' On the last day of March 1959 the Dalai Lama crossed the McMahon Line into India..... Three weeks later he was taken to New Delhi to meet the prime minister himself'
The pressures on the Nehru government continued internally and with the advent of Dalai Lama's asylum in India the deteriorating relationship with China became more complex.
The period was turbulent, there was a conflict between General Thimmayya and his defense minister Krishna Menon, continuing problems in Punjab and Nagaland, the anti-Bengali riots in Assam and Hindu Muslim riots in Jabalpur.
Visitors to India such as Aldous Huxley were concerned with 'the prospect of over-population, unemployment, growing unrest' and found that 'India is almost infinitely depressing'.
The period 1960-61, while a bitter debate raged in India about the dispute with China on the border issues, Nehru's government decided to 'liberate' Goa by force. It was perceived as a ploy to help Krishna Menon in his election campaign in Bombay. Krishna Menon was elected from North Bombay
thanks to Nehru's support and Goa's liberation. In the general election of 62, the Congress comfortably retained its majority.
The debate continued about threats from China. Then China attacked India in September and stopped the border war unilaterally on Nov 22. While it is interesting to speculate on the war, the border war underlined the Chinese superiority in 'arms, communications, strategy, logistics and planning'. The war represented a massive defeat in the Indian imagination. Among the Indian public,the principal sentiment was that of betrayal.
The India-China conflict, then, was a clash of national myths, national egos, national insecurities and - ultimately and inevitably - national armies.
(It was also a vindication of Sardar Patel's practical assessment of China as a threat to India and the failure of Nehru to ignore this threat due to his ideological approach. )
Friday, June 6, 2008
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Guha's India after Gandhi...Shaking the centre -The Southern Challenge
(Since November my blog on India is moving like a typical Indian project! The reason is that I have been otherwise preoccupied. As I write this blog, I am reminded of the oft repeated story about us. It is the story of Indian crabs being exported without a lid on the container, only possible as they are Indian and hence are busy all the time in pulling each other down, hence none of them can escape the container. We saw the leadership (Nehru) face issues of religion, politicians with divergent agenda, the tribal Issue and so on and on. Now it is about a challenge from the south.)
He speaks of 1957 as an year of momentous importance in the history of modern India. It was the year the second general election was held thus joining the league of democracies. He says it was in essence a referendum on the prime minister and his ruling party. It is also the time when his daughter emerged as a personality in her own right and started to 'represent the interests of women'.
He speaks of the challenge brewing in the south. DMK, a party which grew out of the Dravidian movement started by E.V.Ramaswami Naicker, stood for creation of a separate nation in south India, to be called Dravida Nadu.
The real challenge for congress however came from Kerala, where a resurgent Communist Party of India had emerged as a strong popular alternative to the ruling party.
Kerala was different in many ways from the other states. The Hindus were around sixty percent as against the national average of eighty. They were more educated at the same time the oppressiveness of its caste system was more severe.
Yet the combined efforts of the missionaries, the princes, the caste societies and the communists had seriously undermined traditional structures of authority. In a mere half-century, between 1900 and 1950, defiance had replaced deference as the idiom of social exchange in the Kerala countryside.
The communists were able to exploit the situation, their manifesto declared, ......Communist Party is capable not only of uniting the people for conducting agitation, but that it can take over and run the administration successfully.
The newly elected cheif minister E.M.S. Nambodiripad, the author says, remains a figure of considerable historical interest, because of both the size of his province and the distinctiveness of his politics.
'The communist ministers made an impression with their effciency, this a stark contrast with the sloth of their Congress counterparts.
While they worked within the framework of the constitution, 'the stated commitment to land reform did not become operative under any Congress regime but was closely approximated by the reforms of the Communist Party of India in Kerala'
Of the many steps taken 'the most controversial were the educational initiatives of the Kerala government. The opposition to the bill was led by the church. ' More opportunistic still was the local Congress Party. Defeated in the election, it saw in the resentment against the Education Bill a chance to regain power...... In its first phase, the Education Bill controversy was, like so much else in modern india, simply a clash between the modern and the traditional idioms of politics.'
