 |
 |
|
| Vol. 4, Issue 5 May 2012 |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Books |
|
|
Review |
The Raft on Our Backs
|
| Ramachandra Guha's anthology of Indian political thinkers masterfully chronicles an indigenous liberal tradition—but what lies beyond its boundaries? |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| I |
S THERE AN INDIAN WAY OF THINKING? The poet and
scholar AK Ramanujan considered the question at
length in a celebrated essay on the subject. The answer,
he decided, would depend on which word of the question
one chose to stress. The same is true of the following variation
on Ramanujan’s question: Is there an Indian way of
thinking about politics? |
There are several things we might mean by this. For example, we might mean to ask: Is there an Indian way of thinking about politics at all? Or we might mean: Is there an indigenously Indian, rather than derivative, way of thinking about politics? Or perhaps: Is there an Indian way of thinking, systematically, about politics? When this question is asked by a historian, it becomes another way of asking about India’s tradition of political thought. Does such a thing exist? What sort of thing is it?
Here are some possible answers to these questions.
There is no Indian tradition of political thought; there is
only the dirty business of workaday politics. Or, there is a
tradition of Indian political thought, but it consists entirely
in applications of the insights of Western liberals, Marxists
and fascists to Indian conditions. Or, there is a tradition of
thinking about politics, but no tradition of political thought
to rival the great texts of the Western tradition.
All such suspicions are decisively refuted in Makers of Modern India, an important new anthology of political
writings from modern Indian history. The volume’s editor,
Ramachandra Guha, writes, “Modern India is unusual
in having had so many politicians who were also original
thinkers”, and proceeds to make good on this claim
with panache. Naturally, our usual suspects, Mohandas K
Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, Rabindranath Tagore and BR
Ambedkar, are here in strength. But there are others, often
invoked but seldom read: Gopal Krishna Gokhale, Bal Gangadhar
Tilak and Chakravarthi Rajagopalachari. Yet others
are positively obscure: Tarabai Shinde, Kamaladevi Chattopadhyay
and Hamid Dalwai. Many of these essays are
not easy to find elsewhere. Between them, they cover much
ground, with their authors debating, among other things,
economic and social policy, the role of religion in the public
sphere, the evils of caste, and the rights of women.
Guha claims that his anthology is no “random collection
of interesting individuals, but a connected political
tradition” (his italics). This is a tradition in which thinkers
“who come later refer to those who came before” and
“challenge or contest those who are their contemporaries”.
He is happy to concede that this putative tradition’s “continuities
have been emphasized by the way in which this
book has been structured. But the tradition itself is by no
means the product of an editor’s artifice.” Guha’s answer to
our original question is then something like the following:
Yes, there is an Indian way of thinking about politics. It is
distinctively Indian, original and meets the highest intellectual
standards.
To be sure, in delineating this tradition, Guha finds himself
needing to make some hard choices about whom to leave
out. These choices are informed in part by an historian’s
need to trace something like a clear narrative from a jumble
of sources, and in part by Guha’s avowed “focus on...social
reform”. So far so fair. Also fair, on the face of it, are Guha’s
criteria for the inclusion of a thinker or piece of writing:
intellectual originality, subtlety of argument, the political
influence of the author and contemporary relevance.
What results is exactly the sort of book one expects from
Guha, a historian who has always preferred narrative history
and archival research to high theory. He writes fluently
in a field that no longer rewards it. Despite the fact that “political
history and biography have for some time now been
out of fashion within the academy”, Guha is happy to adopt
a defiantly old-fashioned “Great Thinkers” approach, rarely
hesitant to seek in his historical stories morals for our own
time. Accessible, instructive and provocative, Guha’s choices
are full of food for thought and the raw material for debate;
no self-respecting bookshelf should be without a copy.
Guha argues that the writings in the anthology “were
(and are) not merely of academic interest; rather, they had
a defining impact on the formation and evolution of the
Indian republic”. In that respect, Guha offers one kind of
answer to the question of why we should pay any attention
to these debates. Whilst showing us how we got to being
what we are—a blundering but stable democracy run along
liberal constitutional lines—they show us also how easily
things might have been different, how we might have been a radically different sort of country. On occasion, this realisation
is cause for despair. As Guha puts it, “Such debates
do not take place any more... The tradition that this book
has showcased is dead. No politician now alive can think or
write in an original or even interesting fashion about the direction
Indian society and politics is and should be taking.”
