[Reader-list] Sanjay Kak on Ram Guha's Book
Aditya Raj Kaul
kauladityaraj at gmail.com
Mon Mar 10 13:07:27 IST 2008
Asit,
Kindly send a single mail at a time. Your one mail after other in a chain
that too one liners are too bugging and don't make an e-mail sense. Hope you
understand.
Regards
On 3/10/08, Asit asitreds <asitredsalute at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> class caste and gender difference is a lived reality in india one
> doesnt need a specialist knowledge to know this common truth and
> common sense this applies to kashmir also
> asit
>
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 11:44 AM, Asit asitreds <asitredsalute at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > well is a universal reality this a very common knowledge and commonsense
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 10:16 AM, Pawan Durani <pawan.durani at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > 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.netwith
> > > > > >> subscribe in the subject header.
> > > > > >> To unsubscribe:
> https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
> > > > > >> List archive:
> <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.netwith
> > > > > > subscribe in the subject header.
> > > > > > To unsubscribe:
> https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
> > > > > > List archive:
> <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: <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: <https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>
More information about the reader-list
mailing list