Events culminate in the Communist Party government being dismissed by the centre (at the behest of Indira Gandhi) and re-election being held six months later. Congress with its allies wins the re-election. The author quotes Sarvepalli Gopal ...'tarnished Nehru's reputation for ethical behaviour in politics and, from a long-term view, weakened his position'.
Guha touches upon the creation of Swatantra Party, started by C.Rajagopalachari (Rajaji] with the purpose of opposing the 'personality cult, and centralisaion of state power, a curious amalgam of free-market liberals and agrarian leaders seeking an alternative to the congress.
Added to all the challenges to the government was also the self inflicted one called the 'Mundhra Scandal'. Apparently it finds a place in this chapter due to fact that T. T. Krishnamachari who was the finance minister and held responsible for the misdeeds of LIC was from south of India.
He speaks of 1957 as an year of momentous importance in the history of modern India. It was the year the second general election was held thus joining the league of democracies. He says it was in essence a referendum on the prime minister and his ruling party. It is also the time when his daughter emerged as a personality in her own right and started to 'represent the interests of women'.
He speaks of the challenge brewing in the south. DMK, a party which grew out of the Dravidian movement started by E.V.Ramaswami Naicker, stood for creation of a separate nation in south India, to be called Dravida Nadu.
The real challenge for congress however came from Kerala, where a resurgent Communist Party of India had emerged as a strong popular alternative to the ruling party.
Kerala was different in many ways from the other states. The Hindus were around sixty percent as against the national average of eighty. They were more educated at the same time the oppressiveness of its caste system was more severe.
Yet the combined efforts of the missionaries, the princes, the caste societies and the communists had seriously undermined traditional structures of authority. In a mere half-century, between 1900 and 1950, defiance had replaced deference as the idiom of social exchange in the Kerala countryside.
The communists were able to exploit the situation, their manifesto declared, ......Communist Party is capable not only of uniting the people for conducting agitation, but that it can take over and run the administration successfully.
The newly elected cheif minister E.M.S. Nambodiripad, the author says, remains a figure of considerable historical interest, because of both the size of his province and the distinctiveness of his politics.
'The communist ministers made an impression with their effciency, this a stark contrast with the sloth of their Congress counterparts.
While they worked within the framework of the constitution, 'the stated commitment to land reform did not become operative under any Congress regime but was closely approximated by the reforms of the Communist Party of India in Kerala'
Of the many steps taken 'the most controversial were the educational initiatives of the Kerala government. The opposition to the bill was led by the church. ' More opportunistic still was the local Congress Party. Defeated in the election, it saw in the resentment against the Education Bill a chance to regain power...... In its first phase, the Education Bill controversy was, like so much else in modern india, simply a clash between the modern and the traditional idioms of politics.'
Events culminate in the Communist Party government being dismissed by the centre (at the behest of Indira Gandhi) and re-election being held six months later. Congress with its allies wins the re-election. The author quotes Sarvepalli Gopal ...'tarnished Nehru's reputation for ethical behaviour in politics and, from a long-term view, weakened his position'.
Guha touches upon the creation of Swatantra Party, started by C.Rajagopalachari (Rajaji] with the purpose of opposing the 'personality cult, and centralisaion of state power, a curious amalgam of free-market liberals and agrarian leaders seeking an alternative to the congress.
Added to all the challenges to the government was also the self inflicted one called the 'Mundhra Scandal'. Apparently it finds a place in this chapter due to fact that T. T. Krishnamachari who was the finance minister and held responsible for the misdeeds of LIC was from south of India.
Saturday, April 19, 2008
Guha's India after Gandhi....Securing Kashmir and Tribal Trouble
Author points out when he speaks about the problems the new nation faced that the world was not aware of what was going on, 'Hidden from the eyes of the world, unknown even to most Indians, the Naga rebellion was withal a serious headache for the government of India.'
In addition, India had problems, which the world knew well, in Kashmir. I would like to repeat the quote from the book, "Fielden summarized the respective points of view: 'In clinging to Kashmir, India wants to weaken partition: in claiming it, Pakistan wants to make partition safe'. On the issue of Kashmir both sides were absolutely rigid."
