Anyone following Mr Ramchandra Guha’s writings and his pronouncements in television studios would have little reason to doubt his ideology. Nothing wrong in that for every person is entitled to his/her beliefs. Wrong begins when that person tries to assume an image which belies his true colours with an intention to befool and perhaps more importantly, command greater acceptance among people who are not coloured by ideological beliefs.
Mr Guha very famously ‘defended’ the BJP and provided reasons as to why it cannot be labeled as a fascist organization. He also got into a small but very well publicized print spat with Goddess of All Things, Ms Arundhati Roy Chowdhary, who herself has made a living out of defending the indefensible. Anyways, for the uninvolved populace, Mr Guha’s deed of ‘heroism’ would be more that to cement his place as a centrist, allowing him much greater credibility when he criticizes anything which is remotely rightist.
Mr Guha very famously ‘defended’ the BJP and provided reasons as to why it cannot be labeled as a fascist organization. He also got into a small but very well publicized print spat with Goddess of All Things, Ms Arundhati Roy Chowdhary, who herself has made a living out of defending the indefensible. Anyways, for the uninvolved populace, Mr Guha’s deed of ‘heroism’ would be more that to cement his place as a centrist, allowing him much greater credibility when he criticizes anything which is remotely rightist.
The purpose of this write up is to analyse Mr Guha’s and see if he is really a centrist or he is;an unabashed Nehru admirer with pronounced leftist ideological moorings. I would be solely relying on his tome, India After Gandhi to put across my view point on Mr Guha’s inclinations.
Very early in his book, Mr Guha speaks about communalism and states how both Hindu (in form of Hindu Mahasabha) and Muslim communalism (in form of the Muslim League) were responsible for India’s partition. However, he does not convey that Hindu Mahasabha had little electoral presence and had been soundly rejected in provincial polls in both 1937 and 1946. The only province where they had a somewhat respectable presence was West Bengal while the cradle of Muslim League lay in United Provinces. If Hindu communalism was so pronounced, why was it the Congress which won an overwhelming majority of Hindu seats in all polls and the Mahasabha was always a rump, its influence confined to the Arya Samajis and the Congressmen of the Nationalist hues?
Mr Guha’s hero worship of Jawaharlal Nehru is indeed fascinating. In fact, it is so overbearing that except for the customary, nominal criticism which Nehru is subject is to the 1962 war fiasco, Nehru comes across as a messiah of even greater proportions than Gandhi. If a reader would expect some analysis on how Nehru systematically weeded out all opposition from the Congress, i.e., Jaiprakash Narayan, Rajaji, Acharya Kriplani, Purushottamdas Tandon, KM Munshi, he would be disappointed. The reader would be further disappointed if he expects to find some assessment of how Nehru defended his corrupt and effete blue eyed boys. The reader would be further disappointed if he expects to find some assessment of how Nehru promoted Indira and his own and MK Gandhi’s cult or on how Nehru both tacitly and openly encouraged pedestal building for himself and his clan. What we do have is page after page gushing praise of Nehru and what a blessing he was to India and its poor millions.
Guha seems to have been very hurt by the Kerala Communist Ministry dismissal by Nehru and mentions that as a black mark against Nehru in quite a few instances. Now, this dismissal was consequent to a massive people’s movement launched by all the apolitical and political forces opposed to the Left initiated education ‘reforms’ launched by the communist ministry. The protestors were fired upon by the police at numerous instances and the state government remained firmly resolved to implementing its agenda, i.e., it showed no sign of backing up, which in turn meant further protest and further unrest. Till this day, that mass uprising of the general public is known as ‘Liberation Struggle’ in annals of Kerala History. Now, if in a democratic polity, a Government decision is being opposed by almost every section of the society but the Government itself pays no heed to popular sentiment and instead fires on protestors, what right does that Government have to remain in power? Further, Guha pokes fun at the leading light of the movement, Mannath Padmannabhan, stating that though a saintlike figure who had given up everything, he loved pomp and rode on horses in processions of sword carrying Nair youths. Mr Guha, can a lot not be said about the saintliness and company of MK Gandhi? Why this selective criticism? And if some state government dismissal was wrong, do we need to go far? Numerous state governments were dismissed by Indira on slightest pretexts. Dismissal of BJP governments post Ayodhya riots were held illegal by the High Courts. Dismissal of Kalyan Singh government by Romesh Bhandari was an instance of National shame. Same can be held for dismissal of Gujarat Government by the third front government and subsequent dismissal of the Goa government by Manmohan Singh. Constitutional impropriety in these instances was of a much higher order so why single out Kerala, which was much more deserved? Anyways, the communist parties were routed in the polls held subsequent to the dismissal which further proved that the government in state was anti people and had lost the faith of those who had elected it in the first place.
