagree with Reihan more. First of all, I’m not sure how Ramachandra Guha is “intensely partisan,” and I’m not sure exactly what is mean by “India’s bien-pensant upper-middle left.” If he is referring to Indian leftists who come from privileged backgrounds, I think all leftists who are academics would probably be described that way, including, without question, Aijaz Ahmad. Having been a reader of Ram Guha’s essays in magazines like Outlook for the past few years, I’m not even really sure it’s accurate to say that Guha is a “leftist” at all — if anything, his recent opinions have seemed to me to be more centrist than anything else. (We could discuss this.)
I also think Salam is wrong on substance. I don’t think Guha demonizes Jinnah or Pakistan, certainly not in the early chapters. In chapter 2, Guha allocates blame for the disaster of the Partition three ways: 1) the Congress Party, especially Nehru, who early on disregarded the demands of Jinnah and the Muslim League, 2) Jinnah and the Muslim League, and 3) the British, who to some extent fanned the flames of communal hatred to protect their own interests.
Here are two paragraphs where Guha gives a brief account of the political break-down between Congress and the Muslim League that led the Muslim League to seek Partition:
It is true that Nehru and Gandhi made major errors of judgment in their dealings with the Muslim League. In the 1920s, Gandhi ignored Jinnah and tried to make common cause with the mullahs. In the 1930s, Nehru arrogantly and, as it turned out, falsely, claimed the Muslim masses would rather follow his socialist credo than a party based on faith. Meanwhile, the Muslims steadily moved over from teh Congress to the League. In the 1930s, when Jinnah was willing to make a deal, he was ignored; in the 1940s, with the Muslims solidly behind him, he had no reason to make a deal at all.
It is also true that some of Jinnah’s political turns defy any explanation other than personal ambition. He was once known as an ‘ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity’ and a practitioner of constitutional politics. Even as he remade himself as a defender of Islam and Muslims, in his personal life he ignored the claims of faith… . However, from the late 1930s on he began to stoke religious passions. The process was to culminate in his calling for Direct Action Day, the day that set off the bloody violence and counter-violence that finally made partition inevitable. (41-42)
Jinnah is certainly being criticized here for stoking the fires of communalism to his own advantage. But I think Guha is being fair when he refers to Nehru as “arrogant” earlier on in the process.
Guha argues that partition was inevitable by 1946, and nearly inevitable as early as the 1940s. The Muslim League, which in 1927 was quite small, had expanded rapidly in the 1930s, running largely on a platform of “Muslim Unity,” and by 1940 started calling for a separate state. The communal platform worked: Guha points out that by 1944 the party had 500,000 members in Bengal and 200,000 members in Punjab. It was not just Jinnah’s ambition — the Muslim League was a genuine mass-movement.
Guha also looks at the Provincial Assembly elections of 1946, which pretty much sealed the deal for Partition. Again, the Muslim League ran on a Muslim Unity/Pakistan platform, and was highly successful. Of the 492 “reserved” seats for Muslims in 1946, the League won 429 seats. The Congress still had an overall majority (927 seats), but the anti-Pakistan Muslim representatives were effectively swept out of power, leaving the Congress with no negotiating power whatsoever.
As for whether Jinnah was right or wrong, it’s now hardly worth arguing over. All but the most extreme religious partisans now accept the division of India as a fact, not likely to ever be reversed.
However, it is interesting to compare Jinnah’s account of why he desired Partition with that of a pro-Congress Muslim intellectual, Maulana Azad. Both of these quotes are epigraphs to Guha’s Chapter 2, and I find them quite telling:
M.A. Jinnah: the problem in India is not of an intercommunal but manifestly of an international character, and must be treated as such… . It is a dream that Hindus and Muslims can evolve a common nationality, and this misconception of one Indian nation has gone far beyond the limits, and is the cause of most of our troubles, and will lead India to destruction, if we fail to revise our actions in time. The Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs, and literature. They neither intermarry, nor interdine together, and indeed they belong to two different civilizations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions. Their aspects on and of life are different. (from Jinnah’s Presidential Address, 1940)
Maulana Abul Kalam Azad: It was India’s historic destiny that many human races and cultures should flow to her, finding a home in her hospitable soil, and that many a caravan should find rest here… . Eleven hundred years of common history [of Islam and Hinduism] have enriched India with our common achievements. Our languages, our poetry, our literature, our culture, our art, our dress, our manners and customs, the innumerable happenings of our daily life, everything bears the stamp of our joint endeavour… . These thousand years of our joint life [have] moulded us into a common nationality… .Whether we like it or not, we have now become an Indian nation, united and indivisible. No fantasy or artificial scheming to separate and divide can break this unity. (from Azad’s Congress Presidential Address, 1940)
Again, it probably isn’t fair to ask Jinnah to play by today’s standards, but I find myself much more in agreement with Maulana Azad’s view of history and of the shared, hybrid Indian culture he espouses.
amardeep on October 3, 2007 11:57 AM in History · T·r·a·c·k·b·a·c·k address · Direct link · Email post
What a coincidence, i was, just yesterday, lamenting to somebody that i probably won't be able to read the book until jan 08 (owing to my diss. and the academic job market). thanks a lot. by the way, you are right; guha is pretty much a centrist in the indian context. also reflecting on the two concluding quotes, its kinda ironical(and the irony has been noted umpteen times before) that a religious maulana was supporting unity, and a secular, westernized, and by all accounts probably atheistic jinnah was advocating separation. i was wondering if ram guha has any explanations as to the reasons for this (any amateur social-psychological speculations, for instance?).
Great idea, Amardeep!
I'll join you in the reading.
I am finishing re-reading Freedom at Midnight. Second read is quite interesting, since the first time decades ago, I missed few features.
Both Guha and Ayesha Jalal do not live in Indian subcontinent, so Guha being less authentic than Ayesha is bogus, as claimed by Reihan.
I think Jinnah was never afraid in raising the spectar of civil war (1940 onwards), what I have read.
Sigh!, well if I really stick to this chapter a week idea I only be about 12 chapters in by January, so you'll be more than able to join in at that point. (Incidentally, good luck with the academic job search -- feel free email me at amardeep at gmail if you want any tips ;-)
As for Jinnah's personal motivations, he doesn't speculate much -- he focuses more on the politics. Communal politics (as we see even today, in Gujarat) is usually pretty effective at getting votes. I think it was partly personal frustration at the way his ideas were rejected by the Congress (i.e., in 1927), and partly what Guha suggests -- sheer ambition. He spent twenty years criticizing communalism before supporting it...