"Fielden ended his analysis with a warning. In the long run, he pointed out, 'the most important thing' about Kashmir conflict was 'the expense in armaments in which both countries are getting involved. This means that social services in both countries are crippled, and since both countries, apart from their refugees, have millions of the poorest people in the world, it is easy to see how this can lead to disaster'."
It is the same story and an ongoing one with different players. Many errors of judgement, wrong attitudes from key players which, create tough situations and it is the average person like the Naga Doctor who is quoted below, who sees the situation as hopeless and can only express despair at the turn of events.
'As I see it, .5 per cent of the Nagas are with Phizo; 1 per cent are more moderate, and want to break away from Assam and come under Delhi, and 98.5 per cent just want to be left alone.....'
In addition, India had problems, which the world knew well, in Kashmir. I would like to repeat the quote from the book, "Fielden summarized the respective points of view: 'In clinging to Kashmir, India wants to weaken partition: in claiming it, Pakistan wants to make partition safe'. On the issue of Kashmir both sides were absolutely rigid."
"Fielden ended his analysis with a warning. In the long run, he pointed out, 'the most important thing' about Kashmir conflict was 'the expense in armaments in which both countries are getting involved. This means that social services in both countries are crippled, and since both countries, apart from their refugees, have millions of the poorest people in the world, it is easy to see how this can lead to disaster'."
It is the same story and an ongoing one with different players. Many errors of judgement, wrong attitudes from key players which, create tough situations and it is the average person like the Naga Doctor who is quoted below, who sees the situation as hopeless and can only express despair at the turn of events.
'As I see it, .5 per cent of the Nagas are with Phizo; 1 per cent are more moderate, and want to break away from Assam and come under Delhi, and 98.5 per cent just want to be left alone.....'
Saturday, November 10, 2007
Guha's India after Gandhi..The Law and the Prophets
It is revealing that Nehru found the greatest difficulty since independence in 'Creating a just state by just means' and added 'Perhaps, too, in creating a secular state in a religious country'. Secularism faced fresh set of challenges after partition. One pertained to the domain of personal laws. While there was a common criminal code, there was no attempt to replace personal laws by the colonials.
Author rightly quotes Article 44 of the constitution of India 'The state shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India'. He chronicles the events that eventually, 'After a bruising battle extending over nearly ten years, B. R. Ambedkar's Hindu Code Bill was passed into law; not, as he had hoped in one fell swoop, but in several installments:...'
We can agree with the author. "One can appreciate their (Basically Nehru and Ambedkar, with the support of Rajaji) hesitancy to take on people of faiths other than their own. For it had taken them better part of ten years to 'proceed with the Hindu community in any way they liked', that is in a way that would help bring their personal laws somewhat in line with modern notions of gender justice".
(One can question this act of pragmatism by our leaders and even though we have many things to accomplish, before we are in line with modern nations, it seems to have worked reasonably well for the majority community. I remember my father talking about a person who rushed to his second marriage to beat the law, which would enforce monogamy, by a day. The girl was known to us and her relatives along with my father, rushed to the marriage hall minutes late and were unable to prevent the second marriage. Anyway, his first marriage ended in a divorce and as it turned out the second marriage went bad for the man.
We can sit back and evaluate the extent the laws have helped us become modern in the western eyes, but it is always better if this desire for change came from within and in our own context. While I have not read, as the author puts 'the revealed words of Allah', I fear for humanity if such a large section of us are guided by laws which do not allow for change with changing times and circumstances. The author speaks of liberal muslims in the country at the time of partition. I am sure there are still many and hope can find ways to interpret their laws so that they can be more in tune with the times without loosing the basic values. For instance the punishment of stoning a person to death I saw in the movie 'Kiterunner' was nightmarish. It is not just the muslims I think of, there are numerous example of others who are dogmatic and equally cruel for many reasons, ostensibly as a counter.)
Author rightly quotes Article 44 of the constitution of India 'The state shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India'. He chronicles the events that eventually, 'After a bruising battle extending over nearly ten years, B. R. Ambedkar's Hindu Code Bill was passed into law; not, as he had hoped in one fell swoop, but in several installments:...'
