Comments (2)

By Ritwik Agrawal | August 23, 2009 6:26 pm

Jaswant Singh's Controversial Book

Over the last week, there has been much brouhaha over Jaswant Singh’s new book titled Jinnah: India Partition Independence

The former BJP leader has tried to argue that Jinnah was a secular man who was “pushed” towards communal politics due to the inflexible attitude of senior Congress leaders.

This basic contention fits in well with the old RSS/BJP approach of using any stick to beat Nehru and other Congress leaders, and hold them responsible for all of India’s ills.  Jaswant Singh advocates that Jinnah’s recommendations to the Motilal Nehru Committee (demanding special concessions to Muslims) should have been accepted back in 1929. Singh contends that had this been done, Jinnah would have never orbited towards communal politics.

It is amusing to see a senior (now former) leader of a Hindu nationalist organization like the BJP advocating concessions to Muslims. One can well imagine what the RSS and Hindu Mahasabha response would have been (in the 1930s) had Jinnah’s recommendations been accepted by the Congress. For some reason, I can clearly hear “minority appeasement” echoing in my head.

I’ve always found it incredible how RSS/BJP sympathizers, who otherwise profess a deep hatred for Jinnah and his muslim communal politics, hold that if only Nehru had overcome his personal “greed” and allowed Jinnah to be prime minister, then partition would have never occurred.

These people set no store by the popular will of the people of India, who elected the Congress by record margins in all polls conducted till then. The Congress was the largest political organization in the country [by far], Gandhi was the tallest leader, and Nehru was both a tall leader and Gandhi’s handpicked nominee. None of these things seem to make any impact on the immune-to-logic grey cells of the Hindu nationalist crowd.

This is probably because inspite of public protestations to the contrary, I suspect that the RSS/BJP and their cohorts feel quite comfortable with Jinnah. Believing as they do in identity politics, they deem it natural for a muslim to speak for muslims, as a hindu must speak for hindus. It is incomprehensible for them to see Gandhi, Nehru and other hindus speaking for the minorities, and minority leaders Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan speaking for an inclusive nationality.

Thus, what has done in Jaswant Singh is not his exoneration of Jinnah, or putting the blame on Nehru. The seasoned politician that he is, Jaswant Singh must have realized that holding Sardar Patel equally culpable for the partition of the country would seriously ruffle feathers in the “parivaar”. Over the years, the RSS and its fronts like the BJP have successfully wrested Patel’s legacy from a stupor-ridden Congress, which seems to have forgotten it ever had leaders other than the “first family”. Patel’s aggressive nationalism and “iron man” image fits in well with the RSS idea of India.

In this light, one can well imagine the fury of RSS leaders. Jaswant Singh was identified as a very senior BJP leader, and organizationally speaking, it was extremely irresponsible of him to “tarnish” Patel with the same brush as Nehru, when the RSS has for years been trying to appropriate the former and demonize the latter.

To put it simply: in the RSS fantasy world, Nehru was a Europeanized brat, who tricked Gandhi and wrested the PM-ship to satisfy his personal greed, which led to the partition of the country. Patel was the good samaritan who had to bow down to pressure from Gandhi, but who nonetheless did unparalleled work in unifying the country. Jaswant Singh effectively shows Nehru and Patel to be working together, as a team, and not at cross purposes as the RSS would wants us to believe.

When the BJP says that Jaswant’s contentions are against it’s core ideological beliefs, this is what it is alluding to: a senior leader cannot undermine the years of ideological work done by committed RSS pracharaks, and consequently leave the parivaar in an indefensible position.

Politically speaking, if Jaswant Singh had not been expelled, then the self-styled “Chotte Sardar” Narendra Modi would have been taken to the cleaners by the Congress in Gujarat. Patel is a highly respected leader even outside his home state, and one can well imagine the BJP’s discomfort had it not taken prompt action by expelling Mr. Singh.

Thus, I find it incredible that the media [both print and broadcast] has been typifying the BJP’s action as intolerant. It is amazing that The Hindu faults the BJP for expelling Jaswant Singh, but didn’t bat an eyelid when Somnath Chatterjee was expelled for defying party orders. The latter didn’t even question his party’s core beliefs in marxism-leninism!

The BJP is right in expelling Jaswant Singh because a senior leader cannot publicly question his party’s view of history – that puts the entire ideology under a cloud of doubt.

