India is an unnatural nation, a 50-50 democracy’
This is a excellent discussion topic. Many Indians take pride in being the largest democracy in the world, a country which all Indians are proud of. Look at the number of separatist movements going in India, many Indians want to emigrate out. This book will give a closer look at what India is all about.
http://www.indianexpress.com/sunday/story/30212.html
RAMACHANDRA GUHA: This fat book — which one may call good or bad — is based on wide range of primary source material. The stories are partly told from the perspective of Delhi (the central government) and partly from that of the states. The book also looks at class, language, religion, and regional conflicts. In the book I have also said that India is a “fifty-fifty” democracy. Besides, it is a story told in part thorough biographies. So it is a social and political history with some economics and culture thrown in. There are three reasons for writing it. Firstly, it is aimed at telling an interactive, readable story. Secondly, the story should do justice to social, cultural and political diversity of India. Thirdly, the book also tries to answer the question, “why there is India at all”. Throughout the book, I quote an array of Western writers who prophesied that India would either become an autocracy, be Balkanised (divided into small political units) or be the victim of mass starvation. And the question, “why there is India at all”, is asked because India is what I call an “unnatural nation”. Never before has a nation been composed of so many diversities. Likewise, India was also an “unlikely democracy” because never before the democratic framework has been grafted on a society that is so large, poor, illiterate.
MINI KAPOOR: Talking about democracy being “grafted”, in the book you make it evident that it took a great deal of individual intervention to make Indian democracy succeed, that it may not have been inevitable. For instance, the Nehru-Cariappa episode that you mention. (Field Marshal Kodandera Madappa Cariappa was the first Indian Chief of Staff.)
It appears that Nehru is the key figure and he staked his bets on universal adult franchise after India became free. However, all opposed the stand of Nehru. The RSS mouthpiece Organiser called it “a leap in the dark”. Likewise, the Left was also critical of it. The US also expressed doubt about whether it was feasible for India. But as soon as the Constitution became effective in 1950, Nehru asked the first Chief Electoral Commissioner Sukumar Sen (a mathematician who joined the Indian Civil Service in 1921) to conduct elections in India. I describe Sen as hero in my book because it was not an easy job to hold elections where a large number of people were illiterate. Unlike the Western democracies, the Election Commission used symbols on the ballot paper so that even the illiterate could exercise their franchise. He was asked by Nehru if elections could be held in six months. He said no, they would take a minimum of 18 months. I think he was a real hero.
As for Cariappa, Nehru did a smart job to send him as high commissioner to Australia after he demitted office. This was a time when many Latin American countries and neighbouring Pakistan had military rule. Cariappa was always shooting his mouth off. For instance, he was expressing his opinion openly about what kind of economy was fit for India. He also went to Pakistan and supported Ayub Khan’s coup. The decision of Nehru to send Cariappa to Australia was a move to safeguard democracy from being undermined. In the late 1960s when India was disturbed by Naxalite movements in West Bengal and the Alkali agitation in Punjab, Cariappa wrote an article and wanted to get it published in The Indian Express. His article advocated promulgation of President’s Rule in India, which could be extended every five years, but the then editor of The Indian Express, Frank Moraes, returned his article and said publication of such an article would embarrass not only the paper, but everybody including Cariappa. I think those were some of people who saved Indian democracy.
VIRENDER KUMAR: You have given an overview of last 60 years in your book. Can you tell us the defining feature?
I think there is no defining feature. If there is a defining feature it is this: that Indian democracy, the Indian state, has gone from crisis to crisis and somehow we have been able to contain these crises. Since the 1950s there’s a kind of insurgency in Kashmir and then it stops. Then you have the whole linguistic movement, which is contained through the creation of linguistic states. Then you have the Dravidian movement but then the Tamils decide that they want to be a part of India. There is Naxalism, which gets contained. And then there is Punjab. It is a nation that lurches from crisis to crisis, but unlike any other nation in the Asian, African or ex-colonial world, it is not enough to (destroy) the democratic fabric of society except for that brief period of Emergency.