We can agree with the author. "One can appreciate their (Basically Nehru and Ambedkar, with the support of Rajaji) hesitancy to take on people of faiths other than their own. For it had taken them better part of ten years to 'proceed with the Hindu community in any way they liked', that is in a way that would help bring their personal laws somewhat in line with modern notions of gender justice".
(One can question this act of pragmatism by our leaders and even though we have many things to accomplish, before we are in line with modern nations, it seems to have worked reasonably well for the majority community. I remember my father talking about a person who rushed to his second marriage to beat the law, which would enforce monogamy, by a day. The girl was known to us and her relatives along with my father, rushed to the marriage hall minutes late and were unable to prevent the second marriage. Anyway, his first marriage ended in a divorce and as it turned out the second marriage went bad for the man.
We can sit back and evaluate the extent the laws have helped us become modern in the western eyes, but it is always better if this desire for change came from within and in our own context. While I have not read, as the author puts 'the revealed words of Allah', I fear for humanity if such a large section of us are guided by laws which do not allow for change with changing times and circumstances. The author speaks of liberal muslims in the country at the time of partition. I am sure there are still many and hope can find ways to interpret their laws so that they can be more in tune with the times without loosing the basic values. For instance the punishment of stoning a person to death I saw in the movie 'Kiterunner' was nightmarish. It is not just the muslims I think of, there are numerous example of others who are dogmatic and equally cruel for many reasons, ostensibly as a counter.)
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Guha's India after Gandhi...The conquest of Nature.
The author quotes Mahatma Gandhi 'India lives in her villages'. while describing the situation in the 1940's. The Indian agriculture was largely empirical, based on knowledge and traditions passed down over the generations. In short it was very basic, levels of literacy very low. Everywhere, those who worked on the land lived cheek-by -jowl with those who didn't (the service and artisanal castes). Socially caste feelings were very strong.
Rural India was pervaded by an air of timelessness, another word for stagnation to the Indian Nationalist. They resolved that when power came to them, agrarian reform would be at the top of their agenda. It was a three pronged attack, abolition of land revenue, massive expansion of irrigation and the reform of the system of land tenure. They also realised that ''To enter the comity of Nations, India had to be educated, united, out-ward looking and, above all, industrialized'.
Again good to learn that National Planning Committee was formed in 1938. Goals of 'national self-sufficiency' and doubling the standards in ten years were set. The spirit of the times seemed to favour centralized planning. The era of five year plans started with a draft plan in 1951.
(While one can look back and pass judgement on the Five year plans, massive power and irrigation projects, education and research, it is certain that the country needed a kick start to pull it out of its backwardness all across. Whether the plans were too ambitious or focused only on big projects and spread resources thin on essential areas of education can be debated forever. While private industry was still nascent and finding its feet, is seems we had people capable of taking on big projects and establish them. It is another matter how they ran later.
Did we waste a lot of resources due to inexperience, corruption and unionism? I would say yes. I can vouch that the labour output in a private industry I worked was equivalent to about 3 hours of honest work. You could easily guess how it could be in general all over the country. Barring a few, quantity won over quality, in most of the industries.
The chapter begins with a quote from M.Visveswaraya in 1920. It sounds more a wishful thinking on his part as an engineer. He hopes that the Indian people will choose wisely and act. One hopes so too, it is always a work-in-progress, especially the conquest of [Human] Nature.)
Rural India was pervaded by an air of timelessness, another word for stagnation to the Indian Nationalist. They resolved that when power came to them, agrarian reform would be at the top of their agenda. It was a three pronged attack, abolition of land revenue, massive expansion of irrigation and the reform of the system of land tenure. They also realised that ''To enter the comity of Nations, India had to be educated, united, out-ward looking and, above all, industrialized'.
Again good to learn that National Planning Committee was formed in 1938. Goals of 'national self-sufficiency' and doubling the standards in ten years were set. The spirit of the times seemed to favour centralized planning. The era of five year plans started with a draft plan in 1951.
