[Reader-list] Sanjay Kak on Ram Guha's Book

[Pawan Durani]

Asit ,

Before you speak more on Kashmir and compare why Moti Lal Nehru sent Jawahar
Abroad for education , you should be atleast aware when that family migrated
out of Kashmir.

Talk on subject where you have enough knowledge , else you make people
laugh.

Pawan



On 3/10/08, Asit asitreds <asitredsalute at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> justasmall rajoinder if everyone is born equal with equal capacities
> how many dalits, landless labourers and poor kasmiris have madr
> significant contribution like kashmiripandits why doesnt every
> kashmiri gets a barrister degree like jawahar lal nehru the reason is
> simple his father moti lal had the money to send him abroad  why is it
> so that only kasmiripandits excel what is the science behind this
> possibly its a super human race my understaing of socities teach me
> only the elites execel because they have the resources to achiving
> exelllence unless we believe in they are super natural i think this
> has to do about the class postion of kashmiri pandits now the last
> query
> who has the copy right to speak about kashmir
> asit
>
> On 3/9/08, TaraPrakash <taraprakash at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I hope you are not comparing the struggle in Kashmir with that of
> students'
> > revolt in France.
> > In Kashmir, there is one more oppressor which has been given a clean
> chit by
> > the movie in question. The independent voice has been severely oppressed
> by
> > certain Islamic fundamentalist groups. The women have been attacked for
> not
> > adhereing to so-called Islamic code almost foreign to Kashmiri culture.
> The
> > al-qaeda kind zellots have thrown acid on the faces of women for not
> > covering their face in public. Not only Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists and
> > moderate Muslims have been murdered in the past and very often by
> non-state
> > agents.
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Asit asitreds" <asitredsalute at gmail.com>
> > To: "Wali Arifi" <waliarifi3 at gmail.com>
> > Cc: "reader-list" <reader-list at sarai.net>
> > Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2008 2:40 AM
> > Subject: Re: [Reader-list] Sanjay Kak on Ram Guha's Book
> >
> >
> > > though ihavent read ram guhas book but sanjay kaks critiqe is
> brilliant
> > > the problem with  liberal historiography is the author doesnt take a
> > > stand lets not forget the famous dictum of parisian students in 1968
> > > its important from which position you are speaking from the side of
> > > oppressed or the opressor
> > > in this sense sanjay kak has beutifully deconstructed ram guhas
> > > irresponsible nuetrality
> > > asit
> > >
> > > On 3/5/08, Wali Arifi <waliarifi3 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> In continuation of the recent posting of Sanjay Subrahmanyam's review
> of
> > >> India after Gandhi: The History of the World's Largest Democracy
> > >> by Ramachandra Guha · Macmillan, 900 pp, £25.00
> > >>
> > >> ------------------------------------------
> > >>
> > >> A Chronicle for India Shining
> > >>
> > >> by Sanjay Kak
> > >> *
> > >> Biblio* July-August 2007
> > >>
> > >> Ramachandra Guha is among Indias' most visible intellectuals, and his
> > >> newspaper columns and television appearances mark him off from the
> more
> > >> reticent world of academic historians. At 900 pages his new book
> India
> > >> after
> > >> Gandhi is not shy of claiming its own space on the bookshelf: from
> it's
> > >> title page, where it announces itself as "The History of the World's
> > >> Largest
> > >> Democracy" (not A History, mind you, but The History); to it's end
> > >> papers,
> > >> which tells us that the author's entire career seems in retrospect to
> > >> have
> > >> been preparation for the writing of this book.
> > >>
> > >> So first the happy tidings from the back of the book: things in India
> > >> (after
> > >> Gandhi, that is) are overall okay. They could be better, he agrees,
> but
> > >> for
> > >> now we must be satisfied with what the Hindi cinema comic actor Johny
> > >> Walker
> > >> kept us amused with: phiphty-phiphty. For those hungry for a modern
> > >> historical understanding – or even an argued opinion – on 60 years of
> the
> > >> Indian Republic, this piece of dissimulation is an early sign of
> things
> > >> to
> > >> come.