AMITABH SINHA: Considering you called India an unlikely nation and unnatural democracy, do you think we have done rather well considering these constraints? Better than “fifty-fifty”?
There are two ways one can answer this question. One is as a citizen where one would focus on the fact that the glass is half empty. Still a lot of corruption and corrosion in the system, economic development is very uneven, there is inequity of access to education. The other is that the glass is half full, because it was not expected. It was not ordained that India would survive and that it would be a 50-50 democracy. Even in my book, there are a whole series of prophecies of doom quoted. For example, in 1967 one said, “India will vote for its last general election”. Or, “the experiment of developing India in a democratic set-up has failed”. These types of epitaphs have been written continuously. You know, I’m not a defender of the BJP, but which ‘fascist’ party will call an election, lose, and allow someone else to come to power? Indira Gandhi had an authoritarian instinct, but she called elections in January 1977. It was the only decision she made to which Sanjay was not privy. All of us take India for granted — that we can traverse 5,000 miles, take a job in a totally different linguistic zone, cuisine, clothes, the whole works. Yet that’s India. At the margins maybe, Nagaland and Kashmir are not wholly reconciled to being a part of India. So I say India is 80 per cent united. We take it for granted. But all the hard, patient work done by the people who drafted the Constitution, designed economic and foreign policies, and gave in to demands for linguistic states. I think we who are beneficiaries don’t realise how unexpected it was.
MANINI CHATTERJEE: The book is post-Independence history, but how much as India’s pre-Independence, its resilience, sense of unity and diversity, its democratic spirit come through? The BJP thinks it is because of Hinduism; is there truth in it, that the idea of India actually pre-dates? Or in the other argument, the Amartya Sen argument, that Akbar, etc, have always had the idea of a large nation?
My understanding is that some of it does pre-date 1947 but it doesn’t go back before. I have disagreements with both the BJP and the Amartya Sen points of view. The British, as we understand it, create India, artificially and accidentally. When Amartya Sen says that Akbar had an idea of India, well, my forefathers had never even heard of him. The Mughal Empire at its zenith controlled only 40 per cent of what is India. The idea took shape in the 1880s. The political and territorial unity of India as we know it was then endowed with a moral and social purpose. So there was the Indian National Congress, Gandhi and others made it into a more far-reaching nation, they said we could create a nation state, elements of which would be unnatural. For example the Congress, under Gandhi’s direction, created Congress Pradesh Committees, which were on the basis of language. Congress had a sense to be plural in terms of language, in terms of religion. I think we need to appreciate and understand contributions after 1947 more closely. I think Sen is plain wrong in many of his arguments, and there is an ongoing debate in The Economic and Political Weekly about it, and Sen, of course, while he is a very fine economist and philosopher, he is not too reliable a historian. He claims that Akbar’s ideas influenced the Indian Constitution, but there is no proof for that. There is a big gap. There is no continuity between Ashoka and Akbar — Ashoka was dead and forgotten, we discovered him because of British scholars. Regarding Hinduism, I don’t think Hinduism is the idea of India in that sense, and if it is, it excludes women and Dalits.
COOMI KAPOOR: You have been quoted as saying that JP (Jayaprakash Narayan) was also partly responsible for the imposition of Emergency. JP only asked Indira Gandhi to step down but he never appealed to people to resort to violent actions?
I do believe that he did play a role in undermining representative institutions. There is no doubt that Indira Gandhi was the greater culprit but JP popularised street protests over representative institutions. JP would say things like the police should resign and asked for the resignation of the Bihar government because it was corrupt. My book discusses such things in detail but I would like to quote a remarkable letter I have found. A sympathetic follower of JP movement wrote the letter. He was R.K. Patil, a former member of Planning Commission and social worker in Maharashtra. On the invitation of JP, he travelled through Bihar at the height of JP movement in 1974. And Patil wrote a four-page letter to JP saying that though the movements were gaining momentum but at the same time he questioned the futility of launching Satyagraha against representative institutions. Patil further said that in a formal democracy like us one could talk about reforms and other things but once free and fair elections were held the verdict had to be respected. He also said that there was no other way to express the general opinion of the nation other than free and fair elections. So, Patil continued, the opposition should wait for the end of government’s tenure. In a reply to Patil’s letter, JP said, “I am well aware of the patent drawbacks of the government presided over by Indira Gandhi. But still I am not certain it is wise to substitute for the law of government by public street opinion.”