(While one can look back and pass judgement on the Five year plans, massive power and irrigation projects, education and research, it is certain that the country needed a kick start to pull it out of its backwardness all across. Whether the plans were too ambitious or focused only on big projects and spread resources thin on essential areas of education can be debated forever. While private industry was still nascent and finding its feet, is seems we had people capable of taking on big projects and establish them. It is another matter how they ran later.
Did we waste a lot of resources due to inexperience, corruption and unionism? I would say yes. I can vouch that the labour output in a private industry I worked was equivalent to about 3 hours of honest work. You could easily guess how it could be in general all over the country. Barring a few, quantity won over quality, in most of the industries.
The chapter begins with a quote from M.Visveswaraya in 1920. It sounds more a wishful thinking on his part as an engineer. He hopes that the Indian people will choose wisely and act. One hopes so too, it is always a work-in-progress, especially the conquest of [Human] Nature.)
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Guha's India after Gandhi..Redrawing the Map.
We learn that Congress party was in favor of creating linguistic provinces right in 1917. Gandhi was for it and wrote on 10 Oct 1947 'I do believe that we should hurry up with the reorganisastion of linguistic provinces....' . Nehru while appreciative of the need 'It is axiomatic that the masses can only grow educationally and culturally through the medium of their own language' seemed to have second thoughts after Independence. 'Nehru's reluctance to superimpose divisions of language on the recent division by religion had the support of both Vallabhbhai Patel and Rajagoplachari'.
We can appreciate this reluctance (on the part of the new 'rulers' of the country) and it is no surprise that the so-called JVP committee, consisting of Nehru, Patel and Pattabhi Sitaramayya argued against the division based on language with 'language was not only a binding force but also a separating one'. (It is unlikely that they could have taken a grip of the situation if the fall out was similar to that of the division according to religion.) Added to this was the effort by Master Tara Singh to achieve independence for the Sikhs.
What Nehru could not imagine was that 'the most vigorous movement for linguistic autonomy' by the Telegu speakers would force his hand, when Potti Sriramalu died 'Fifty-eight days' into his fast and he had to give in and announce that 'a state of Andhra would come into being'. The rest of the story after the formation of Andhra is as gripping as ever. The setting up of State Reorganisation Commission and 'the creation of linguistic states was, among other things, a victory of popular will'.
(Looking back it appears that the people concerned managed the division reasonably well. While it is true that the benefits are only apparent now, I am still bemused about our destiny if the language issue takes an ugly turn. While our family has lived for generations in and around Bangalore, we speak a dialect of Tamil at home, Kannada with friends. I am not sure whether I will be admitted as a member to the Kannada Chaluvaligaru association if I applied. Added to this My daughters having grown up in Pune are maharastrian by domicile and a son-in-law of ours is a Gujarati from Mumbai! I cannot escape the feeling that we have become second class citizens and a 'silent' minority as we do not have the means to combat this at present.
I recall in my early days in Pune, I was really taken aback when a kindly old person did not appreciate the fact the I had come all the way from Bangalore to work there. He felt that if your parents were living and you had a home in the place you were born, there was no need to move. It was unnecessary according to him. He was not rude but was just being conservative. Luckily these sentiments did not prevail in private industries, I remember even the State Electricity Board had non-maharastrian senior engineers working for them. Later a kannadiga became the principal of the Pune Engineering college. However, we are not sure when these pragmatic sentiments may get overtaken by rabid chauvinists. We have seen that happen and we can only hope that it is all a thing of the past.
I also feel sad that Nehru and his team had no 'Honey-moon period' for their governament. It began with trauma of partition and as new challenges continued, they never could sit back and relax. I suppose that it is the nature of politics. Why would people not trust Nehru and others, who fought for our independence to do the right thing, at a time they thought was more suitable? It appears that the impression he had become autocratic and rigid prevailed)
We can appreciate this reluctance (on the part of the new 'rulers' of the country) and it is no surprise that the so-called JVP committee, consisting of Nehru, Patel and Pattabhi Sitaramayya argued against the division based on language with 'language was not only a binding force but also a separating one'. (It is unlikely that they could have taken a grip of the situation if the fall out was similar to that of the division according to religion.) Added to this was the effort by Master Tara Singh to achieve independence for the Sikhs.