I completely agree that Mr. Jaswant Singh should have freedom of expression, and thus I think it is reprehensible that his book has been banned in Gujarat [for I believe that no book should be banned], but as far as being member of a political party goes, he cannot continue being a member of a party unless he accepts it’s core ideological position.

To sum it up: it is right to expel jaswant singh, but wrong to silence him.

Comments (6)

By Ritwik Agrawal | July 21, 2009 5:41 am

Some interesting recent comments on this blog:

Naval Das comments on Why statues won’t help Mayawati:

Ritwik and Shivam, you don’t truly understand this matter: you shouldnt be talking about this.

Mayawatiji is truly the heroine of the hindus of this country.

Like dayanand, the struggle of ambedkar and mayawati is an internal struggle of hinduism.

Mayawati has never said that she will convert to another faith. she now accpets hindu iconography openly (haathi nahi ganesh hai, brahma vishnu mahesh hai)

The act of erecting statues is a truly pagan, hindu act.
Its christians who find it odd that someone is erecting their own statues. The kings of vijaynagar did this often. so did other hindu kings. and the romans and other pagan people. Ritwik, when people like you feel odd that statues of a living person are being put up, I shake my head at the christianisation of this country!

the dalit struggle is an internal reform movement of hinduism, and that is the reason why mayawati has never had a problem in joining hands with the BJP.

inspite of political tensions, mayawati chose to stand with narendrabhai in his hour of distress, when she campaigned for bjp after the 2002 “riots”. This when so-called allies like the unpatriotic paswan had withdrawn support to the nda.

wishy washy liberals like Ritwik and pseudo-friends of dalits like shivam can debate all they want, but unless they realize the true nature of the dalit movement, they will always miss the truth.

Long live the dalit cause.

jai bheem!
jai bharat!

(Naval Das on July 19, 2009)

In reply, Neelakshi had the following to say:

I really don’t see how the question of ‘Christianisation’ (or whatever that is) is relevant here. It may be a very ‘Hindu’ act and Ritwik is probably very very wrong in writing against it. Only thing is, Mayawati’s statues and lavish birthday are not helping the Dalits in any way. erecting massive statues to instill ‘pride’ in the Dalits is also not working. As Ritwik pointed out, the Lok Sabha elections have shown that Mayawati does not hold resonance with the Dalits any longer. And has lost pretty badly in the elections.
There is nothing wrong with statues per se but if that money was only used for the upliftment of the Dalits, it would be better. Mayawati champions the Dalit cause, but I would really like to know; how will erecting statue after statue help the Dalits in any way whatsoever? (Neelakshi on July 20, 2009)

Dilip Simeon writes on Great Danes:

The Danes were not colonised, but despite their helplessness before the Third Reich they dealt with the Nazis with much greater dignity than did Vichy France. There are different ways of dealing with the same predicament. Your blank verse implies that the gross inequalities, injustice, corruption & lack of accountability after 62 years of independence are attributable to the fact of being colonised. I find that unacceptable. We are responsible for how we manage our resources and conduct ourselves in the public realm. No light is shed on the matter by continuing to blame the British for everything. (posted by Dilip Simeon on July 19, 2009)

I reply with:

Then why is that almost all former colonies in Asia and Africa find themselves in a pretty bad shape as far as human development indicators are concerned?

Nobody is blaming the British for “everything”, but equally they cannot be absolved entirely of the blame for India’s crushing poverty merely because “62 years have passed”. If the British can’t be blamed for everything, neither can the post independence leadership be solely held responsible for all our ills.

This blank verse was only meant to highlight the fact that for many, colonialism either never took place or with time, it has become a minor blip on the radar; the gross exploitation inherent to it is being forgotten. (posted by Ritwik Agrawal on July 20, 2009)

Comments (14)

By Ritwik Agrawal | July 8, 2009 2:45 am

Danish friends of a friend were recently in town.

They decided to go on a bus trip.

Just before boarding their bus, in Connought Place, they had their first encounter with poverty

poverty, of the killing kind

the one that kills you, and kills your dignity.

They were shocked, and moved to comment:

In denmark, we don’t have such things

In our country, we tax the rich

and give to the poor, and

thus nobody is really poor.

we have free education, world class hospitals

and no crime, grime and grimness.

my friend, listened, with envy

and also rattled, by jaw dropping naivete

small problem, he said,

really minor, indeed

the only thing is: you were never, in fact, a colony.