> > >>
> > >> There are some notable features of the paths by which The Historian
> > >> arrives
> > >> at this facile and frivolous conclusion of fifty-fifty. The first is
> that
> > >> all that is troubling and challenging in the short history of this
> > >> republic
> > >> is co-opted into the nationalistic narratives of 'success' and
> 'victory',
> > >> turning our very wounds into badges of honour. "At no other time or
> place
> > >> in
> > >> human history" he says, "have social conflicts been so richly
> diverse, so
> > >> vigorously articulated, so eloquently manifest in art and literature,
> or
> > >> addressed with such directness by the political system and the
> media".
> > >>
> > >> I can think of at least five issues that have bedeviled India all the
> way
> > >> from 1947 which simply fail this assertion: Kashmir, Manipur,
> Nagaland,
> > >> Naxalism, and of course, Dalit rights. These are at the head of a
> very
> > >> long
> > >> list which seriously challenge Guhas' assertion that the Indian
> nation
> > >> has
> > >> been successful at even addressing conflicts, leave alone dealing or
> > >> managing them. I use the word 'successful' here because justice has
> not
> > >> even
> > >> appeared on the horizon on most of these fronts.
> > >>
> > >> Right at the outset of the book he lets us know that the real success
> > >> story
> > >> of modern India lies "not in the domain of economics, but in that of
> > >> politics". So it's not the software boom that he offers for approval,
> but
> > >> Indias' political success as a democracy. Politics for him is, in the
> > >> main,
> > >> narrowly defined, and remains the domain of parliamentary politics.
> From
> > >> Prologue to Epilogue, Guha vicariously digs out every negative
> prediction
> > >> ever made for India's future as a democracy, and then since India has
> had
> > >> elections for 50 years, turns it into a vindication of it's
> democracy.
> > >>
> > >> No surprise then, that it's the romance of the Indian elections for
> which
> > >> he
> > >> reserves his unqualified enthusiasm. Every General Election since
> 1951 is
> > >> celebrated in tourist-brochure speak, so by 1967, elections no longer
> are
> > >> a
> > >> "top-dressing on inhospitable soil", they are "part of Indian life, a
> > >> festival with it's own set of rituals, enacted every five years". As
> > >> evidence we are offered statistics of large turnouts, and accounts of
> > >> colourful posters and slogans. By the 1971 polls, the logistics are
> > >> offered
> > >> in giddy detail: "342,944 polling stations, each station with
> forty-three
> > >> different items, from ballot papers and boxes to indelible ink and
> > >> sealing
> > >> wax; 282 million ballot papers printed, 7 million more than were
> > >> needed…".
> > >>
> > >> To so easily substitute 'election' for 'democracy', to be preoccupied
> > >> with
> > >> the procedural – rather than the substantive¬ – aspects of democracy,
> and
> > >> indeed of politics, is conceptually problematic, and not a mistake
> any
> > >> serious scholar of politics would make. The obsession with
> parliamentary
> > >> democracy, with its first-past-the-post, winner-takes-all bias, also
> > >> means
> > >> that descriptions of India's recent political history remain here
> focused
> > >> on
> > >> those in Parliamentary Power, and at best, those in Parliamentary
> > >> Opposition. But when he has to deal with the more fundamental
> questions
> > >> raised about Indian democracy from outside of this, by the Naxalites
> in
> > >> the
> > >> 1960s, or by Jaya Prakash Narayan and Sampoorn Kranti in the 1970s,
> or
> > >> indeed the Narmada Bachao Andolan in the 1990s, Guha seems to lose
> his
> > >> way,
> > >> and his enthusiasm for 'politics' is more subdued.
> > >>
> > >> A second clue as to how he reaches here seems to lie in methodology,
> and
> > >> Guha explicitly states his: to privilege primary sources over
> > >> retrospective
> > >> readings, and "thus to interpret an event of, say, 1957, in terms of
> what
> > >> is
> > >> known in 1957, rather than 2007". One of the reasons he cites for
> this is
> > >> the paucity in India of a good history of India after Gandhi: by
> training
> > >> and temperament, he says of Indian historians, they have "restricted
> > >> themselves to the period before Independence". So combine this
> ascribed
> > >> lack
> > >> of historical interest with Guhas' own stated preference for
> 'primary'
> > >> sources: together they lay out before him a vast – and clearly
> > >> unchallenged
> > >> – canvas.
> > >>
> > >> This is a curious methodological assertion. With the exception of
> some
> > >> primary sources (and some first-time sources, like the PN Haksar
> papers)
> > >> the
> > >> bulk of the book seems to draw upon the excellent work of at least
> two
> > >> generations of historians and social scientists. The copious Notes at
> the
> > >> back of the book happily acknowledge at least some of this to be so.