"He is also scrupulous in looking at “marginal” communities such as the tribals, who are often left out of major histories."
his book on verrier elwin, which i read in part, was interesting.
i wish i had this book to read. any plans to do "The Indian Clerk" any time soon?
"I’m not even really sure it’s accurate to say that Guha is a “leftist” at all — if anything, his recent opinions have seemed to me to be more centrist than anything else."
Other than the really moronic fringe, I'm sure every leftist or rightist feels that they are close to the political center of the country. Just the fact that you agree with Guha doesnt make him a centerist.
i wish i had this book to read. any plans to do "The Indian Clerk" any time soon?
Whose God -- I have that on the shelf too now (I got a review copy, woohoo). Maybe in a month? If you have it, start reading. I want to get the other Ramanujam book too, so as to be able to compare the two...
do pakistani muslims act differently than indian ones? It seems that indian muslims have seemed to live within india without india self destructing. Are the ones that are in pakistan different?
Amardeep
Muslim League was a genuine mass-movement
No. The League relied on support from Punjabi landlords and the fairly independent Bengali wing for support. After partition, the League fell apart, unlike the true South Asian mass party -- Congress. The League was a brokerage party, not a mass-movement.
Look, I strongly agree with Reihan -- Guha is not engaging with modern South Asian historiography. Jalal's interpretation in "The Sole Spokesman" may not be the one Nehru-fans or the more Saffronist parts opf the spectrum, agree with. But you can't just ignore it.
I read an interview with this author in "India Abroad" and have been meaning to read this book. I was curious and also in agreement with the author on many issues that he brought up in that interview. I will be happy to read and discuss the book here.
Also, Muslim League's support in Northwest Frontier was a suspect, it shows to this day.
In the provisional Govt., Badshah Khan was in alliance with Congress. ML did win the referendrum though.
I regret not buying this book at the Bangalore airport last month (at a much cheaper price and with rupees I have no use for now). At any rate, thanks for offering to summarize. I've only read a few of Guha's recent pieces in Outlook and I'm curious--met him a couple of times but that was years ago.
Well, Azad was spectaculary wrong about that!
My grandparents spoke Hindustani.... But today, "artificial" or not, the "unity" is certainly broken beyond all repair. The "fantasy" would be to think otherwise.
thanks amardeep, i'll definitely take you up on your offer (expect an email if i'm interviewing next month, especially around philly)
Kush Tandon: Both Guha and Ayesha Jalal do not live in Indian subcontinent,
Last I heard, Guha splits his time between a house in the Nilgiri's and Bangalore. He's India-based.
Look, I strongly agree with Reihan -- Guha is not engaging with modern South Asian historiography. Jalal's interpretation in "The Sole Spokesman" may not be the one Nehru-fans or the more Saffronist parts opf the spectrum, agree with. But you can't just ignore it.
Fair enough -- let's not ignore it now. As I understand it, Jalal's point is that Jinnah proposed Pakistan in 1940 as a "bargaining chip," something he didn't actually want. What he really wanted, she argues, was a weak-center, with parity between Hindu and Muslim majority provinces enshrined in the structure of government. He wanted to be, in effect, a "co-leader" of a new nation, with 50% of the power. But by 1946, shortly after the elections, negotiations with the Congress stalled, and a movement towards Parition became inevitable. Jalal calls this the "tragic collapse of Jinnah's strategy." She even states that in the end it was Congress that insisted on Partition in the last instance, not Jinnah.
First of all, is that a fair characterization of her argument? I have to admit, I haven't read her book -- I'm going from reviews in scholarly journals on JSTOR. Now that you've raised this objection, I'm thinking of running to the library sometime & doing a separate post just on Jalal's Jinnah.
Yes, you are correct my_dog_jagat, Guha has moved to India and is with IISc, Bangalore now.
indian muslims seem to live amongst indian hindus in relative peace. not sure why this cant be considered "unity"
Could it be that Jinnah never expected most of the princely states to accede to the India of Gandhi/Nehru. India could eventually fragment. He may have expected that Pakistan (east, west, kashmir & hyderabad) unified by religion would be the largest nation in South Asia.
Me too. I had a few rupees and chose the Kite Runner (terrific book)at Hyderabad airport. I should have got some more rupees from home.
Rob, speaking as a middle class south Indian (from Hyderabad) I could not disagree with you more. There is a tremendous amount of unity . I do see a fanatical vseriosn of both Islam and Hinduism creeping in gradually but as of today there is still a feeling that we are all in this together.
I was there during the bombings and the general feeling was that we are all in this together. We spoke about it and except for a few comments from kids from both religions I felt everyone was worried about the future of the city.
@8:
Puli,
I grew up in Bhopal in the 70's, which was then a muslim dominated small town. Today it is one of the big industrious cities in India. Like the fingers on your hand they are all different. There is "class" and there is "crass" and there are the ones in between.
I lived in a semi-ghetto neighborhood and came across a lot of crass and less class. Again, I don't think they were to blame for the hostility, because during the early 60's and 70's there was a mass exodus of people ( Hindus, Christians, Sikhs etc) moving in to Bhopal, due to the job opportunities offered by large manufacturing plants like BHEL and the likes. They were not used to outsiders and disliked every one equally. They picked on South Indians the most because of the language barrier, they couldn't speak or understand Hindi or Urdu.
But as I mentioned, there were also the professionals and talented ones. Local muslim youth were brilliant field hockey players- Aslam Sher Khan, Saleem Abbassi, Mohammed Yusuf to name a few.
I have come across a few Pakistani Muslims here in America and again they are a mixed bunch. Reminds me of the song " Ebony and Ivory" by McCartney and Stevie Wonder. Actually IMHO, it is the politicians and power mongers who manipulate ignorant and illiterate masses for their vested interests.
"Maybe in a month? If you have it, start reading. I want to get the other Ramanujam book too, so as to be able to compare the two..."
amardeep, thanks for the reply. i just got the book two days ago. now i feel the pressure to think of something intelligent to say about the book in a month or two:)
I have read the book and its fabulous - absolute tour de force. One of its best features is that it is not a dry history, but encompasses the perspective of Ram Guha.
The fact of the matter is that Ram Guha is neither a huge fan of Pakistan, nor is he a huge fan of Jinnah. In his writing, he has always been a liberal in that classic sense of the word, and their is little that is (or was) liberal about either Jinnah or his nation.
And Kush Tandon - Guha is Bangalore based, so he absolutely lives in India. His cricket writing is beyond compare as well.