What Nehru could not imagine was that 'the most vigorous movement for linguistic autonomy' by the Telegu speakers would force his hand, when Potti Sriramalu died 'Fifty-eight days' into his fast and he had to give in and announce that 'a state of Andhra would come into being'. The rest of the story after the formation of Andhra is as gripping as ever. The setting up of State Reorganisation Commission and 'the creation of linguistic states was, among other things, a victory of popular will'.
(Looking back it appears that the people concerned managed the division reasonably well. While it is true that the benefits are only apparent now, I am still bemused about our destiny if the language issue takes an ugly turn. While our family has lived for generations in and around Bangalore, we speak a dialect of Tamil at home, Kannada with friends. I am not sure whether I will be admitted as a member to the Kannada Chaluvaligaru association if I applied. Added to this My daughters having grown up in Pune are maharastrian by domicile and a son-in-law of ours is a Gujarati from Mumbai! I cannot escape the feeling that we have become second class citizens and a 'silent' minority as we do not have the means to combat this at present.
I recall in my early days in Pune, I was really taken aback when a kindly old person did not appreciate the fact the I had come all the way from Bangalore to work there. He felt that if your parents were living and you had a home in the place you were born, there was no need to move. It was unnecessary according to him. He was not rude but was just being conservative. Luckily these sentiments did not prevail in private industries, I remember even the State Electricity Board had non-maharastrian senior engineers working for them. Later a kannadiga became the principal of the Pune Engineering college. However, we are not sure when these pragmatic sentiments may get overtaken by rabid chauvinists. We have seen that happen and we can only hope that it is all a thing of the past.
I also feel sad that Nehru and his team had no 'Honey-moon period' for their governament. It began with trauma of partition and as new challenges continued, they never could sit back and relax. I suppose that it is the nature of politics. Why would people not trust Nehru and others, who fought for our independence to do the right thing, at a time they thought was more suitable? It appears that the impression he had become autocratic and rigid prevailed)
Saturday, October 6, 2007
Guha's 'India after Gandhi'- Home and the World
The chapter starts with a quote 'Pandit Nehru is at his best when he is not pinned down to matters of detail'.
Nehru was the one who kept the country together. (The general consensus of the west) . It was acknowledged that he alone had a genuine international perspective. The author traces his travels and the influence it had on his view of the world. His leaning towards the left, as well as his concept of 'non-alignment' are a consequence of tours and interactions with the outside world.
'He saw Indian independence as a part of a wider Asian resurgence'. (He was probably a little ahead of his times.) The outcome was the 'Asian Relations conference' held in New Delhi in march 1947. While the conference ended with Gandhi's urging 'to conquer the west through love and truth'. It also drew criticism in that Nehru intended to 'thrust himself upon the Asian nations as their leader....'.
It also deals with his American trip in 1949 and his failure to get closer to the American leadership. He seems to have similar notions held by the people who had interacted with the Americans at that time. 'The elite tended to think of America and the Americans as uncouth and uncultured'. (Surprisingly this view persists even now amongst many!). While he was aware of the stereo typed impressions about India held by the Americans, it seems he was at a loss about how to counteract them. 'I want to be friendly with the Americans but always making it clear what we stand for'. His trip was a public success, while he failed to make friends with the state department.
This situation seemed to have persisted in spite of having much in common -'America thought India soft on communism; India thought America soft on Colonialism. In the end, that which divided seemed to overwhelm that which united; in part - or rather, lack thereof- between the key players on either side.'
Guha then gives us a rationale for India being closer to the soviet union, Nehru visited 'the soviet union in the last days of its first, halcyon period'. While it started as frosty after Independence, when Communist party of India tried to overthrow the state, the cold war seemed to have effected the thaw in their relations. Visits of both Nehru to Soviet union and the return visits by Bulganin and Khrushchev and their support for India in the Kashmir issue further cemented the relationship.