> With
> > >> the work before us of Sumit Sarkar, Partho Chatterjee, Rajni Kothari,
> > >> Tanika
> > >> Sarkar, Yogendra Yadav, Zoya Hassan, Christopher Jafferlot (amongst
> > >> others),
> > >> why does Guha pronounce this area to be a tabula rasa, one that this
> book
> > >> alone bravely sets out to fill?
> > >>
> > >> Ramchandra Guha's earlier book on Verrier Elwin was proof of his
> > >> dexterous
> > >> use of archival material, and over the years his newspaper columns
> have
> > >> been
> > >> rich with his joyful – even eccentric¬ – use of the archive. Here too
> he
> > >> locates some nuggets, which its sources may now well want returned to
> the
> > >> darkness of the archive. In 1944, the Bombay Plan, mooted by a group
> of
> > >> leading industrialists, making a case for 'an enlargement of the
> positive
> > >> functions of the State', going so far as to say that 'the distinction
> > >> between capitalism and socialism has lost much of it's significance
> from
> > >> a
> > >> practical standpoint'. In 1966, as groups of Mizo National Front
> rebels
> > >> appear ready to storm at least two towns in Mizoram, the strafing of
> > >> Lungleh
> > >> by the air force, the first time that air power had been used by the
> > >> Indian
> > >> State against it's own citizens. Or in 1977 India's favourite
> > >> businessman,
> > >> JRD Tata, speaking to a foreign journalist during the dark days of
> the
> > >> Emergency, finding that things had gone too far, adding that 'The
> > >> parliamentary system is not suited to our needs'.
> > >>
> > >> But this history by bricolage inevitably ends up with embarrassingly
> > >> ahistoric conclusions. For example, to bolster his own naïve view
> that
> > >> "Rural India was pervaded by an air of timelessness" at the time of
> > >> Independence, he quotes a British official writing in an official
> > >> publication in 1944: 'there is the same plainness of life, the same
> > >> wrestling with uncertainties of climate… the same love of simple
> games,
> > >> sport and songs, the same neighbourly helpfulness…" I don't doubt
> that
> > >> this
> > >> qualifies as 'contemporary narrative', but surely even within the
> > >> impoverished state of Indian social science that Guha seems to
> encounter,
> > >> he
> > >> has heard of enough respectable scholarship, that contests – and even
> > >> confounds – this static image of the "Indian" countryside? The
> peasant
> > >> rebellions, the tribal movements, the caste conflicts?
> > >>
> > >> What this often results in is a naïve – even absurd – acceptance of
> what
> > >> is
> > >> described to us by the privileged 'contemporary narrative'. "Living
> away
> > >> from home helped expand the mind, as in the case of a farm labourer
> from
> > >> UP
> > >> who became a factory worker in Bombay and learnt to love the city's
> > >> museums,
> > >> its collections of Gandhara art especially". This is no doubt true
> for
> > >> this
> > >> exceptional individual, but does this aid our understanding of the
> > >> processes
> > >> of rural deprivation and urbanization that translate into the journey
> > >> from
> > >> village in Uttar Pradesh to textile factory in Mumbai? (And where did
> > >> that
> > >> worker go, refined sensibilities and all, once the textile mills
> began to
> > >> shut down in the 1980s?)
> > >>
> > >> And when Nehru formally inaugurates the Bhakra dam in 1954, "for 150
> > >> miles
> > >> the boisterous celebration spread like a chain reaction along the
> great
> > >> canal…" Because Guha is committed to understanding 1954 in its own
> terms,
> > >> we're often left just there, in 1954, without the illuminating oxygen
> of
> > >> contemporary scholarship on the Bhakra dam and its consequences, for
> both
> > >> the people displaced by the dam (still without re-settlement 50 years
> on)
> > >> or
> > >> for the land and waters of Punjab (now feeling the ill effects of the
> > >> massive hydraulic meddling and its handmaiden, the 'Green
> Revolution'.)
> > >> At
> > >> such moments we must be forgiven for feeling that we are rifling
> through
> > >> the
> > >> brittle pages of an official, sarkari history of India.
> > >>
> > >> Where official archives and histories don't exist, the excessive –
> and
> > >> selective –reliance on newspapers and journals seems even less
> > >> convincing.
