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.)

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.)

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)

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.)

Guha's 'India after Gandhi'- Nehru's India - The biggest gamble in history.

The chapter starts with a quote. 'We are little men serving great causes, but because the cause is great, something of that greatness falls upon us also'. Nehru 1946


It is a moot point whether there would have been a 'Nehru's India' if both Mahatma and Patel had lived longer. Author Guha has caught the mood of the very early times well. While Nehru and Patel were opposites, ' what stalled an open rupture [between the two men] was mutual regard and Patel's stoic decency'.

In the ruling Congress party factions were rampant and was pulled at by all shades of ideologies and character. Some brilliant young congress members had left left the party in 1948 to form the Socialist Party. Gandhian J.B. Kripalani left in 1951 to form the Kisan Majdoor Praja Party. The formation of KMPP it is said strenghtened the hand of Nehru against the pro-caste hindu faction lead by the president of the party Tandon and in a showdown at the AICC in Bangalore, Nehru was chosen as the president of the party. The key reason being 'Pandit Nehru is unequalled as a vote-catcher'. And, as head of both party and government 'Nehru could now wage full war against all communal elements in the country'.

It is absorbing to read about India's first election called an 'act of faith'. Due credit is given to the chief election commissioner Sukumar Sen and thousands of election officers, clerks and policemen for conducting, to quote Sen, 'essentially a law-abiding and peaceful' election.

Nehru was worried about the din created [we all agree!] by the electioneering process and its effect on largely illiterate voters. Having won he also said 'My respect for the so-called illiterate voter has gone up'.

It is indeed true that 'They had their choice between theocracy, chauvinism, communal separatism and isolationism on the one side; secularism, national unity, stability, moderation and friendly intercourse with the rest of the world on the other. They showed their maturity in choosing moderation and progress and disapproving of reaction and unrest'. The biggest gamble had exceeded all expectations.

(I remember attending a public meeting addressed by Nehru at the central college grounds. It was the first time I saw Nehru, though from a long distance. I do not remember the contents of the speech, but I do recall the impassioned style and the many rounds of applause. I also saw Patel around this time. It stands out better in my memory as it was so different, he was seated on a horse drawn victoria and went regally down a broad road near the cubbon park in Bangalore. The impression was that of a strong and stern person and into his own thoughts.

I have vague memories about the 1952 election. But we did campaign for congress. I remember people were taken to the polling both in candidate's cars to vote! Many vehicles were either requistioned or given to the candidates.

It is also time for some name dropping. K.Hanumanthaiya was a classmate and a friend of my father and came to our home for a simple dinner after his election to the assembly. I do not remember any one else being there and it was a nice evening as he was obviously in a good mood, very relaxed and friendly. We had no dining table then and we all sat down on short wooden seats ('Mane' in kannada!) in our dining room. Probably it was the first time a non-brahmin ate at our place!)

Guha's 'India after Gandhi' - Ideas of India

'...Democracy in India is only a top-dressing on an Indian soil, which is essentially undemocratic'. B. R. Ambedkar.

This quote probably explains why we did not have an unwritten constitution like the Brits. Indian constitution is said to be 'probably' the longest in the world. It was a monumental task. The proceedings of the constituent assembly was printed in eleven bulky volumes - some of which exceed 1000 pages...


The final shape of the constitution is ascribed to three important congressmen, Nehru, Patel and Rajendra Prasad with Ambedkar, the most crucial member of the assembly and two formidable minds: K.M.Munshi and Alladi Krishnaswami Aiyar. The seventh mentioned is B.N.Rau, constitutional adviser to the governament of India, assisted by S.N. Mukherjee, whose 'ability to put the most intricate proposals in the simplest and clearest legal form can be rarely equalled'.


The process of distilling the desires and ambitions for an 'India' with so many independent and conflicting views is again fascinating. It is clear that the urban literate, brilliant and legal minds finally held sway. Ambedkar is quoted here 'these village republics have been the ruination of India'. One probably can dwell on the 'Gandhian constitution' today to see how it could have given us a better constitution. He writes that K. Hanumanthaiya complained that he wanted 'the music of Veena and Sitar' and not 'the music of an English band'. I wonder what he was really upset about as he was after all a lawyer and capable of dealing with all the finer points of law.