Mr Guha states that the Rajmata of Gwalior left the Congress out of personal spite when her nominees were overlooked for candidature in the assembly polls. So??? What is wrong with that? Was getting candidates of choice only a prerogative of Jawaharlal and Gandhi? Nehru himself became the Prime Minister because Gandhi over ruled the recommendations of Congress Committees for Patel and laterNehru systematically purged Congress of all the ‘right wing’, ‘reactionary’ and ‘communal’ elements. So, why does it become so wrong when Vijayaraje Scindia decides to safeguard her interests? Why didn't Guhathrow light on the circumstances under which both Gayatri Devi and Vijayaraje scindia had been forced to join Congress by Nehru or how Indira Gandhi traded freedom from jail for a Congress membership for Madhavrao? Moreover, if serving personal interest was the only reason, Vijayaraje would have done much better in the Congress rather than joining a party which never had a realistic chance of coming to power in those decades.
Mr Guha comments adversely on the formation of Samyukta Vidhayak Dals and dismisses them as unholy alliances created out of greed and lust for power. It shouldn’t surprise the discerning reader that Guha has no word of rebuke for Congress for the ways it formed Governments in states like Rajasthan post its first asembly polls or the way it used to attract opposition leaders by way of sops. Perhaps Guha cannot digest the fact the opposition too learnt those tricks, though quite late in the day. Guha has shown similar disdain for Ram Manohar Lohia dismissing him as someone driven by blind anti – Congressism. While the point about Lohia being anti – Congress, at least after independence can be well taken, whether this ideology was blind or informed should be better decided by a discerning reader of Indian polity rather than relying on a non-analytical judgement by someone who seems to be blinded into Nehru worship.
Mr Guha had little criticism to offer for Communists on how they went against the Nationa during the 1962 war. He doesn’t have any criticism to offer when they jettison their beliefs to support Indira. No criticism is offered on how Communist sympathizers infiltrated all institutes of learning and wrote history and decided which text books we read. No Sir, rather than any criticism, we are told that Jyoti Basu is a towering figure of the communist movement who was much respected by industrialists for his pragmatic approach and pro business outlook. Isn’t is a laugh? Such words for a man who almost single handedly removed Bengal from the map of industrial India. But certainly this can be justified for how can a Communist be wrong?
Contd..
Very early in his book, Mr Guha speaks about communalism and states how both Hindu (in form of Hindu Mahasabha) and Muslim communalism (in form of the Muslim League) were responsible for India’s partition. However, he does not convey that Hindu Mahasabha had little electoral presence and had been soundly rejected in provincial polls in both 1937 and 1946. The only province where they had a somewhat respectable presence was West Bengal while the cradle of Muslim League lay in United Provinces. If Hindu communalism was so pronounced, why was it the Congress which won an overwhelming majority of Hindu seats in all polls and the Mahasabha was always a rump, its influence confined to the Arya Samajis and the Congressmen of the Nationalist hues?
Mr Guha’s hero worship of Jawaharlal Nehru is indeed fascinating. In fact, it is so overbearing that except for the customary, nominal criticism which Nehru is subject is to the 1962 war fiasco, Nehru comes across as a messiah of even greater proportions than Gandhi. If a reader would expect some analysis on how Nehru systematically weeded out all opposition from the Congress, i.e., Jaiprakash Narayan, Rajaji, Acharya Kriplani, Purushottamdas Tandon, KM Munshi, he would be disappointed. The reader would be further disappointed if he expects to find some assessment of how Nehru defended his corrupt and effete blue eyed boys. The reader would be further disappointed if he expects to find some assessment of how Nehru promoted Indira and his own and MK Gandhi’s cult or on how Nehru both tacitly and openly encouraged pedestal building for himself and his clan. What we do have is page after page gushing praise of Nehru and what a blessing he was to India and its poor millions.