Puli & Nara,
I didn't mean there's no unity within India. I meant, unity in the sub-continent, which is what Azad is speaking about. The rupture with Pakistan is permanent.
That said, carrying-on about how "well" the Muslims are doing in India is a bit of implicitly anti-Pakistan propaganda (heh--not that I am pro-Pakistan or anything!). Most are pretty poor and marginalized (as a post last month on SM went into in detail.)
Amardeep -- this is a great idea, thanks for starting this! I just finished reading the princely states chapter. A weekly discussion of each chapter would be great.
I regret missing Guha talk about his book last week here in DC. I know he spoke at a SAJA-sponsored thing in NYC recently. He spoke at the law school in India at which I taught a couple of years ago -- I found him to be a very engaging speaker and also very down to earth in his interactions with the students. Regardless of whether you agree with him, I imagine hearing him talk about the book would be very interesting.
Oh, and for those who have the book and who have read the introduction, he discusses that he may consciously or subconsciously reinforce his own biases and notes that one of the problems with writing a relatively modern history (of any country) is that people bring with them their own interpretation or reality when it comes to certain historical events. I also get the sense that one of the reasons he wrote the book is to spur just these sorts of discussions about modern Indian history, rather than simply have people agree with his version of history.
I wish Azad was right, but I feel Jinnah was more accurate in his assesment of the situation and future. He had a better understanding of the muslim mind and aspirations. He rightly points out that from the Muslim perspective it is not an inter-communal issue, rather an International issue. Core to Islam is the idea of universal Islamic brotherhood. Any Muslim majority geographical unit would never be at peace with the Indian state, as we have seen in Kashmir. The idea of India (or for that matter, any nation) is just not strong enough to override the allegiance to Ummah.
Eleven centuries of common history has not made the sub continental Muslims like Hindus/Buddhists more than the muslims of the far away lands. Nor has made it Hindus look at muslims as holders of the equal rights to their country. This tells a little about the composite culture that Azad talks about. The history was painful and violent. It was like a bad marriage. It is better that they divorced and chose their own destiny rather than live together and fight forever.
Coming to the composite culture... The common culture, arts, language etc though present are very minimal. If people have shared a geography for 11 centuries, this is the least you expect.. Muslims know Hindus, but do not know Hinduism. Hindus know Muslims, but do not understand Islam. So we end up talking through each other.. and when as expected it fails, we go for each others throat..
All that I have said so far is about the pre-partition India. In the current Indian state, I do feel that it is possible for Hindus and Muslims to live together peacefully. The reason being that the Muslim population is dispersed and hence will never be able to take political control of any geographical unit. Further the Indian political system has created a space for the Muslims to have their voice and safegaurd their interest.
In the 1930s, Nehru arrogantly and, as it turned out, falsely, claimed the Muslim masses would rather follow his socialist credo than a party based on faith.
That's a blatant mischaracterization. Nehru was not arrogant. He really believed that.He was deluded that Muslims would come around a secular India where everyone would live together. He was an idealist who had high hopes of Muslims. The early 20th century Muslim struggle against British rule started with Khilafat Movement which had nothing to do with seeking an independent India and to live peacefully with Hindus and it had everything to do with Muslim wrath over Britain's fight with far away Ottoman Empire. Just like today's Indonesian Muslims are more concerned with the well being of faraway Palestinian Muslims than with their co-ethnic Indonesian Christians. Nehru was in denial. It was not arrogance. Read his autobiography where he remains optimistic to the very end of British rule that Muslims will stay. Read between the lines and find for yourself that he finally gives up and is quite disappointed with India's Muslims. Muslims like Khan Abdul and Maulana Azad were few and far between.
Yeah, true today--that's why the rupture with Pakistan is permanent.
But, isn't a lot of that non-overlap, culturally, a post-Partition "construction." That's why I mentioned in my first post that my grand-parents spoke Hindustani. Post-partition, in India it got "Sanskritized" into Hindi, and in Pakistan Persianized into Urdu. At least, that's what my family says (not trying to start a linguistics debate, nor am I claiming any expertise--just using this as an example of post-Partition culture divergence driven by politics). Azad, in my view, is wrong not about a common-culture pre-Partition, but when he claims that the unity could never be broken--it cert. has been, and permanently!
would the people saying that the division of india/pakistan is permanant think that the division of germany was permanant?
No--because they are correct!
Puli, I had no idea you were such a nationalist!!
;-)
OK Amardeep. I think you've got the broad strokes right. No need to go to the library though. Jalal's "Sole Spokesman" is accessible free on Googlebooks here.
I'd add the Jalal's interpretation of the 30as and 40s is the same as the "family" version of the partition story I got from my grandparents in the 80s. One of the interesting things about SM (for a non-Indian) is the shock of seeing events you are very familiar with interpreted in a radically different way (for example, comment #27).
I'll come back to comment on all this later, when I have some time.
Not true for Bengalis in West Bengal and Bangladesh.
26 · fitty cents The common culture, arts, language etc though present are very minimal.
Not true for Punjab either -- Punjabi Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs did have a shared culture that went quite deep.
dipanjan beat me to it;
#3 not true for many areas of u.p. and m.p. either
Nothing is permanent in the history of states and civilizations, and something that happened a mere 60 years ago is certainly not permanent. One of the things not fully examined in the history of India and Pakistan as separate states over the past 60 years is the role of the international environment - Great Game, Cold War, and post-9/11 Globalization - both in bringing them into existence and in keeping the status quo going, and now also in slowly coaxing them toward moderating their overtly belligerent stances and moving them towards reconciliation and perhaps even federation.
I think the dynamics of Indo-Pakistan relationship will begin to change, and in fact is already changing. The relative power of the army in Pakistan will slowly decline relative to the political sphere, the judiciary, and 'civil society', as is evident in events there this week. Pakistan's role in the military alliance with the West will become more tactical than strategic, while India's role might go into a deep-strategy mode, if the nuclear deal goes through. The weakening of the military in Pakistan will also weaken the overtly religious establishment in the political sphere (eventualy I think they will go back into the masjids and madrasas where they have a legitimate role).
All this, plus the economic and cultural globalization we are now seeing, will induce qualitatively new effects into the Indo-Pak dynamic, and in course of time, Pakistan and India could become a friendly neighbors, and eventual partners. India itself is going to have to change in response to political, sub-national, demographic and economic pressures in ways that make it less threatening to Pakistan. The final result should not look too different from a federation, if all goes well. In the interim, sovereignty and its overt symbols will remain intact, for quite a while yet.