I recall asking my father about how illiterate villagers were dealt with by the courts. I remember him telling me that courts were allowed to use 'Devara Sathya' while examining a witness. (Basically it was a psychological tool and a beleif that a villager would not lie in the courts after taking an oath in the name of the god he believed in.)

I liked the three warnings Ambedkar about the future. 'We must abandon the method of civil disobedience, non-cooperation and satyagraha'. The second warning concerned 'the unthinking submission to charismatic authority'. And he urged Indians not to be content with what he called the 'mere political democracy'.

Obviously very sensible and knowing the way of Indians very optimistic! I remember the highways lined with Ambedkar's statue as I was travelling in Tamil Nadu (I think!).

Guha's India after Gandhi --Refugees and the Republic.

'The refugees who came to India after Independence numbered close to 8 million. These people were resettled with time, cash, effort and, not least, idealism. There was indeed much heroism and grandeur in the building of new India. There were also errors and mistakes, loose ends that remained unties. There was pain and suffering in the extinguishing of the princely order, and there was pain and suffering in the resettlement of the refugees. Yet both tasks were, in the end, accomplished.'

'Notably, the actors in this complicated and tortuous process were all Indian. This, at least on the British side, was completely unanticipated.... Admittedly, the rulers had left behind a set of functioning institutions.'

We read about how, the Punjabi refugees settled in the land vacated by the Muslims who had moved across the border. They were allotted land, but not equal to what they had lost. The land they had left behind was more fertile, but they worked hard and coped well. Many who were not farmers moved to Delhi and made a life for themselves. Sindhis were settled in Bombay, Pune and Ahmadabad. Being businessmen and resourceful started business activities again and thus creating competition between the locals and them. Refugees from east Bengal settled in Calcutta. (Was surprised to learn that there were expectations, by the West Bengal government, of refugees going back after things settled. I remember that the Sindhis who chose to move to Bangalore appeared well to do and there were grumbles that they were the cause for the increased rentals.)

It is inspiring to read about how Nehru held firm and worked hard to face the threats to his new Government by the activities of RSS and communists. An interesting fact mentioned was that Nehru, Golwalker and Ranade were all Brahmins. At the same time the plight of the women held captive and their unwillingness to go back home after being rescued, for fear of not being accepted, brings us back to reality with a bang.

Guha's 'India after Gandhi' --A valley bloody and beautiful. (one that gave the most trouble of all.)

'This particular apple stayed perilously placed on the rim of the basket; never in it, but never out of it either.'

Nehru, a Kashmiri, loved Kashmir for its beauty and could not envisage an India without Kashmir being a part of it. Its location was another reason, 'gave the state a strategic importance quite out of proportion to its population. And providentially, Shiekh Abdullah, son of a merchant had emerged as the leader of Kashmir and was 'greatly loved by the people of Kashmir' and when Nehru and Sheikh Abdullah met 'they hit it of instantly' and both had a commitment to 'Hindu-Muslim harmony and to socialism.'

An ideal situation, but there appeared a worm in the apple. Hari Singh a typcial Raja of the times, totally isolated from his people had different ideas. 'The idea of independence had taken a strong hold over the maharaja.' ' The maharaja had an ambition to make Kashmir 'the Switzerland of the east -a state completely neutral.' In fact, a solution I think, people who stand on the Shankaracharya hill and gaze at the tranquil Dal lake, could well appreciate.

The conflict of 1947-8 have been chronicled well and every shade of opinion and action has been well considered. The book promises to return to Kashmir at regular intervals. Two things held my attention. One was the attached map of Kashmir showing the cease-fire line and the area under the Chinese administration and the other a letter Nehru wrote to the maharaja, 'it is of the most vital importance that Kashmir should remain within the Indian Union.....But however much we may want this, it cannot be done ultimately except through the good will of the mass of the population. Even if military forces held Kashmir for a while, a later consequence might be for a strong reaction against this. Essentially, therefore, this is a problem of psychological approach to the mass of people and of making them feel they will be benefited by being in the Indian Union. If the average Muslim feels that he has no safe or secure place in the Union, then obviously he will look elsewhere. Our basic policy must keep this in view, or else we fail.'