More often, especially when seen in the background of
the fates of so many former European colonies, to learn of
the contingency of our present situation is cause for relief,
and indeed of hope—hope that a renewed focus on India’s
intellectual tradition might free its great thinkers from
their appropriations by sectarians to rejoin the contemporary
debate. Guha’s complaint about partisan appropriation
of India’s past might be the most important claim in this
book: “Tagore...is treated as a Bengali poet; ...Ambedkar
as a Dalit icon...; ...Nehru as the property of the Congress.”
This makes it “hard, if not impossible, for anyone to follow a
catholic approach—to study and appreciate both Gandhi and
Ambedkar, or both Nehru and Rajagopalachari, on the basis
that these legacies may be equally relevant or significant, albeit
in different and arguably complementary ways”.
Guha’s targets here are not only politicians, who might be
forgiven for neither knowing better nor caring, but fellow
scholars. He has little sympathy for Amartya Sen’s project
in The Argumentative Indian (2005) to trace elements of the
practice of modern Indian democracy back to the pluralism
and tolerance of Ashoka and Akbar. Guha argues that
Sen is wrong to privilege the “traditions of debate that were
distinctive of long-dead states and kingdoms” over “those
traditions which actually shaped the political and social
institutions of the present”. Further, Sen’s quest for “alternatives
to the Hindutva genealogy, by searching for a past
useable by the Left...which has the right progressive values,
such as egalitarianism and secularism” is, in Guha’s trenchant
phrase, “a sort of ‘Bhakti Marxism’”.
| | | |
| |
|
|
|
|
Readers' Comments |
Total Comments
|
|
kapil gajria
14 March 2011
10:33 AM
|
|
Excellent Review - gets me excited on the book. What is insanely transparent through the review is the degeneration of "civilised" political liberalism in today's era in India. And I put in the caveat "civilised" to ensure the Shiv-sena brand of liberalism does not pass off as an accepted one. Our politicians still quote their predecessors, and criticize their contemporaries - however, the depth of understanding of issues, thoughtful/intentful application and clarity of a roadmap to outcomes is missing in favour of appeasement to masses/religions/castes.
@Raj: I am not too sure this can be rectified by harping on going back to our roots, simply because changing times require innovative approaches.
However painful, the solution mode has to include a change in mind-set of the politicians and the masses - one where "popular" opinion is replaced by an essence of debate, non-descript issue mongering by larger foundational value definitios, and essentially, an ability to understand and accept the faults in the Indian society at present.
|
|
|
|
Panduka Dasanayake
14 March 2011
05:36 AM
|
|
Thank you Nakul Krishna for an excellent review of an equally excellent book by Ramachandra Guha. I have not had the privilege of reading either Guha's book which focuses on what is essentially 'modern India,' meaning, on the world scale, the evolution through the industrial revolution and colonialism of the west that has inexorably impacted the east; nor, Amartya Sen's 'The Argumentative Indian,' in which he reportedly refers to the ancient civilisation that India is, and makes special reference to the great eras of Ashokha and Akbar.
This brings me to the comment which I like to share. That is that, as Raj Kumar Jha has commented, we in our parts are yet caught up amidst the older civilisations that paid tribute to 'Dhamma' in and through their actions and rule, and a so-called secular, 'modern' political thought that tries to express what they do in terms of 'democratic,' or 'socialist,' or middle-of-the-paths, ideals.
What these do not, at least not expressly, consider, seems to be the 'dharma' of old. We have been swayed too much in these 500 odd years from our dhamma moorings, that it is not safe to assume anymore, that the dhamma informs our political leaders, or forms the background to their thinking, as an unconscious civilising effect from old. As Raj Kumar Jha rightly points out, the rulers who are recorded as having been just and righteous were those who may have placed the good of all above individual benefit in their political and social actions. And this thinking may have, in the best of times, pervaded the thinking of most elders in our societies, which in turn, would have influenced the younger people to be aware of principled living and action, in their turn.