That is just what JP popularised in Indian politics. But I admire some aspects of JP. His contributions to try and solve the Kashmir and Naga disputes were there but I don’t sympathise with his call for total revolution because I am liberal.
COOMI KAPOOR: You may have a different opinion about Total Revolution but how do you blame JP for the Emergency? Is it not the case that Indira Gandhi imposed Emergency after the Allahabad verdict?
Yes, I have said Indira was a greater culprit but JP also called for street protests and favoured party-less democracy, which was utopian and antithetical to representative government. He was also for excessive decentralisation. I think JP was impatient and wanted a drastic change in the later part of his life. He also gave credibility to the RSS. That is why I say JP was not blameless.
A M JIGEESH: What about the role of rumour? How much did you rely on that as you went about collecting material for this book?
Historians do not give credence to rumour. Rumour is only interesting to explore the mentality of people. Only the written records are important for historians.
SHAILAJA BAJPAI: What do you have to say about the rise of regional and caste-based parties in India and the decline of national parties like the Congress? Has it weakened or strengthened our democracy?
It is a complicated question. I think many of these caste and regional based parties are very comfortable with the Constitution. And once they entered into electoral process they accept it. For instance, when the Mizo National Front gave up its arms struggle and fought the election, it accepts the ideology. There is also an idea of India according to Indian Constitution. However, there are three competing ideas. One is hard-core right wing Hindutva that wants a Hindu state, which is being articulated by some elements of the BJP, but not by all. That is why I say the BJP is not a fascist party because Parveen Togadia who represents this idea does not run the BJP. Another idea is of the Maoists that does not believe in constitutional ideology. And the third idea is the fragmentation of India into many parts, like free Kashmir, free Nagaland and free Tamil Nadu. I think caste and regional based parties can coexist with constitutional ideology. The inclusive ideology of Congress’s nationalism had to break down in some way. It is very difficult to say that whether the rise of caste-based political parties has strengthened or weakened our democracy. I think we are still an unfolding democracy. Though there is fragmentation of parties at the Centre, at the same time there is a two-party system in most states. That is why I say the fragmentation may not have weakened Indian democracy.
RAGHAVENDRA RAO: Can you tell us who was the first to use the term “Nehru-Gandhi family”?
I don’t know. But do you know a first cousin of Rajiv Gandhi spelt it “Ghandy”, not “Gandhi”. That is the way Parsis spells their name. Feroze Gandhi was Feroze “Ghandy” till he changed his name after joining national movement, inspired by Gandhi, well before he and Indira fell in love. It was a complete accident, but then it was easy to say Nehru-Gandhi and to confuse a lot of people!
ABHAY MISHRA: Reservation was introduced after Independence and there is debate about 27 reservations for the OBCs in higher education? Do you favour reservation?
I have tried to understand the logic of the reservation in my book and I argue that there is a difference between reservation for dalits and reservation for OBCs. Reservation for Dalits were there before Independence while OBC reservation was introduced after Independence. I argue that OBCs were economically empowered by the land reforms in ’50s and ’60s and they were politically empowered thorough the democratic system in the ’60s and ’70s. Now they have economic and political power and they are administratively empowered by the Mandal Commission. Now the logic behind 27 per cent reservation in premier institutes is for the empowerment in the new economy.
DANISH SHAFI: What do you have to say about communalism in India and how Muslims feel insecure post-Gujarat violence?
If you have an Islamic nation on your border with which you have fought two wars, you will have forces in India who will say hum bhi aisa karenge (we will do the same). This is the logic of competitive politics but if the leadership of India is wise then the Hindu fundamentalists would be in a minority. But they will come up, if the leadership is weak — so we will have Hindu fundamentalists as long as we have Pakistan, in my view.
(Text transcribed by Abhay Mishra)
)