I recall, when I visited Kashmir in the early eighties, the shop owners would term rest of India in one word 'Hind'. They did not ask me if I was a 'Kannad' as a guy from Delhi would classify me! Not really serious as many from the north still think me as a 'Tamil', for them anyone from the south is a Tamil. But things have changed, especially after Bangalore became famous as an IT city. I also remember talking to a 'Tamil' Muslim army officer, whom I knew in Pune. He was posted in Kashmir and he said that living in a Muslim majority state was different. He felt that he belonged! He was talking about his experience culturally and not politically.

Guha's 'India after Gandhi' --Apples in the basket.

It is fascinating to see the map in this chapter that shows both British India and the Princely states. We can see that half of India was not under direct British rule. There were 500+ princely states. (It would be interesting to read the names of these independent pieces of territory.) Anyway barring a few most of them were 'generally viewed as feckless and dissolute, over-fond of race horses and other men's wives and holidays in Europe'.


We all know how hard Patel worked towards unifying the country. Interesting to note his Secretary V.P.Menon, smart, alert and ferociously intelligent, was not from ICS but one who rose from the ranks. The role of Mountbatten in persuading 'the princes that the British would no longer protect or patronize them, and that Independence for them was a mirage', is acknowledged 'as the most significant of all his acts in India'.

In a mere two years, over 500 chiefdoms had been dissolved into fourteen administrative units. 'A stupendous achievement' says the author, 'it had been brought about by wisdom, foresight, and hard work and not a little intrigue.' 'As it turned out only three states gave trouble before august, and three more after that date.'

The stories of these six states well illustrates how the game of politics is played and how negotiations go back and forth, and specially how the role of the main players becomes so important. Importantly, how the fundamental logic of division on which the partition was agreed(!) upon is conveniently forgotten.

Of the six he mentions five do get solved, the accession of Hyderabad is achieved by sending a contingent of Indian troops causing some more bloodshed. 'Those killed in the fighting included forty-two Indian soldiers and two thousand-odd Razakars'. It would now be nightmarish to even think of other possibilities predicted, other than one Nation, that is now India.

I remember I used to be a part of the 'Prabhat Pheri' that Rashtriya Seva Dal held early mornings to pressurise the Maharaja of Mysore to accede. The older kids would be stopped by the police and taken away in vans and lorries out of Bangalore limits and left there to fend for themselves. These kids would walk back and be treated as heroes. We, the younger ones, were disappointed, no end, to be denied this ride in the van. The police would just shoo us away telling us to go home.

About the dissolute princes, this story about the Nizam is typical. My mother, a young woman, visiting Hyderabad went shopping in the main bazaar of the city. While there, she heard a commotion and someone warning that the Nizam was on his way. The women who were in the bazaar immediately ran into shops and hid behind doors and curtains, and my mother was luckily dragged into one of the shops just in time. The fear and the tension she felt was palpable even after years when she told us the story.

Guha's 'Inida after Gandhi' --The logic of division.

The author ends 'Freedom and Parricide' with an observation that 'Gandhi could not reconcile, in life, Hindu with Muslim, but he did reconcile, through his death, Jawaharlal Nehru with Vallabhbhai Patel. It was a of rather considerable consequence for the new and very fragile nation' .

Obviously the reasons for Division of the country would have divided opinions and opposite views. Maulana Abul Kalam Azad's Congress Presidential Address, 1940, quoted by the author '..These thousand years of our joint life have moulded us into a common nationality', stikes a chord in us. Similarly, M.A. Jinnah's address around the same time as Muslim League president, in some ways could easily appeal to many...'They never intermarry, not interdine together, and indeed they belong to two different civilizations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions. Their aspects on life and of life are different'.

In fact, it would be appear 'true' even now to many, not just Hindus and Muslims but to many other divisions we have in India. I remember as a kid my father, an advocate, had a number of Muslim clients. (I think they saw that religion was not on his mind at all.) They would come home sometimes and my mother invariably would offer them tea in a porcelain cup which was kept seperate and was never used by us! I do not know if they noticed or if they minded, but I did not appreciate it! I was reminded of it, years later when a friend of ours working in Africa, said that when their servants noticed that they were given seperate cups/ plates, they were really upset and left! We do indeed have many such practices that are continued without a thought about their effects on others .