Hope this does not upstage anything, Amardeep, and I heartily welcome your one-chapter a week plow-through of Guha's book. I'm sure I'll have more to say as this progresses!
Amardeep,
If you like jinnah, you would love narendra modi. jinnah is pakistan's modi.
check out his direct action day which is a call for muslims to massacre hindus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_Action_Day.
In Bengal, it was not just the League. Even in the post communal-accord election of 1937 with "separate electorate" instead of "joint electorate", KPP (Krishak Proja Party) won 40 seats against League's 39. Independent Muslims won 42 seats. The distrust of Hindu Congress elites motivated KPP and League to contest separately in the constituencies allocated to Muslims and not fight with each other. Interestingly, one of the economic reasons behind formation of anti-Congress KPP was decline in jute revenues and agrarian incomes triggered by great depression in 30s. [link]
It can be argued that Muslim apprehension and unity were triggered at least as much by class interests as by any pan-Islamic "International" sensibilities. The majority of landlords in Bengal were Hindus and the majority of peasants Muslims. After GOI act of 1935 which granted Muslims political power at provincial level based on numerical majority, concrete legistlative policies -- Bengal tenancy act (38), Bengal agricultural debtors act (39), Calcutta municipal amendment act (39), Bengal money-lenders act (40), Bengal secondary education bill (40) -- were enacted by KPP/League government that consolidated the divisions, started to change the class dynamics and scaring Hindus. In 1905, Hindus resisted the partition, but in 1940s they were in favour of it. Comments by Fazlul Haq such as "my government is morally committed to undo the wrongs of history by bringing the Muslims in line with the advanced Hindus" did not help.
But, isn't a lot of that non-overlap, culturally, a post-Partition "construction."
I agree that we have moved apart further since Independence. However, I do not feel that it was much different pre-partition. For most of the people in south (except Kerala, but add Maharashtra and Gujarat) there was hardly any islamic influence. Yes probably a lot of Hindus and Muslims spoke Hindustani and ate Kebabs. But other than that they lived by the traditions of their castes. The issues that inspired Muslims were different from those of Hindus, so were the things that made them happy or angry.
Bengal, Punjab, UP, MP had common culture
When I say common, I meant composite here (My exacte quote was "Coming to the composite culture... The common culture, arts, language etc though present are very minimal". Something which evolved when Islamic way of life met Indian way of life. So by this definition speaking Hindustani counts, so would Hindus speaking arabic and Muslims learning Sanskrit. Similarly going to a common place of worship counts (like Ajmeri dargah), So does going to each others place of worship.
People speaking Bengali or Punjabi is common culture not composite culture (unless these languages have changed significantly because of persian, arabic etc.). It is simply that some people changed their religion, but continued to speak the language of the people who didnt.
I think there is a big difference between the two. In India what we have is mostly common culture, simply because of the fact that the people changed their religion. In spite of living side by side for 11 centuries, Islam and Indian traditions have generated very little that is composite. What happened to Din e lahi or Kabir Panthis?
I've read Guha's book. It's long and informative, ofcourse that includes his biases.. Actually I've read a lot more of the "indian nehruvian secularist" version of the history that I have become sick and tired of it, I'd love to read anything written by Ambedkar / people associated with Ambedkar / Hindu nationalist Savarkar etc.. I was disappointed that Guha din't delve much into the anti-Hindi agitation in the mid 60s and just mentioned it in passing..
And I guess we have Ayesha Jalal's "Jinnah is a secularist" version of history. That'd be a fun read too :-) I agree with the other commenter that if we think Jinnah as a secularist, we should also offer the same privilege to Narendra Modi / Bal Thackeray and such folks..
I agree as well. But there is no reason why the future should exactly replicate the past in this respect. If we can move apart, we can also come closer! Also, a complete disappearance of the two nations as separate entities is neither necessary nor even desirable in the short to medium term. So a more pragmatic goal is to seek friendship and partnership between the two nations. A merger, could follow later, but by default, and in a de facto rather than de jure manner, at least initially.
There is also no need for Muslims and Hindus to merge their mutual religions and cultures into 'something new' to which everybody then subscribes. Although, to some extent, that has happened in the past, and probably will happen, in some selected ways, in the future.
During 1857-1947 - Hindus and Muslims began increasingly to see themselves and each other as monolithic political communities (in addition to religio-cultural communities). This led eventually to Partition - but it was as much a result of British manipulation of politicians and the nature of first-past-the-post Westminster type parliamentary institutions and (both legitimate and fictitious) 'minority fears' - as any real and implacable contradiction between communities that had lived together for centuries.
This need not happen again, and one way to insure it doesn't is to preserve the concept of separate nations initially, and work toward a slower process of looser borders with free trade and travel - and politically, a very loose confederation, not a merger.
AcfD,
If you're reading this can you quote the words of Maulana Azad during the partition riots pleading with the Muslims of Delhi not to leave saying that they have been rulers of Hindustan for 1000+ years and they'd rule again.. You said something of that sort, right.. ?
I think, over the late 1800s - early 1900s, simply upper caste Hindus (major supporters of Congress) stopped to be dhimmis and Muslims stopped to be practical and were still thinking of the glorious old days when they ruled over everyone else.
I read an excellent book by Reginald coupland published in 1945 about the constitutional problem of India.. It says something like when Jinnah/Leaguers were asked the question of "the position of Muslim minorities in Hindustan" after Pakistan was formed, the reply was that a strong Pakistan would take care of their interest and referred to the "Sudentenland scenario" and Pakistan would act like Germany to safeguard the interests of the Muslims left behind..
If you want to know about Sudentenland, read
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudentenland
Ponniyin Selvan: I couldnt find that speech online. I have read the speech though but not online. If I remember correctly, he was not suggesting that Muslims will rule again. He was suggesting that Muslims have ruled over Delhi for a long time, it was their city and they should not leave Delhi. I believe he was playing to the Muslim masses and stroking their ego in the hope that they would not leave for Pakistan. Here is another speech from him about the partition.
Maulana Azad was rather secular in his political orientation. Jinnah used to call him the 'show boy' of Congress.