Comments (2)

By Ritwik Agrawal | July 2, 2009 3:42 pm

The following is a critique of Jean Drèze’s article Interpretation of Dreams published in the Times of India [April 28,2009]. Read it here

——————-

In an article published in the Times of India, noted economist Jean Drèze has launched a stinging attack on the BJP [‘Interpretation of Dreams’, Apr 28], calling the preamble to the party manifesto an “exercise in obfuscation”.  Undoubtedly, the BJP’s politics is based upon deception. BJP ideologues, if given a free reign, would love to rewrite Indian history to suit their own world view. But in pointing out the excesses of the BJP’s rhetoric, Jean Drèze has swung to the other extreme. His article has ended up sounding, perhaps unwittingly, like an apologia for colonialism.

To take just one example, Drèze cites the Ramayana, Mahabharata et al to prove that famine existed in India and thus India was not a “land of abundance”. Famine has existed in all societies. What is pertinent is not just the occurrence of famine but the rate at which successive famines occur. W. Digby, noted in “Prosperous British India” in 1901 that :

stated roughly, famines and scarcities (in India) have been four times as numerous, during the last thirty years of the 19th century as they were one hundred years ago.

In Late Victorian Holocausts, Mike Davis points out that here were thirty one serious famines in one hundred and twenty years of British rule compared to seventeen in the two thousand years preceding British rule.

It is generally accepted that this was because of the mercantilist economic policies thrust upon India by her colonial masters. Wikipedia tells us:  “British policies led to the seizure and conversion of local farmland to foreign-owned plantations, restrictions on internal trade, heavy taxation of Indians to support unsuccessful British expeditions in Afghanistan, inflationary measures that increased the price of food, and substantial exports of staple crops from India to Britain.” (Dutt, 1900 and 1902; Srivastava, 1968; Sen, 1982; Bhatia, 1985).

In view of this, it would be difficult even for an eminent economist like Jean Drèze to prove that economically, India was better off under the British than without them. It seems that Indians knew how to manage their agriculture better than their “advanced” colonial masters.

Does Indian nationalism exist? Do Indians have a sense of national pride, some sense of the history of their civilization?  Reading Drèze’s article, one would think that such sentiments would by and large be restricted to the so called upper castes. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Even though the BJP’s manifesto talks of the “hurt pride” of India, Drèze considers it appropriate to substitute India for “upper castes”. In doing so, he denies the freedom movement, which derived its strength from the support of various sections of society. In contemporary times, the BJP, according to Dreze’s argument, should be the natural party of so-called upper castes. But it derives its strength from so-called other backward classes [OBCs]. Examples of OBC stalwarts like Narendra Modi, Kalyan Singh and Vinay Katiyar can be cited and multiplied, but will it open Dreze’s eyes to the fact that the hurt pride of India does not constitute the hurt pride of upper castes only but also that of the under classes?

Colonial rule contributed not only to misery but also to cultural stagnation of Indian society. Most non-European societies had to undergo the painful experience of colonialism which didn’t allow indigenous modernity to grow organically. European ideas were thrust upon non-European people with minimum regard to their histories and experiences. Apart from pauperizing the colonies, colonialism broke the continuity of civilizations. In matters of caste too, colonialism wasn’t a silent spectator; it played an active role in altering caste dynamics. Thus, Indian society is unequal today both because of its own ills and because of the ills perpetuated by colonialism. Any comment on Indian society which fails to note this point, as Drèze’s intervention appears to, can hardly be deemed fair.

Medieval European society was characterized by widespread inequality and cruelty. Europe was witnessing “witch” burning on a massive scale; hundreds of thousands of women were most mercilessly put to death, often with the authorization of the Holy See. Europe’s dark past does not prompt scholars to dismiss achievements of European Civilization out of hand. Similarly, Drèze should not flippantly disregard Indian thought and tradition because society was (and is) unequal and discriminatory.

The problem with Drèze’s approach is that it concedes the patriotic space to the BJP – which in turn does not hesitate in making pernicious use of it. Undoubtedly, India has many failings, but at the same time there are real achievements to the credit of the Indian civilization. More than occasionally, Indians have been known to take pride in the achievements of their countrymen even if they are not related by caste. People may be attracted to support aggressive votaries of India “pride” when they see famed scholars casually dismissing the glories of India’s past.

The BJP is definitely given to constructing a romanticized ideal of ancient India as a society free from all defects. But equally, Drèze must examine his position and determine whether by denying the achievements of Indian civilization, does he manage to successfully ridicule the BJP or does he end up making himself ridiculous in the eyes of the average Indian?