[Reader-list] ARUNDHATI - PUBLICITY HUNGER

[Aditya Raj Baul]

Thinkers and Tinkers

by Mihir S Sharma
Posted online: Sat Oct 30 2010, 09:58 hrs
http://www.indianexpress.com/story-print/704748/

Book: Makers of Modern India
Edited and Introduced by Ramachandra Guha
Viking/Pages: 549/Price: Rs 799

Ramachandra Guha is, quite evidently, a man dissatisfied. He is
displeased that our politicians are not as well-read nor, in his
opinion, thinkers as profound as those who preceded them. He is
disgruntled at the dominance of Bengalis in the social sciences, and
thus the dominance of Bengal in the narrative of modern India. He is
dismayed that modernists seem to have died out among our
“thinker-activists”. And he is deeply discontented with the
stranglehold on India’s 20th century historiography of a telling of
our past that owes much to a Congress-CPI view of the world, one he
would view as insufficiently liberal.

Since he is also a man of considerable energy, Guha has attempted to
outline and correct these great wrongs. With Makers of Modern India,
his readers will understand why he will not succeed.

Over 500 or so pages, Guha excerpts the speeches and writings of 19 of
India’s influential leaders and thinkers. His aim, he says, is to
produce an understanding of the diversity of Indian political debate;
and to demonstrate that this country is unique in having those who
most shaped its history also “write most authoritatively about it”. A
statement classically Guha-esque, in that it is baldly claimed in the
first line, and then followed a little later by an explanation as to
why it isn’t completely true.

It isn’t true, of course, because not all of India’s most accomplished
and powerful politicians meet Guha’s standards as thinkers. He does
attempt to explain some of his exclusions: Subhas Chandra Bose and
Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, he argues, were not original thinkers;
Indira Gandhi was known primarily for her actions; S. Radhakrishnan
and Aurobindo, conversely, principally for their writing. A reasoning
that appears defensible until one notices that Guha doesn’t bother to
apply it. C. Rajagopalachari, for example, beloved of economic
liberals, receives a section in which he argues persuasively and
eloquently for free-market principles, against one-party dominance,
for electoral reform. Not a word comes across as less than well
considered; not a word, equally, appears “original”, rather than an
excellently argued restatement of common tropes. And yet, confusingly,
Guha excludes all Marxists for doing precisely that.

Meanwhile, the RSS’ M.S. Golwalkar is included, with a ranting speech
that sounds as if it could have been delivered yesterday in Pilibhit,
laden with conspiracy theories about missionaries and Muslims
poisoning ponds with beef to entrap honest Hindus into converting.
“What this particular ‘Maker’ lost by way of intellectual
sophistication he perhaps made up by way of social and political
influence,” argues Guha, blithely undermining his stated standard of
“subtlety of argument”.

Carping about who these 19 thinkers are is not a petty enterprise. It
is, in fact, the only reasonable response to this book, for two
reasons. First, there is nothing of Guha in this book other than the
choice, and his defence of it. The little, Wikipedia-esque,
biographical sketches of each of the 19 are less portraits than
caricatures. (B.R. Ambedkar gets three small paragraphs.) Few of the
excerpts are provided with context more than a line or two; nor does
Guha consistently address his choice of excerpt: is it representative?
Particularly well-argued? Particularly erudite? Particularly relevant?
We are left to guess. What remains, therefore, of original work here,
is the act of list-making, like a grad-school drinking game. (“Name 15
non-Bengali thinkers, quick!”)

The second reason why these choices matter is that Guha is
self-consciously trying to create a new Indian political theory, a new
Indian political story, one that sets itself apart from and in
opposition to the court histories that most students in our
universities still read. But in the incoherence of his choices here,
and in the 1,000 or so pages of India After Gandhi, it is clear that,
however noble an aim, this is one thing Guha will not manage.
Liberalism, one assumes, is more than merely a diversity of views; a
liberal re-telling of Indian history must be more than what Guha
manages to provide.

Yes, an intellectual magpie, collecting bright, sparkly facts, he is
always an enjoyable read. (Who else will tell you that E.M. Forster
imagined that a Voltaire alive in the 1950s would decide that only
Jawaharlal Nehru among world leaders was worth corresponding with?)
But magpies are hoarders, not jewellers, and here, as with India After
Gandhi, the bright sparkly facts are not strung together at all. There
is no alternative narrative to be embraced. Unsurprisingly, one friend
of mine complained to me last week that he can’t finish a Guha book —
he has to go out and buy Bipan Chandra to “get a complete picture”. If
that’s not a failure of Guha’s larger liberal project, what is?

Broken though their setting, some of the excerpts do indeed shine.
Nehru, of course, is always rewarding to read, his clarity and
humanism calming. Mahatma Gandhi, in the breadth and uniqueness of his
concerns, is perplexing, disturbing, moving, infuriating, and
constantly surprising. (At the end of an argument for temple-entry for
Dalits, he casually urges technical education for them, too.)
Rammanohar Lohia’s invective is delightful, making one pity Sharad
Yadav his constraints; and if Ambedkar is ill-served by Guha’s chosen
extracts, Periyar makes up for that, with four pieces of sustained,
wonderful radicalism. He tears into religion, of course, with one
passage mocking the cost of a trip to Tirupati. But he also speaks for
contraception, widows’ rights and against marriage.