According to linguist Suniti Chatterjee (Origin and development of Bengali language), 3.3 per cent of Bangla words have Arabic/Persian/Turkish origin. The exact number has been debated and it varies with region, but it is probably a good ballpark. There have been politically motivated attempts to Islamize/Sanskritize Bangla without much success. But in parallel to those artificial attempts, leading poets and writers -- both Hindu and Muslim -- such as Nazrul Islam, Rabindranath Tagore, Syed Mujtaba Ali, Satyendranath Datta, Jasimuddin, Syed Mustafa Siraz, Abul Bashar have always liberally borrowed from Arabic and Persian for creative reasons. It is not just the vocabulary, the Islamic literary heritage and has been important for the growth of Bangla literature. Overall Islamic influence over Bangla language as spoken and written today is significant. Among the syncretic Bengali folk culture traditions, Baul is probably the most famous. Asim Roy's "The Islamic syncretistic tradition in Bengal" might be a good reference if you are interested. I have not read it. [link].
Guha tends to be much more pro-Nehru than is fashionable these days (since liberalization, many people blame Nehru for keeping India behind; I think this is mistaken). He is also scrupulous in looking at “marginal” communities such as the tribals, who are often left out of major histories.
--> I finished the book 2 weeks back and loved it, for the most part. Being in pro-nehru camp now(after being neutral for the longest time), he does treat him well. I liked the focus he put on tribal problems with nagaland. I would have loved more focus on 1967 tamil agitation but he made it up with coverage of potti sriramulu.
Towards the end, the book feels rushed. I would have loved for him to spent more time towards the end.
But, compared to Martha Nussbaum's The Clash Within(which I finished after this book), Guha is way better. Nussbaum stinks.
The Muslim League, which in 1927 was quite small, had expanded rapidly in the 1930s, running largely on a platform of “Muslim Unity,” and by 1940 started calling for a separate state. The communal platform worked: Guha points out that by 1944 the party had 500,000 members in Bengal and 200,000 members in Punjab. It was not just Jinnah’s ambition — the Muslim League was a genuine mass-movement.
--> I thought it was congress' resignation from office that paved way for muslim league's success ? More than the validity of the platform itself ?
Acfd,
Thanks for the info.
I think we should stop assigning "secular / communal" labels. they make no sense if we apply the current definitions..
though it may be a question of half-empty or half-full glass, in spite of all the shared hybrid culture for hundreds of years..one cannot deny that there have always been undercurrents of tension with persecutions by Aurangazeb and other mughal kings, breaking/looting of temples, taboo towards inter-religious marriage, communal riots etc. On the positive side the bonhomie probably increased when Hindus-Muslim joined together to fight the British but that doesn't mean things were all that rosy as portrayed/dreamt by Nehru-Gandhis clan.
So I am in more support of Jinnah's assesment of Hindu-Muslims being totally different. Regarding whether they could have continued the bonhomie to live under one roof is a different issue
This is an interesting statement....thanks to some of my friends in India I received a web-link to a talk give by Guha himself where he analyzes the pro and anti arguments against Nehru. I leave it to the mutineers to decide whether Guha is more pro or anti Nehru.
#47 Brij
thanks to some of my friends in India I received a web-link to a talk give by Guha himself where he analyzes the pro and anti arguments against Nehru.
--> Thanks for the link. Guha puts it very well. When he points out to L.K.Advani and Ashok Mis(t?)ra's divergent views on Nehru's legacy, it clarifies the beating Nehru takes from commentators in general, today.
I have to read Crocker's book now.
Thanks very much for the link in #47. That was a great read.
I don't know whether I liked the article so much because it reinforced what I believed and provoked me into being much more appreciative of Nehru's contribution. I wish there were more people who offered such detailed explanations on Nehru's legacy, from all perspectives. Unfortunately, I have heard about other perspectives only from arm-chair critics who do not provide such detail.
I read the link.. Is there any doubt??.. Looks like if gay marriages were allowed in India, Guha would have married Nehru. He was so much in love..
I like Nehru.. I credit Nehru and Patel for the deadly good cop / bad cop role they played with the princes and the Muslims and get India a large piece of land..
But that article was too much, just glosses over a lot of his mistakes.. Nehru was no supporter of democracy within Congress. He made sure that duly elected Congress leader (Mr. Pant ??) resigned by following Gandhi tactics on Bose. and acquiesced in the Kerala communist govt. sacking and was writing all those letters to Chief ministers which I'm sure no one understood. He started this funny idea of "secularism" directed against the Hindus but left the other practitioners of other religions untouched.. For example, he shoved the reforms in Hindu personal laws over the "Hindu regressive" forces but slept with Maulanas (Maulana Azad is the biggest culprit) and left the Muslim and Christian personal laws untouched. I guess it was only a few years back that Christian women in India (Catholics??) were allowed to legally divorce that too after quite a few Supreme Court judgements. They were still following the marriage laws of 1880s..
I think Nehru is a good man like Gandhi who just thought about the welfare of all the people.. And like all human beings had his own flaws. Guha is no "unbiased historian".
Thanks, Amardeep. I'll pick up teh book and try and join the discussion.
I just read the link too--and, yes--what you said, Ponniyin! (with perhaps even a more "he had some misapprehensions about how to make India great, though fair enough the task at the time was huge indeed").
This point 50 cent raised,
hits the nail on the head. Islam (and to some extent each of the 3 abrahamic religions) promotes an allegiance to a central holy land rather than regional gods or customs. That's why you will find muslims named Mohammed/Ahmed/Salim everywhere from Saudi Arabia through Pakistan through Indonesia. This, along with a strong emphasis on learning Arabic to read the Koran, tends to isolate Muslims from their local communities and they naturally tend to form an island of their own wihtin their home countries.
Whether Jinnah's actions were good or bad for the future of India, his insight into the muslim mind and consequently his ability to command a following are unquestionable.
Guha and those who agree with him that Nehru was good for India are as delusional and out of touch with reality as Nehru himself was. Nehru needs to be judged by his record not his rhetoric. And anyone who thinks that his record was anything other than disastrous is nuts. Here's Guha's defense of Nehru from that link:
Firstly, last time I checked the untouchable Ambedkar gets the credit for writing India's constitution. Secondly, only macaulayite uncle toms measure success as the blind implementation of a british system, not on its results. To extol patently failed political and judicial systems just because they are imitations of the erstwhile colonial masters systems is proof of stupidity and servility.
Begging from both sides during the Cold War is something to be proud of to this spineless nehruvian apologist! The very fact that India was an international beggar and a hopeless basket case under almost two decades of Nehruvianism should have told Guha that his idol was a pathetic, miserable failure as a leader. India's foreign policies have been a disaster from the very beginning. The humiliating fiasco of 1962 that finally exposed Nehru as a total fraud stands as proof.
To call India's industrial and educational infrastructure 'decent' is the height of delusion. India's infrastructure is shabby even by third world standards. Its educational system churns out rote learners by the lakhs only a few of whom are considered employable by modern corporations.