Guha seems to have been very hurt by the Kerala Communist Ministry dismissal by Nehru and mentions that as a black mark against Nehru in quite a few instances. Now, this dismissal was consequent to a massive people’s movement launched by all the apolitical and political forces opposed to the Left initiated education ‘reforms’ launched by the communist ministry. The protestors were fired upon by the police at numerous instances and the state government remained firmly resolved to implementing its agenda, i.e., it showed no sign of backing up, which in turn meant further protest and further unrest. Till this day, that mass uprising of the general public is known as ‘Liberation Struggle’ in annals of Kerala History. Now, if in a democratic polity, a Government decision is being opposed by almost every section of the society but the Government itself pays no heed to popular sentiment and instead fires on protestors, what right does that Government have to remain in power? Further, Guha pokes fun at the leading light of the movement, Mannath Padmannabhan, stating that though a saintlike figure who had given up everything, he loved pomp and rode on horses in processions of sword carrying Nair youths. Mr Guha, can a lot not be said about the saintliness and company of MK Gandhi? Why this selective criticism? And if some state government dismissal was wrong, do we need to go far? Numerous state governments were dismissed by Indira on slightest pretexts. Dismissal of BJP governments post Ayodhya riots were held illegal by the High Courts. Dismissal of Kalyan Singh government by Romesh Bhandari was an instance of National shame. Same can be held for dismissal of Gujarat Government by the third front government and subsequent dismissal of the Goa government by Manmohan Singh. Constitutional impropriety in these instances was of a much higher order so why single out Kerala, which was much more deserved? Anyways, the communist parties were routed in the polls held subsequent to the dismissal which further proved that the government in state was anti people and had lost the faith of those who had elected it in the first place.
Mr Guha states that the Rajmata of Gwalior left the Congress out of personal spite when her nominees were overlooked for candidature in the assembly polls. So??? What is wrong with that? Was getting candidates of choice only a prerogative of Jawaharlal and Gandhi? Nehru himself became the Prime Minister because Gandhi over ruled the recommendations of Congress Committees for Patel and laterNehru systematically purged Congress of all the ‘right wing’, ‘reactionary’ and ‘communal’ elements. So, why does it become so wrong when Vijayaraje Scindia decides to safeguard her interests? Why didn't Guhathrow light on the circumstances under which both Gayatri Devi and Vijayaraje scindia had been forced to join Congress by Nehru or how Indira Gandhi traded freedom from jail for a Congress membership for Madhavrao? Moreover, if serving personal interest was the only reason, Vijayaraje would have done much better in the Congress rather than joining a party which never had a realistic chance of coming to power in those decades.
Mr Guha comments adversely on the formation of Samyukta Vidhayak Dals and dismisses them as unholy alliances created out of greed and lust for power. It shouldn’t surprise the discerning reader that Guha has no word of rebuke for Congress for the ways it formed Governments in states like Rajasthan post its first asembly polls or the way it used to attract opposition leaders by way of sops. Perhaps Guha cannot digest the fact the opposition too learnt those tricks, though quite late in the day. Guha has shown similar disdain for Ram Manohar Lohia dismissing him as someone driven by blind anti – Congressism. While the point about Lohia being anti – Congress, at least after independence can be well taken, whether this ideology was blind or informed should be better decided by a discerning reader of Indian polity rather than relying on a non-analytical judgement by someone who seems to be blinded into Nehru worship.
Mr Guha had little criticism to offer for Communists on how they went against the Nationa during the 1962 war. He doesn’t have any criticism to offer when they jettison their beliefs to support Indira. No criticism is offered on how Communist sympathizers infiltrated all institutes of learning and wrote history and decided which text books we read. No Sir, rather than any criticism, we are told that Jyoti Basu is a towering figure of the communist movement who was much respected by industrialists for his pragmatic approach and pro business outlook. Isn’t is a laugh? Such words for a man who almost single handedly removed Bengal from the map of industrial India. But certainly this can be justified for how can a Communist be wrong?
Contd..