As Periyar’s and Gandhi’s writings show, three things can be said of
many of our reformers and thinkers. We don’t know enough of what they
said; they were unafraid of radicalism; and much of what they say
resounds as sadly relevant still. This is perhaps most obvious with
Rammohan Roy, a man ahead not only of his time but very probably of
ours. Here, decades before the Congress, more than a century before
the Constitution, is a polite petition for press freedom, stating
unapologetically that Calcuttans should be “justified in boasting”
that “they are secured in the enjoyment of the same civil and
religious privileges that every Briton is entitled to in England”.
Here, decades before Macaulay, is a furious letter to the
governor-general, prompted by state funding for a Sanskrit school in
Calcutta: “The Sangscrit language... is well known to have been for
ages a lamentable check on the diffusion of knowledge, and the
learning concealed under the almost impervious veil is far from
sufficient to reward the labour of acquiring it.” Perhaps we’re not
Macaulay-vadis but Rammohanvadis? I wouldn’t mind.

Reminding us of the many ideas that shaped us is a worthy cause,
undoubtedly, for Indian liberalism’s intellectual standard-bearer. For
that standard to advance, though, we are forced to expect much, much
more.

On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 4:08 PM, Rajkamal Goswami
<rajkamalgoswami at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey Aalok
>
> Dont get so freaked man. It just happened that I didn't want to assume
> in this case, and its my general principle that I refrain myself from
> assuming, more so specially when I wish to rip apart someone. I have
> neither any issues with people's mediocre expression skill/knowledge
> of human language nor do I judge anyone based on their writing skills.
> I myself am far from efficient in English. And if you care, skills,
> efficiency, proficiency expertise are all gauged on a relative scale.
> So please don't freak out for things which I didn't mean.
>
> rajkamal
>
> On 10/31/10, Aalok Aima <aalok.aima at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> rajkamal
>>
>> he certainly meant "cheap publicity" and it is surprising that you need that
>> clarified
>>
>> maybe you are not aware that there are many many millions from india who are
>> not proficient in english grammar and spellings ...... quite often they are
>> likely to use the phonetics of the alphabet when they write in english
>> ...... spellings might go awry but they manage to express themselves
>>
>> there is an unfortunate tendency in some to criticise or blatantly make fun
>> of or subtly poke fun at those people who's accent, annunciation or
>> spellings in the english language do not meet their standards
>>
>> .......... aalok aima
>>
>> --- On Sun, 10/31/10, Rajkamal Goswami <rajkamalgoswami at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> From: Rajkamal Goswami <rajkamalgoswami at gmail.com>
>> Subject: Re: [Reader-list] ARUNDHATI - PUBLICITY HUNGER
>> To: "Bipin Trivedi" <aliens at dataone.in>
>> Cc: "sarai-list" <reader-list at sarai.net>
>> Date: Sunday, October 31, 2010, 11:58 AM
>>
>>
>> Dear Trivediji,
>>
>> "she is just after negative and chip publicity"
>>
>> I wish to strongly contradict this view of yours. But before I do that
>> can you explain what do you mean by 'chip; here?
>>
>> Rajkamal
>>
>> On 10/31/10, Bipin Trivedi <aliens at dataone.in> wrote:
>>> Guha says, "She's crazy. Arundhati Roy has become a joke, a publicity
>>> fiend," Guha told Bangalore Mirror. "She hops from cause to cause, and
>>> just
>>> look at the company she's keeping ... the likes of Syed Ali Shah Geelani,
>>> an
>>> ultimate bigot who wants to keep women in purdah and bring in an Islamic
>>> theocracy."
>>>
>>> While posting maoist topic discussion read my view on Arundhati as under:
>>> (1) When asked the question to Arundhati that most of people hate your
>>> views
>>> and writing and believe your thought impractical. She replies, if whole of
>>> India hate me I have to believe I am wrong. Then why you waiting for,
>>> understand this and come back from your wrong belief now. This proves that
>>> she is just after negative and chip publicity. (2) Even government wants
>>> Arundhati to be mediator between the government and maoist, but she
>>> denies.
>>> This is also creates doubt on her sincerity. What I think, she wants just
>>> mere publicity out of this and wants to create a show that she worried of
>>> tribal! By that way, she wants to increase sale of her books and reader
>>> audience.
>>>
>>> Same thing applicable now also. Kashmir problem is there since almost
>>> after
>>> independence and its intensity increased since 2 decades, but I have not
>>> heard any comment earlier for this issue. So, why now? She always remain
>>> of
>>> search of current hot topics and sensitized it to catch attention of media
>>> just for mere chip publicity. Dear Tara, you are right, after her shared
>>> stage with crook Geelani, many like you became her critics.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Bipin Trivedi
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _________________________________________
>>> 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/>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Rajkamal
>> _________________________________________
>> 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/>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Rajkamal
> _________________________________________
> 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/>