Like hell he did. The dalit Ambedkar was marginalized under his watch. He surrounded himself with sycophantic cronies in particular those of his own caste, kashmiri pundits. India was almost completely dominated by upper caste hindus under his rule and the sorry results of such casteist nepotism are there for all to see.
On the other hand the criticisms of Nehru by both left, right and center are more valid:
Nehru's 'secularism' was more a pandering of religious minorities.
Absolutely. The white british colonials were replaced by colored native macaulayite wannabe sahibs trained in english-medium schools, run by christian missionaries, to be europeans in their thinking under their dark indian skins. A class of pathetic colonized creatures alienated from the masses of indians.
True dat. It was unforgivably idiotic of Nehru to abandon the villages where the overwhelming majority of indians lived and still live. Nation building starts from the ground up.
This arrogant yet pathetically clueless man was responsible for squandering a golden opportunity to set India on the right path. Yet there are still brainwashed indians such as Guha and his amen corner here who think he was a great leader!
Dhoni,
Awsesome post--sorry to just quote this one part of it--but this is the part that makes me feel uncomfortable (I agree with the rest!)
I do have some "European" ways of thinking about the world--i.e., classical liberalism--Hume, Mill, Hayek, nozick--I don't think this makes me non-desi... I'm not saying you do either, but I'm curious as to your views on this--i.e., what if I reject Macaulayite-thinking but want to adopt other Euro-derived political philosophy (and hell, the naxalites do, without even wondering about it!)
hello, prema@54! err... dhoni.
India 1945-
Only Major country in Asia to be largely unaffected by WW2 (one war induced famine, minor shelling) - Economy unaffected, strongest in Asia.
United Nation
Strongest defense force in Asia -- Battle proven force.
Best Civil Service in the world.
Diaspora spread across the world, capable of influencing several nations.
Had a wealth of entrepreneaurs
Offered Permanant seat in UN, WB
Highly motivated, driven political leadership and excellent political
Had support of US
Geopolitically located in a stategic area.
Had immense goodwill across the world.
India 1962
Nation defeated by China
Divided nation -- both by partition and by internal fissures such as language
Army weakened significantly by defeat and by political interference
Economy sufferring from slowdowns/moving into recession despite major boost due to Korean war. (partly due to bad allocation of resources due to rigid central planning)
1st non-congress opposition party dismissed from power undemocratically.
Quality of political leadership dipped significantly with many of the best marginalized (or dead without being replaced by people of similar caliber)
Civil Service showing early signs of decline.
US Support lukewarm despite Red Menace scares due to constant rebuffs.
Business friendly wing of congress sidelined almost completely
UN support mixed -- No permenant seat, secretary general post turned down because of nepotism (India was offered the post, but Nehru's sister was not nominated)
And yet Guha is a fan of Nehru
I think you mean Purushottamdas Tandon, who was bullied into resigning as Congress president, though only after the death of his main supporter in the party, Sardar Patel. All in all, though, you have to give Nehru his due. He was easily the most democratic leader of a post-colonial nation. Vain, impetuous, impractical, hypocritical, sometimes conniving, yes, but also (unlike his daughter) a democrat.
Guha describes himself as a centrist, or more precisely as just a shade left of center. It strikes me as a plausible claim, though it may be more accurate to describe him as belonging to the sane left as opposed to the hysterical (Arundhati Roy) end of the spectrum. Politics aside, he's a fine writer and India After Gandhi is a balanced book.
sodden drum,
Thanks, yes i meant Tandon, forgot the name.. Well, he can afford to be a democrat. He was winning all the elections (within Congress after purging the rightwingers and outside Congress) hands down. The real test is whether you are a democrat when you lose power. unfortunately, the dismissal of the communist govt. in Kerala , and pressure tactics to get rid of Tandon doesn't paint a rosy picture of him as a democrat.
Let's ignore his treatment of Hindutvadis for now. What about his treatment of Sheikh Abdullah?. He was jailed by Nehru after a few years of using him as a the Congress/Indian Muslim face of Kashmir to the outside world. Guha's treatment on this issue is laughable.. I think I'll wait for Amardeep to blog that chapter later..
I suspect Nehru did more for upper caste Hindus / Hindutvadis than he was given the credit for.. His best action prior to Independence (according to me) is sabotaging the Cabinet Mission Plan of May 1946 (which is nothing but "Hindus returning to their dhimmi status" and "Mughal rule in disguise").
Yet there are still brainwashed indians such as Guha and his amen corner here who think he was a great leader!
Dhoni, yes, I think he was a great leader, who held the country together, pushed it towards industrialization, and did the best he could with a bad hand inherited from (or perhaps produced by) the British.
There will be time enough to respond to your individual points as we work through the various chapters of the book.
For now, let me say this. You misread or ignore the content of several of Guha's points in his lecture. Take, for instance, the point about Nehru's inclusion of women, which is not a small one. You also don't respond to Guha's points about the freedom of the press and of the judiciary -- the strength of democratic institutions has kept Indian democracy in one piece where so many developing nations have turned towards dictatorships. (By all political science models, a poor, fractious country India should be a dictatorship) And where Guha describes Nehru as the "architect of our democracy," which he unquestionably was, you come back with a statement about Ambedkar drafting the constitution. These are two different things; and arguably Ambedkar did what he did only because Nehru's leadership put him there.
Finally, you contradict yourself -- first you complain that Nehru's economic policies made India a "beggar" (an absurd statement; India's economy was severely underdeveloped at the time of independence, and poverty was inevitable), then you attack Nehru for pursuing industrialization. So what are you, a Gandhian or a free marketer? Are you in favor of decentralized government and rejecting modernity with a system of village Panchayats (Gandhi), or a strong, modern, centralized government (Nehru)? You can't be both at once.
Amardeep, dhoni is just the latest incarnation of a particular poster who does not necessarily argue sincerely. S/he has some personal identity issues (ask razib etc.); her/his aim is to basically demonstrate that "india is bad" (whatever that entails). So you will find contradictions galore, and your attempts at sincere argumentation are not going to be rewarded.
and its best to view this "dhoni" as the mirror image of the hyper nationalistic "india shining" crowd (the one reason i sometimes enjoyed "dhoni's" comments)
Sin, you may be right... Often I don't mind being a punching bag, but this morning I sort of minded -- and hence the response above.
(Incidentally, according to IP, Dhoni is the same person as "Vikram," a regular commenter.)