The chapter chronicles the first eight years and we get the impression Nehru dealt with the world practically on his own as the Minister in charge of Foriegn Affairs. He placed a lot of trust in Ambassador K. M. Pannicker, Krishna Menon and had a confidante in his sister Vijayalakshmi Pandit . It is clear that he did not pay heed to Patel's worries about China's intentions and generally kept him out of Foriegn affairs.
We understand that the Governament was still finding its feet in meeting the twists and turns that were taking place in the world, especially while dealing with China and Pakistan or in learning how to face criticisms of its own people who held different or opposite views.
The praise given to Nehru (by C. Rajagopalachari.) 'the biggest man in the world, over topping the USA men, the UK men and every other man' ( and that from a country)- 'without material, men or money -the three means of power' is significant. (While this might have gladdened the heart of an idealist, I think Guha suggests and I agree that Nehru probably erred in his enthusiasm to take on the world and make an impact. This led to his undoing in the years to come. It is a clear that men in power in the west and with the proverbial prejudice against the non-whites would think that he was getting 'too big for his boots'! I also remember grumbles from many within the country that there was no need for Nehru to get overboard in dealing with the world, when serious problems were there with in the country.)
Nehru was the one who kept the country together. (The general consensus of the west) . It was acknowledged that he alone had a genuine international perspective. The author traces his travels and the influence it had on his view of the world. His leaning towards the left, as well as his concept of 'non-alignment' are a consequence of tours and interactions with the outside world.
'He saw Indian independence as a part of a wider Asian resurgence'. (He was probably a little ahead of his times.) The outcome was the 'Asian Relations conference' held in New Delhi in march 1947. While the conference ended with Gandhi's urging 'to conquer the west through love and truth'. It also drew criticism in that Nehru intended to 'thrust himself upon the Asian nations as their leader....'.
It also deals with his American trip in 1949 and his failure to get closer to the American leadership. He seems to have similar notions held by the people who had interacted with the Americans at that time. 'The elite tended to think of America and the Americans as uncouth and uncultured'. (Surprisingly this view persists even now amongst many!). While he was aware of the stereo typed impressions about India held by the Americans, it seems he was at a loss about how to counteract them. 'I want to be friendly with the Americans but always making it clear what we stand for'. His trip was a public success, while he failed to make friends with the state department.
This situation seemed to have persisted in spite of having much in common -'America thought India soft on communism; India thought America soft on Colonialism. In the end, that which divided seemed to overwhelm that which united; in part - or rather, lack thereof- between the key players on either side.'
Guha then gives us a rationale for India being closer to the soviet union, Nehru visited 'the soviet union in the last days of its first, halcyon period'. While it started as frosty after Independence, when Communist party of India tried to overthrow the state, the cold war seemed to have effected the thaw in their relations. Visits of both Nehru to Soviet union and the return visits by Bulganin and Khrushchev and their support for India in the Kashmir issue further cemented the relationship.
The chapter chronicles the first eight years and we get the impression Nehru dealt with the world practically on his own as the Minister in charge of Foriegn Affairs. He placed a lot of trust in Ambassador K. M. Pannicker, Krishna Menon and had a confidante in his sister Vijayalakshmi Pandit . It is clear that he did not pay heed to Patel's worries about China's intentions and generally kept him out of Foriegn affairs.
We understand that the Governament was still finding its feet in meeting the twists and turns that were taking place in the world, especially while dealing with China and Pakistan or in learning how to face criticisms of its own people who held different or opposite views.
The praise given to Nehru (by C. Rajagopalachari.) 'the biggest man in the world, over topping the USA men, the UK men and every other man' ( and that from a country)- 'without material, men or money -the three means of power' is significant. (While this might have gladdened the heart of an idealist, I think Guha suggests and I agree that Nehru probably erred in his enthusiasm to take on the world and make an impact. This led to his undoing in the years to come. It is a clear that men in power in the west and with the proverbial prejudice against the non-whites would think that he was getting 'too big for his boots'! I also remember grumbles from many within the country that there was no need for Nehru to get overboard in dealing with the world, when serious problems were there with in the country.)
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)