But this brings us to consider what would have been , and what could be, the essence of living and acting, both politically, and socially, as peoples influenced, informed, and inspired by the 'dhamma.' Due to the difficulties of precise translation of words like 'dhamma,' or 'dukkha,' 'kamma,' 'kusal,' 'akusal,' 'moksha,' or 'nibbana,' that our older civilisations were reportedly more aware of, let us simply say, that what could have been essentially, 'Indian,' or 'Lankan,' or 'Asian,' in this sense, is that we accepted more readily, the nuances that inform us of the uncertainty, the impermanence and unsatisfactoriness, of all conditioned phenomena and our human existence amidst these phenomena. In this framework, the notions of 'wholesome,' and 'unwholesome,' played a key role, with the knowledge that actions with wholesome intent, brought about wholesome results, and actions based on impure or unwholesome intent, brought unwholesome results. If there was any education of the young, any system of rehabilitation of offenders of the law, etc., these had to essentially incorporate this fundamental truth.
So, when rulers were more aware of these fundamental phenomena, it can be thought that their actions were largely, wholesome, and their effects were similarly, wholesome, bringing the populace fair weather and conditions of existence. When these phenomena were lost sight of, then corresponding effects were seen in the environment.
Then, in an ultimate sense, these truths remain true today, as much as they did, in the pre-colonial historic times that we like to romanticise. But what is missing, seems to be that we have consciously left out the truths of impermanence, and a deference to the consequences of our intentioned actions, and taken on what is 'globally,' and ignorantly accepted as 'modernity.'
But this need not be so! And returning to the Dhamma need not be such a difficult or esoteric task that requires much state fanfare! A balance in thinking of 'Dhamma,' and acting out our current political and social roles and responsibilities to enable peaceful and suffiicient living, is what is at the base of this.
The Dhamma never left us. The Dhamma is all of what happened and keeps happening, according to the natural code of all phenomena. What can happen is that individuals who know this and live this, can influence those around them, and so on, to create a wider consciousness. There will always be the detractors, as it was right through history, but at least, when a fair majority are prepared to fulfill the basic tenets of righteous living, then we can surely adapt the modern social-democratic code of politics to incorporate the awareness of Dhamma through its protagonists, especially, those who believe in industrial leadership and political representation as their life's calling!
Take a look at what SN GoenkaJi has achieved at Igatpuri and all continents of our world, in spreading the word of peace through Vipassana, grounded on the 'wholesomeness' that the ancient knowledge of the awareness that generosity, morality and tranquility can bring!
So, thank you, Raj Kumar Jha for your kind and inspiring comment.
May all beings be safe, well, and happy:)
|
|
|
|
Danny
13 March 2011
12:44 AM
|
|
Wouldn't it have made sense to add to add, say, Muhammad Iqbal and other Muslims, Pakistanis and proto-Pakistanis? If there is an Indian tradition of political philosophy, aren't they part of the story as well?
|
|
|
|
Sumant Rawat
10 March 2011
09:34 PM
|
|
Excellent review that makes me want to rush out and buy a copy.But on second thoughts where are the the ideas of the sizeable minorities other than Dalits; Maulana Azad who famously is reported to have said on Pakistan that 'Pakistan is an idea but India is a civilization' is clearly missing.Nevertheless a beautifully written review.Kudos to Nakula Krishna,I hope to read more from you!
|
|
|
|
Raj Kumar Jha
10 March 2011
08:06 PM
|
|
Poet Rabindra Nath Tagore wrote that what occurs is not true , how you write about this becomes the truth . Exactly this is the case with Ram Chandra Guha's Makers of Modern India or Amartya Sen's The Argumentative Indian . Thinking about politics in India is as old as the Indian culture . But unlike the West , in India politics was a part of Dharma , the ruler had his dharma and so had the ruled . Dharma was all encompassing . Without going in detail , one could say that liberalism , in its present form , was not a part of Indian tradition . Indian Rishis put family and society above individuals in social and political matters . By allowing individual to choose his own path in matters of faith and by entreating all to respect all faiths, the Indian tradition shows the way to the strife-torn world .
|
|
|
|
| 1 |
|