Anyway getting back to the book, I quote the autor, 'The short-sightedness of Congress, Jinnah's ambition, Britain's amorality and cynicism.. .. all might have played a part'. He dwells on many more reasons that managed to separate the two religions during this crucial period. Elections being one of them. (Now it is perpetuation of caste politics, some sort of divide and win.)

In any case the notion of one Nation, it seems was not deep enough to create a strong resistance to partition, which was hastened through once the writing was seen on the wall. This hurry and probably the lack of experience and a lack 'humaneness' which was evident must have caused so much of loss of life.

The concluding paragraph has me looking forward to his assessment as I read on. He states 'While the debates continue to rage about the causes of Partition, somewhat less attention has been paid to its consequences. These were considerable indeed - as this book will demonstrate. The division of India was to cast a long shadow over demography, economics, culture, religion, law, international relations, and party politics'.

Picking up the pieces -- Freedom and Parricide. Guha's 'India after Gandhi'

His prologue ends with a question 'why is there an 'India' at all? We use a similar turn of phrase sometimes, when we are upset about something 'Indian'. An expression one would use for an unwanted child. This is how I felt after I read the chapter 'Freedom and Parricide'. I had to look up the dictionary to get the exact meaning. 'Killing a parent or a relative'.

Picking up pieces is a neat English expression, while we probably are still at it, we are reminded again that the country started with picking up about a million dead bodies. We also get to know the frenetic pace at which events unfolded, largely uncontrollable.

We learn the significance of Jan 26, the day Indian National Congress held country wide demonstration for Purna Swaraj in the year 1930. When freedom came to India, I went with our neighbours to Madras. I remember the festivities and the excitement but not really much in detail, I was nine years old. I recall that later two streets which were predominantly Muslim got empty and the mosque near by was eerily quiet. I and a friend entered the mosque out of curiosity and the lone person who was there, spoke nicely to us but very seriously advised that it was not a good idea to visit the mosque at these times.

The story of the time, mostly about Gandhi desperately trying to bring peace back into the regions he kept visiting on foot many times, for a 77 year old is utterly amazing. Nehru trying to reduce the damage through administrative measures and holding fast to the concept of India as a democratic secular state, in spite of the partition and the horrific events that followed is also remarkable. I don't think the enormity of crimes committed against innocent people (relatives!) is really understood by those who are not victims.

The issues are so complex, the benefit of hindsight is not very likely to help. Irrespective of who all are to be blamed for this catastrophe, our real focus should be to try and understand what makes so many of us so evil. What triggers this mass madness! I do not know if there is any information about the casualties, how many from villages were affected or was it all in towns and cities?

My Reading of Ramachandra Guha's India after Gandhi..Prologue

The title of the prologue 'Unnatural Nation' disturbs me as I suppose it was meant to. Exasperating, yes we all agree, but to concur that it is unnatural is not easy. Guha says: 'Because they are so many, and so various, the people of India are also divided. It appears to have been always so'. Would one term the Amazonian rain forest as unnatural, because of its variety, I assume not. But, then he quotes Mirza Ghalib 'Why has not the dooms day come? ... Who holds the reins of the Final Catastrophe'. (Chirag-i-Dair. 1827).

I learn that after the 1857 mutiny the British took a firmer control through the famed Indian Civil Service and improved infrastructure. He also refers to, most of us would have heard mentioned, the various pronouncements made to oppose the call of Independence. 'There was no Indian nation or country in the past; nor would there be on in the future'. 'The Indians could not govern themselves'. 'to abandon India to the rule of the Brahmins would be an act of cruel and wicked negligence'. 'India will fall back into the barbarism and privations of the Middle ages'. (These quotes are all with a cross reference in the book.) He also mentions that many Indians also shared this view and a few still want to break away from India.

The doomsayers continued even after 1947. 'That India could sustain democratic institution seems, on the face of it, highly improbable'. Luckily there is at least one sympathetic quotation (1969). ' Yet there is a resilience about India which seems an assurance of survival. There is something which can only be described as an Indian spirit.