> > >> Who amongst us has not read the newspaper of the day about an issue
> or
> > >> event
> > >> that we know about and understand, and not despaired at the errors
> and
> > >> biases inherent? Who amongst us has not shuddered at the thought of
> some
> > >> future historian trawling the pages of the Times of India and the
> Indian
> > >> Express and forming a narrative of what is happening in India in
> 2007?
> > >>
> > >> Through the book, Guha's writing on Kashmir, for example, is peppered
> > >> with
> > >> insights from a journal called Thought, apparently published out of
> > >> Delhi.
> > >> Forgive me, but what was Thought? Insights extracted from such
> narratives
> > >> can be useful to the historian, but also highly problematic, unless
> we
> > >> can
> > >> contextualize them, compare them with other assessments, and
> understand
> > >> the
> > >> nature of the biases we are dealing with. Otherwise we are simply
> left
> > >> with
> > >> arbitrary assessments of shaky provenance: in1965, of Lal Bahadur
> > >> Shastri,
> > >> second Prime Minister of India, who gets a positive appraisal by the
> > >> Guardian newspapers' Delhi correspondent, as well as a condescending
> > >> exchange of letters between two ex-ICS men: "I can't imagine Shastri
> has
> > >> the
> > >> stature to hold things together... What revolting times we live in!"
> > >>
> > >> Guhas' selective dependence on 'contemporary' narratives, and his
> > >> distaste
> > >> of politics that is not 'parliamentary' comes through most clearly in
> his
> > >> treatment of Jaya Prakash Narayan. He musters the following: RK
> Patil, a
> > >> former ICS officer who asks of JP: "What is the scope of Satyagraha
> and
> > >> direct action in a formal democracy like ours…? By demanding the
> > >> dismissal
> > >> of a duly elected assembly, argued Patil, the Bihar agitation is both
> > >> unconstitutional and undemocratic". To this Guha adds the opinions of
> the
> > >> "eminent Quaker" Joe Elder, who hectors JP on launching a mass
> movement
> > >> "without a cadre of disciplined non-violent volunteers". And finally,
> > >> Indira
> > >> Gandhi herself, who dismisses JP as a "political naif… who would have
> > >> been
> > >> better off sticking to social work." With such a slanted set of
> > >> 'contemporary' narratives, it's no surprise who Guha is able to pin
> the
> > >> blame on for the tumult of those years, asserting that the honours
> for
> > >> imposing the Emergency should henceforth be equally shared between
> Indira
> > >> Gandhi and Jaya Prakash Narayan!
> > >>
> > >> For the first 600 pages of his chronicle, Guha piles up the bricks
> and
> > >> artifacts of this structure sort of chronologically, 1947 through to
> > >> 1987.
> > >> Then quite arbitrarily he announces a change in tack, moving from
> > >> 'history'
> > >> to 'historically informed journalism'. He approvingly cites the
> > >> thirty-year
> > >> rule of archives, adding grandly, that as a historian "one also needs
> a
> > >> generation's distance. That much time must elapse before one can
> place
> > >> those
> > >> events in a pattern, to see them away and apart, away from the din
> and
> > >> clamour of the present".
> > >> The claim of 'history' and 'historically informed journalism' is at
> once
> > >> too
> > >> strong for either section of the book. Because if indeed the section
> from
> > >> 1987 onwards is 'historically informed' then shouldn't history
> actually
> > >> inform our understanding? Should this method not prepare us for some
> > >> things:
> > >> the emergence of the non-Congress governments; of Kanshi Ram-Mayawati
> and
> > >> the BSP; for Liberalisation and India's relationship with the
> > >> International
> > >> Financial Institutions? Why then does each of these appear on the
> horizon
> > >> of
> > >> this book fully formed, with no lead-ins or alerts?