I think Dhoni raised a few valid concerns on Nehru. I agree with some and disagree with some.
Though personal life is a personal issue; to add the ammunition for the Nehru-baiters I wonder how much of his flirtings with Mountbatten's wife ( read the recent book by Alex Von Tusselman - Indian Summer: The Secret History of the End of an Empire ) affected the politics during the partition....
There is some truth to the fact that Nehru was too idealistic and removed from the ground realities in pre-partition India. Recent revelations of high British officials, in India, corresponding with the Foreign Office back in Great Britain (recently made public), show that they considered him too impatient and bombastic. The intention of the British, once they decided in the 30s that it would not be possible to hold India much longer, was always to maintain a strategic presence in the region, through the Commonwealth, a sort of client state with close defense and foreign policy ties. Indian nationalists, or the Congress Party under which they mostly congregated, were the most opposed to any dilution of their foreign policy and defense independence after the British left.
Nehru completely misread British intentions, which were a part of the Great Game, of propping up the Muslim League and Pakistan, which would be friendlier towards the British post-independence (for example: denying Russian access to the Arabian Sea). By following too idealistic and unworkable a path at various stages (after the 1937 pan-India elections to the Provincial Assemblies, on the question of Kashmir, on the question of India's role in the British commonwealth after Independence, etc.), Nehru ensured that the British and Jinnah and the League would be naturally drawn to each other to the detriment of Indian interests, both before and after Independence.
#54 Dhoni
Firstly, last time I checked the untouchable Ambedkar gets the credit for writing India's constitution.
--> I think Ambedkar wrote his constitution walled in a basement room in bombay with no interaction with other human beings. He continued writing even after his pen ran dry of ink and his food supply ran out. After he finished writing, the constituent assembly of India accepted it without any discussion. All credit goes to Ambedkar for his magical performance.
To call India's industrial and educational infrastructure 'decent' is the height of delusion. India's infrastructure is shabby even by third world standards. Its educational system churns out rote learners by the lakhs only a few of whom are considered employable by modern corporations.
--> Can we please stick to Nehru's achievements/failures ? It is not as if time stopped in India after his death in 1964.
Absolutely. The white british colonials were replaced by colored native macaulayite wannabe sahibs trained in english-medium schools, run by christian missionaries, to be europeans in their thinking under their dark indian skins. A class of pathetic colonized creatures alienated from the masses of indians.
--> And Nehru was the king who decreed it will remain so ? If Ambedkar gets the credit for writing the indian constitution, does he also fall under your description ?
True dat. It was unforgivably idiotic of Nehru to abandon the villages where the overwhelming majority of indians lived and still live. Nation building starts from the ground up.
--> And you would be on the side of gandhi building nation one wheel spoke at a time ????
#50 Ponniyin Selvan
I think Nehru is a good man like Gandhi who just thought about the welfare of all the people.. And like all human beings had his own flaws. Guha is no "unbiased historian".
--> I am sure, having finished the book, you would agree Guha does admit to having his biases.
So out of the 170+ countries there has been no other choice made? This is Chewbecca defense at its finest.
Personally I feel that the Cripps plan made a lot of sense, but different countries have had success with various degrees of decentralization. Nehru got the mix horribly wrong -- over centralization following a british pattern that made no sense in India. He effectively limited local self governance.
Without local power and participation the participants in a democracy have no directly visible stake in democracy.
Nehru’s over centralization had severe detrimental effects on various states India and caused resentment (and separatist movements) against India among a lot of people outside the cow belt.
Most of these organizations developed under or were developed by the British. Nehru
People like Tilak (Kesari-1880) a put in the blood and sacrifices to make journalism in India fiercely independent long before independence.
Here is a list of today’s major papers and when they were founded.
Indian Express - 1931,
The Hindu-1889,
Times Of India - 1938,
Malayala Manorama – 1890
Institutions that were created by the British include:
Civil service, Foreign Service, Judiciary, Army, the Indian Parliamentary system, Indian Railways, IPS, etc.
The institutions had been well established by the time of independence. If anything Nehru weakened these institutions,( for example, by removing the Jury system, by pushing incompetent generals on the basis of their ethnicity, etc). There were also a whole lot of powerful social and some beneficial religious organizations that have slowly withered away because of Nehru’s policies.
I have a pretty low opinion of Guha as a Historian. Your defense of Nehru and Guha’s bias
India was one of the few countries not to be battered by WW2 – it was certainly better off than any other Asian / African country. Its economy got a boost soon after independence due to the Korean War (our industries had an export market), but Nehru’s policies took its toll.
Continuing the rupee to the pound link was a bad idea and hurt the economy, since Britain’s condition was quite different from India’s
Establishing the license Raj killed off a lot of internal investment that India needed to develop its industries.
Over-centralization meant that that govt of India allocated its resources (already limited by the quasi-communist policies of the govt) somewhat badly.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and deserves to be cut a a bit of slack. But to rake Dhoni over the coals for his post when a defense of Nehru has more holes than swiss cheese, is just mean.
Purush @67: nice comment, well stated. Thank you!
I alluded to the role of 'Great Game' strategists in encouraging the formation of Pakistan, and the Cold War in keeping it going, upthread, but you stated it very well.
For people interested in reading more on this issue, especially on the antics that preceded the NWFP assembly voting for Pakistan in mid-1947, the role of Sir Olaf Caroe (then Governor of the NWFP and former Foreign Secretary of British India) (Kush alluded to this episode upthread) - I strongly recommend a recent book by Brobst: The Future of the Great Game. An excerpt is available here.
What I got out of reading the book was a clear sense of the continuity in the policies of the pre-WW-II British and the Cold War US, especially the use of Muslim League politicians pre-independence, along with tribal chiefs etc - all the way to the present Afghan war, and how things might pan out in the future, vis-a-vis 'new' Great Games, involving players all the way from Central Asia to Burma, including China and Russia and etc.
#67 Purush
By following too idealistic and unworkable a path at various stages (after the 1937 pan-India elections to the Provincial Assemblies, on the question of Kashmir, on the question of India's role in the British commonwealth after Independence, etc.), Nehru ensured that the British and Jinnah and the League would be naturally drawn to each other to the detriment of Indian interests, both before and after Independence.
--> Other than on kashmir, what were the other congress leaders doing at the time ? Sucking their thumbs ?
I agree with your contention that Nehru was idealistic and sometimes suggested unworkable ideas but to jump from there to Nehru ensuring closeness between British and Jinnah takes a considerable leap of logic.