He thus deduces, 'The heart hoped that India would survive, but the head worried that it wouldn't. The place was too complicated, too confusing - a nation, one might say, that was unnatural'.

He also speaks of the Rajpath in Delhi, used as a street for protests by people from all over India with issues, hoping to get the attention of the Indian government and seeking solutions! And about this book, 'However, like the book that I once intended to write- based on a year spent walking up and down Rajpath - this too is a story, above all, of social conflicts, of how these arise, how they are expressed, and how their resolution is sought'.

(I really liked his idea of a story of Rajpath. I had thought of writing about walking in different cities in different countries and had made some notes as well!)

As a historian, he looks at conflict as running along many axes, caste, language, religion and class as the four pre-eminent ones and a fifth, that of gender. He avers that: 'At no other time or place in human history have social conflicts been so richly diverse, so vigorously articulated, so eloquently manifest in art and in literature, or addressed with such directness by the political system or the media.

He then analyses the history of independent India by creating what he terms as 'conflict maps' and infers that much more than 50 per cent of India was comfortably at peace with itself even at its 'dangerous decades'. He states that more than stories of India's economic success, the real success lies not in the domain of economics but in that of politics.

A statistical analysis 'the odds against democracy were extremely high' prompts him to say: 'The forces that divide India are many.This book pays due attention to them. But there are also forces that have kept India together, they have helped transcend or contain the cleavages of class and culture, that- so far, at least- have nullified those many predictions that India would not stay united and not stay democratic'.

He has dwelt on the available literature or lack of it, which interests a contemporary historian. Also on the challenges of a contemporary historian. 'The reader is also a citizen, a critical citizen, with individual political and ideological preferences'. Another challenge is 'the historian also is a citizen' and also 'the closer one gets to the present, the more judgemental one tends to become'.

(The frame work of his book is very clear and is very thought-provoking for a concerned citizen and a layman like me. As I continue to read his book, I hope that we will come to grasp the 'Mantra' that he has detected, which seems to be holding us together! He calls them 'moderating influences'.

I remember trying to coax my father to write about his times. He was 39 when India became independent and saw 48 years as a citizen of India. While he was not in the forefront he did meet many of the notable participants. I wish he had written!)

India Turns Sixty- More thoughts!

I started writing about this 'Landmark day' in my blog http://nidhiramblers.blogspot.com/2007/08/india-turns-60.html
Then I realised rambling about India is a serious business. Hence, I thought let me create a dedicated blog only for India. It is quite simple to create a blog and here I am rambling about India.

Almost around the time I wrote 'India turns sixty', Raji and Lakshmi (Narayan) presented me with a book and suggested that I make my comments on it in my blog. They like to keep me busy! I said fine, and glanced at the title, it is a book by Ramachandra Guha: 'India after Gandhi', The History of the world's largest democracy. It was signed by the author, which was nice and saw that the author now resides in Bangalore, which made it nicer!

My first thought on seeing the title was rather ironical! What does he mean after Gandhi! Gandhi is still very much here!! When people moan that Gandhi (Mahatma) is a forgotten name now in India, I always counter with 'You are mistaken, we had Indira, Sanjay, Rajiv and now it is Sonia with Rahul biding his time'. We also have Gandhigiri now, which almost succeeds in glamorising the ways of the hoodlums!

This brand of Gandhi-ism, a dynastic rule, is as inevitable as the monsoon in India. We have our own version in Karnataka now! I remember talking to a worker on the shop floor years ago, during an election. He said he always supported Nehru and his party! When I asked him why, he said: 'Nehru already has enough money so he will not be greedy and become corrupt. Also he is a well read man and knows how to handle the world outside and its leaders on equal terms'. Like my friend on the shop floor, all of us have our own views about the people who led India. I am very keen to see how this book concurs, embellishes or differs with my own perceptions about India and its short history of Sixty years!

The book is very well researched and reads well. (I have just read the Introduction). It has been well received and there are very good reviews of the book easily accessible on the web. My approach of course, would not (obviously!) be scholarly, more of a bystander than a participant in the process that shaped India to what it is now.