> > >>
> > >> The relentless, even plodding attempt at being comprehensive, and the
> > >> dizzying collation of disparate facts, seems to tire Guha out too,
> and
> > >> then
> > >> his usually elegant prose begins to flag, and the ideas it carries
> become
> > >> tedious, eventually grinding down to a sort-of Year Book listing of
> > >> significant facts and figures, people and events. In a chapter called
> > >> 'Rights' (and which in news-magazine style is followed by sections
> called
> > >> 'Riots', 'Rulers' and 'Riches'), a brief 28 pages races us through
> Caste,
> > >> the Mandal Commission and Dalit assertion; and an update on the
> conflicts
> > >> in
> > >> Assam, Punjab, Kashmir, Manipur, and Nagaland! But wait, there is
> also
> > >> demography and gender – in a single paragraph that begins with "there
> was
> > >> also a vigorous feminist movement" and then deals with the women's
> > >> movement
> > >> in 15 lines. Tribal rights fares a little better than Women's rights
> (or
> > >> perhaps worse, I'd say fifty-fifty): it just crosses a page, much of
> it
> > >> about the Narmada Bachao Andolan, where the 18 year old history of
> the
> > >> Andolan is reduced to it's leader, "a woman named Medha Patkar", who
> we
> > >> are
> > >> told, "organized the tribals in a series of colourful marches… to
> demand
> > >> justice from the mighty government of India". And then, "The leader
> > >> herself
> > >> engaged in several long fasts to draw attention to the sufferings of
> her
> > >> flock".
> > >>
> > >> This is India's most well-known non-violent resistance movement,
> engaged
> > >> in
> > >> articulating the largest internal displacement in our recent history,
> and
> > >> in
> > >> case you had missed anything, it's her flock. Without prejudice to
> either
> > >> Vogue or Cosmopolitan, this condescension could probably never even
> make
> > >> it
> > >> to their pages, and defies belief in a work of history written in the
> > >> 21st
> > >> century. Apart from the fact that the NBA is only one of the hundreds
> of
> > >> people's resistance movements in India, many of whom are in the front
> > >> ranks
> > >> of the struggle against neo-imperialism.
> > >>
> > >> Quite early in the book, in assessing the historian KN Pannikar's
> > >> opinions
> > >> of Mao Zedong, Guha reminds us that "Intellectuals have always had a
> > >> curious
> > >> fascination for the man of power". He then puts on display his own
> > >> unseemly
> > >> fascination with Power, with History from Above. (With a few
> exceptions,
> > >> even the small selection of haphazardly organized pictures in the
> first
> > >> edition of the book seems fixated by the man – or woman – of power,
> from
> > >> Lord Mountbatten to Amitabh Bachhan.) This I suppose is symptomatic,
> this
> > >> disinterest, even condescension, towards the fragile and powerless,
> and
> > >> this
> > >> is what finally prevents his version of history from illuminating our
> > >> times.
> > >> Because the powerless may not always be so, and 'historically
> informed
> > >> journalism' would need to tell us what brought Laloo Prasad Yadav,
> and
> > >> Mayawati to us. Even what preceded Medha Patkar and the Narmada
> Bachao
> > >> Andolan. (What forms of Adivasi and other organization made their
> > >> movement
> > >> possible? And what in its turn did the NBA make possible, not in the
> > >> struggle against large dams alone, but in creating a climate in which
> the
> > >> resistance to SEZs can be contemplated today?)
> > >>
> > >> For in the privileging of the 'primary', the question is, what are
> your
> > >> 'primary' sources? Will they be restricted to the libraries of the
> India
> > >> Office, London and the Nehru Memorial, New Delhi, or are they going
> to go
> > >> beyond? Will we, for example, look at Urdu papers in Srinagar (and
> > >> Muzafarabad) to understand what was happening in Kashmir from 1947 to
> > >> 1987?
> > >> Will we look at Dalit Hindi language little magazines to understand
> the
> > >> phenomenon of Kanshi Ram and Mayawati? Because if we don't do that,
> The
> > >> History of the World's Largest Democracy – like the Indian State –
> will
> > >> continually be surprised by the events and consequences of the day to
> day
> > >> history of the little in this country.
> > >>
> > >> In the past, however arguable his ideas, Guhas' prose has been highly
> > >> readable. But here, hobbled by some Herculean compulsions to be
> > >> comprehensive, to reduce everything down to the manageable scale of
> one
> > >> grand narrative, ambition eventually does damage to his book.