#69 DizzyDesi
You are mixing –up leaders. I think you are mixing –up leaders. The leader who kept India together was its pragmatic Home Minister
--> Who happened to be in Nehru's cabinet ? I am sure Indian people, by and large post-independence, voted congress to power on the fact that it was Patel's party.
To me, Nehru and Patel were both good for India whereas they were much weaker by themselves.
Nehru’s accomplishments in unity include: Exacerbating partition (although he was not the prime reason behind this, he certainly played his part)
--> Patel wasnt involved in this ?
So out of the 170+ countries there has been no other choice made? This is Chewbecca defense at its finest.
--> Where did you get the 170+ number ? Werent there lesser countries at the time of Independence ?
Without local power and participation the participants in a democracy have no directly visible stake in democracy.
--> Totally agree. But isnt a country's political culture constantly evolving ? That there was the opportunity to devolve power to the local level was good.
Nehru’s over centralization had severe detrimental effects on various states India and caused resentment (and separatist movements) against India among a lot of people outside the cow belt.
--> Agree even though hindsight allows us a comfortable perch to see what happened.
the freedom of the press and of the judiciary -- the strength of democratic institutions has kept Indian democracy in one piece
Most of these organizations developed under or were developed by the British.
--> Isnt it laughable that British are credited with developing press freedom when they routinely jailed editors of indian newspapers for sedition ? But, if that is how you wish to see it, so be it.
If British developed it, what would it have taken for Nehru, as PM, to crush them ? That he chose to respect their freedoms was in itself good when he could very well gone the way of lots of other post colonialist nations that enforced repression on press freedom after their independence.
The institutions had been well established by the time of independence. If anything Nehru weakened these institutions,( for example, by removing the Jury system, by pushing incompetent generals on the basis of their ethnicity, etc).
--> I didnt know Nehru pushed incompetent generals on the basis of their ethnicity ? Is this relating to the army officer who was in charge of bungling china border ? I am learning new things from your post. I didnt know pre independence India had a jury system. I thought we followed british system of jurisprudence and we didnt have juries ?
There were also a whole lot of powerful social and some beneficial religious organizations that have slowly withered away because of Nehru’s policies.
--> Who were these organizations ?
Hindsight is 20/20.
India had just been cobbled together from some 500 independent princely states. I think it was imperative to form a powerful centre while sacrificing many state rights in order to forestall any backsliding. Also the ills of socialism and the benefits of capitalism wouldn't be really evident until at least a couple of decades after Nehru had passed away. It's indisputable that Nehru was genuinely concerned about the well being of India's poor and he might have been spooked by a free-for-all capitalist society that left the downtrodden behind. Maybe he wasn't a visionary and he certainly was naive in not anticipating that Chinese invasion.
That's right. I'm not sure if he said that in the book. But I have read in his interviews he claims himself to be a "Nehruvian secularist". If you read my earlier comment I remarked that Guha was in love with Nehru.
Nehru was idealistic.. that part is right.. But you can't dismiss everything he thought was unworkable. He was for universal suffrage when the literacy rate was 11%. That worked out very well.. atleast for the lower castes.
Linguistic states are good. Karunanidhi and co. (the DK folks, precursor to DMK) treated Aug 15, 1947 as the day of mourning.. Last week, He was quoting a poem in Hindi to mollify people who got offended by his anti-Ram remarks.. Linguistic states would have happened anyways irrespective of what Nehru thought / did. The fact that it happened with less violence is remarkable.
Actually British-Jinnah collaboration worked well for India.. well, i think everything depends on whether you think partition is good or not. I feel partition is the best thing to have happened to India in many hundreds of years..
The failure of Nehru was not in working diretly to drive the League and the British together, by being too nationalistic or too unrealistic, but instead by his failure to see how his actions in the world of realpolitik were causing the mindset of "my enemy's enemy is my friend" amongst the British and the League/Jinnah. Nehru was the anointed Congress leader, favored by Gandhiji and talked about as the future PM. Posterity in # 73 makes a good point, but the price of leadership is judgement by history.
This is a fair point to raise, and it is possible that one of the reaons why the Cabinet Mission plan envisaged a weak Centre was so that the states and princes could be manipulated, as before, for post-colonial imperial aims, in continuing the Great Game.
But every version of the Cabinet Mission plan has 'Defence, External Affairs, and Communications' allocated to the Centre. I don't think it was even considered from Britain's pov - that the states could run their own foreign affairs or their armies, there being so many of them, it could only be a nightmare. Only the very biggest princely states - Kashmir, Hyderabad could even think in terms of independence and 'neutrality' and 'standstill'. But that was after the Cabinet Mission plan had fallen through, in which they would have come in with the status quo intact.
So among Nehru's misconceptions was the notion that a unitary nation-state in the post-Westphalian Europe mould could fit India as a whole. His failure to recognize the very real role that religion played in people's lives, and his commitment to a socialistic command economy were, of course, two of the others.
Krishnan, can you please learn how to delineate your comments from the ones you are responding to THE RIGHT WAY?!?! Thanks.
#74 Ponniyin Selvan
That's right. I'm not sure if he said that in the book. But I have read in his interviews he claims himself to be a "Nehruvian secularist". If you read my earlier comment I remarked that Guha was in love with Nehru.
--> He covers the effect of bias on him for about a page or so in the beginning and uses it as a reason why he thought this was a good time to start focussing on the path India took after independence. As for him being in love with Nehru, the same tone infected Shashi Tharoor in his invention of india book.
#75 Purush
The failure of Nehru was not in working diretly to drive the League and the British together, by being too nationalistic or too unrealistic, but instead by his failure to see how his actions in the world of realpolitik were causing the mindset of "my enemy's enemy is my friend" amongst the British and the League/Jinnah.
--> I thought Nehru and realpolitik went together like water and oil ?
That said, my opinion is that League/Jinnah and British didnt need a whole lot to drive them together. One was a humbled(and overstretched) power that had used religion as an instrument to divide its indian subjects and the other was a duplicitous politician who used religion to become a head of state. Contrast it with Nehru's antipathy towards religion in general.
#76 chachaji
His failure to recognize the very real role that religion played in people's lives,
--> When he was leader, religion was usually backward-looking and repressive(not that it has improved much). To have instituted reforms in a major religion within a new nation, I would have thought, was an achievement he and Ambedkar would be appreciated for. Instead, we have Nussbaums of the world sloppily giving free pass to (backward looking)religions and targeting leaders who tried to address its inequities in a modern nation.
I would have liked him to have followed the separation of church and state model but that is only in hindsight.
It's one of those str