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!)