> Impatient
> > >> with
> > >> the increasingly workmanlike narrative, but determined to see it to
> it's
> > >> end, I found myself drifting into marginalia: for example Guha's
> peculiar
> > >> obsession with certain kinds of academic pedigree. Jawaharlal Nehru
> was
> > >> of
> > >> course a "student at Cambridge", and so was the "Cambridge educated
> > >> physicist" Homi Bhabha. Krishna Menon and P N Haksar are identically
> > >> "educated at the London School of Economics". P C Mahalanobis is "a
> > >> Cambridge-trained physicist and statistician, Saif Tyabji too is "an
> > >> engineer educated at Cambridge", and of course, Manmohan Singh has
> > >> "written
> > >> a Oxford D Phil thesis". I'm then curious as to the reasons why the
> same
> > >> insight is not provided to us for Acharya Kriplani, Ram Manohar
> Lohia,
> > >> Shiekh Abdullah, Zakir Hussain; or for Indira Gandhi, Kanshi Ram,
> > >> Mayawati,
> > >> or even Medha Patkar? Of course, BR Ambedkar makes it, because he has
> > >> "doctorates from Columbia and London University". Jagjiwan Ram
> scrapes
> > >> through because he is the first Harijan from his village to go to
> High
> > >> School, and then onto Benares Hindu University. (Equal Opportunity in
> the
> > >> New Republic!) Kamaraj doesn't, but he does get a fuller description:
> "K
> > >> Kamaraj… born in a low-caste family in the Tamil country… was a
> thick-set
> > >> man with a white mustache… he looked like a cross between Sonny
> Liston
> > >> and
> > >> the Walrus". I looked in vain for an equally entertaining description
> of
> > >> former President APJ Abdul Kalam.
> > >>
> > >> If these obsessions with pedigree were the only things impeding my
> > >> reading
> > >> of the book, there would be little to worry about. But armed with the
> > >> dangerous licence of 'historically informed journalism' for the
> crucial
> > >> last
> > >> two decades of his book, he seems at liberty to comment without even
> the
> > >> minimum disciplines of 'history'. To take one example, he draws
> together
> > >> what he thinks of as "the two critical events that… defined the epoch
> of
> > >> competitive fundamentalisms: the destruction of the Babri Masjid and
> the
> > >> exodus of the Kashmiri Pandits" (from Kashmir). He then goes on to
> make
> > >> the
> > >> astonishing comment: "Would one trust a state that could not honour
> its
> > >> commitment to protect an ancient place of worship? Would one trust a
> > >> community that so brutally expelled those of a different faith?"
> Neither
> > >> needs to be established, both are stated as a priori facts.
> > >>
> > >> He sees a striking similarity between the two pogroms he acknowledges
> in
> > >> independent India: that directed at the Sikhs in Delhi in 1984 and at
> the
> > >> Muslims of south Gujarat in 2002. "Both began as a response to a
> single,
> > >> stray act of violence committed by members of the minority community.
> > >> Both
> > >> proceeded to take a generalized revenge on the minorities as a
> whole".
> > >> Guha
> > >> is careful to quickly wipe his sleeve, and draw attention to the
> > >> innocence
> > >> of the victims, but I do wish he had shared with us what was the
> "single,
> > >> stray act of violence" committed by minority Muslims in Gujarat?
> After
> > >> all,
> > >> the jury on the terrible burning of the train in Godhra is still out,
> is
> > >> it
> > >> not?
> > >> At another point he describes the protests against the acquisition of
> > >> land
> > >> by the Tatas in Kalinganagar, Orissa, where in the first week of
> 2006, "a
> > >> group of tribals demolished the boundary wall provoking the police to
> > >> open
> > >> fire. The tribals placed the bodies of these martyrs on the highway
> and
> > >> held
> > >> up traffic for a week ". How does he establish who was provoking
> whom,
> > >> and
> > >> how?
> > >>
> > >> Or what can explain his saying, about the aftermath of Sant Harchand
> > >> Singh
> > >> Longowals' killing, in Punjab in 1988: "The sant's assassination was
> a
> > >> harbinger of things to come with a new generation of terrorists
> taking up
> > >> the struggle for Khalistan". I carefully looked over at least a dozen
> > >> references to the troubles in the Punjab in his book, there are never
> > >> Militants, always "Terrorists".
> > >> The point of bringing together these instances is simply to underline
> the
> > >> inherently establishment nature of the positions taken by Ramachandra
> > >> Guha's
> > >> History. This sometimes leads him to places the intelligent reporter
> –
> > >> leave
> > >> alone the historian – would not want to be stuck in. About the early
> > >> 1990s
> > >> in Kashmir he says: "As the valley came to resemble a zone of
> occupation,
> > >> popular sentiment rallied to the jihadi cause. Terrorists mingled
> easily
> > >> with the locals, and were given refuge beforeor after their actions".
> > >> Once
> > >> again: hugely contested words like 'Jehadi' and 'Terrorist', which
> > >> scholars
> > >> the world over are cracking their brains over, slip off like the
> slipshod
> > >> words of television anchors.
> > >>
> > >> And finally, on the difficulties of nurturing secularism in India in
> the
> > >> aftermath of Partition, Guha says: "The creation of an Islamic state
> on
> > >> India's borders was a provocation to those Hindus who themselves
> wished
> > >> to
> > >> merge faith with state". Does one need to repeat here that the RSS,
> with
> > >> its
> > >> fascist ideology borrowed directly from Mussolini, and it's ideal of
> a
> > >> Hindu-rashtra, was set up in 1925, and long preceded the idea of the
> > >> Islamic
> > >> State of Pakistan. But Guha dives in head first: "My own view –
> speaking
> > >> as
> > >> a historian rather than citizen – is that as long as Pakistan exists
> > >> there
> > >> will be Hindu fundamentalists in India". Can such a completely
> ahistoric
> > >> assertion make its place into a history? And then remain unchallenged
> by
> > >> historians, commentators and reviewers in the India of 2007?
> > >>
> > >> Incredibly, in the last few pages of the book, Guha does admit that
> only
> > >> in
> > >> three-quarters of the "total land mass claimed by the Indian nation"
> does
> > >> the elected government enjoy a legitimacy of power and authority, and
> > >> only
> > >> here do they feel themselves to be part of a single nation. How then
> does
> > >> this admission that in a quarter of the World's Largest Democracy
> people
> > >> are
> > >> substantially alienated from the Nation sit with his insistence on
> > >> phiphty-phiphty? At what point will our historians ring the alarm
> bells?
> > >> When Half the nation is holding the Other Half by force? When it
> really
> > >> reaches fifty-fifty?
> > >>
> > >> From the books' well-publicised entry into the world we learn that
> the
> > >> author has spent the last eight years working on it. I too seem to
> have
> > >> coincidentally spent the same years ruminating on the World's Largest
> > >> Democracy, not as a historian, but as a film-maker, and not with the
> > >> grand
> > >> purpose of this book for certain, but just fishing in it's troubled
> > >> margins:
> > >> first in the Narmada valley, and then in Kashmir. Like many others
> who
> > >> are
> > >> somewhat bewildered at events around us, and have failed to join in
> the
> > >> celebration of democracy this August, the book is an important
> marker. It
> > >> demands to be read seriously, and it's flaws and omissions ask to be
> > >> taken
> > >> seriously by us. Because, in our tumultuous times, when change is
> fast
> > >> forcing all of us to choose sides, fifty-fifty has to be seen as too
> > >> cautious an answer, so safe as to translate into an almost
> mathematically
> > >> calibrated cowardice.
> > >>
> > >> What then does the book represent? It's timed for the celebrations of
> the
> > >> 60th year of Indian Independence, and arrives amidst the giddy
> hosannas
> > >> to
> > >> India's success as a democracy, and our newly unfolding status as an
> > >> emerging economic power. The recent enthusiasm to burnish our
> 'shining'
> > >> democracy is, as we all know, tightly tied in with the desire to set
> > >> India
> > >> up as a next destination of global capital. (Essentially, India 1,
> China
> > >> 0).
> > >> So the grinding poverty, the dispossession, the cruelty and
> oppression
> > >> are
> > >> made charming, and discord and chaos is turned into a tribute to our
> > >> democratic credentials. For all the book's sophistry then,
> Ramachandra
> > >> Guha
> > >> emerges as the chronicler of India Shining. In this season where we
> > >> celebrate Indian democracy, surely a reassuring book to pass on to
> CEOs
> > >> and
> > >> investors at the next Davos.
> > >>
> > >> (*Sanjay Kak is an independent documentary film-maker, whose recent
> film
> > >> Jashn-e-Azadi (How we celebrate freedom) is about the idea of freedom
> in
> > >> Kashmir, and the degrees of freedom in India*.)
> > >> _________________________________________
> > >> reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
> > >> Critiques & Collaborations
> > >> To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with
> > >> subscribe in the subject header.
> > >> To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
> > >> List archive: &lt;https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>
> > > _________________________________________
> > > reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
> > > Critiques & Collaborations
> > > To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with
> > > subscribe in the subject header.
> > > To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
> > > List archive: &lt;https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>
> >
> >
> _________________________________________
> reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
> Critiques & Collaborations
> To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with
> subscribe in the subject header.
> To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
> List archive: &lt;https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>